Povijesti Podcasti

Demokratska konvencija 1980. - Povijest

Demokratska konvencija 1980. - Povijest


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Ted Kennedy sjeća se Demokratske konvencije 1980. godine

Godine 1980. senator Ted Kennedy borio se protiv sadašnjeg predsjednika Jimmyja Cartera. Kennedy je izgubio od Cartera te je otišao na konvenciju.

Iz našeg projekta usmene povijesti Edward M. Kennedy, Kennedy se osvrnuo na tu konvenciju. Njegov se govor dobro sjećao, uključujući i neugodan trenutak rukovanja.

Kennedy: . pomislivši na konvenciju, fokus je bio na onome što oni nazivaju "vjernim delegatom". Bili smo bolji u cijeloj zemlji, a činilo se da su demokrati sve više zainteresirani za našu kandidaturu. Jedna od stvari bila je ta što se činilo da su neki od delegata koji su odabrani i obećali Carteru rano bili spremni podržati moju kandidaturu kasnije u tom procesu, ali došlo je do promjene u pravilima koja je Carter postavio prema kojima je delegat jednom bio odabrani kao založeni, morali su ostati takvi. Zovu ga "pravilo vjernog delegata", što znači da, ako su se obavezali, nisu mogli promijeniti mišljenje. To je izazvalo ogorčenje delegata, samo općenito nije bilo popularno. Tako smo to učinili svojim glavnim ciljem: platformom o pitanjima gospodarstva i zdravstva te drugim pitanjima unutarnje i vanjske politike, te promjenom pravila vjernih delegata.

Imali smo vanjsku priliku promijeniti pravilo vjernih delegata, a trebala je kombinacija - sjećam se da je Cyril Wecht iz Pennsylvanije imao 15 ili 20 glasova, a onda su u Južnoj Karolini bili spremni i neki crnci. Drugi su bili spremni otići - Louisiana i neki drugi - ali svi su oni htjeli biti ti koji su nas postavili. Nisu htjeli biti osnovna skupina. Nismo mogli natjerati neke da budu voljni biti osnovna skupina za početak glasovanja o promjeni pravila. Svi su oni htjeli biti ti koji će ih staviti. I tako je konačno Paul Kirk samo rekao: “Ne možemo to učiniti. Ne možemo spojiti te brojke. " Iako sam obišao i govorio u mnogim tim klubovima, čak i u klubovima koji nisu imali ogromnu Kennedyjevu podršku, i dobili smo odličan prijem u tim klubovima.

Imao sam sastanak s Carterom prije konvencije. Pozvali smo ga na raspravu i naznačili da bih, ako bismo imali raspravu, bio spreman povući se. On je to razmatrao, a onda je rekao da ćemo izraziti svoje stavove kroz odbore platforme.

Stvari u vezi s govorom koje su bile jako važne su da su moje sestre bile svake noći kad sam se vratila u hotel u 10:30. Sve moje sestre: Jean [Kennedy Smith], Pat [Kennedy Lawford] i Eunice [Kennedy Shriver] su bile tamo. Ulazili bi u sobu i radili nekoliko sati na razgovoru. Početni dio je autor i predložen, a ostale je radio [Robert] Shrum, ali dio koji me muči i muči je kutija u kojoj su sve ove promjene nestale. Netko mi ga je ukrao iz ureda. Tako da nemam zapis od najranijih primjeraka do samog kraja.

Taj je govor bio potpuno izmijenjen i potpuno promijenjen. Položili smo ga na pod, sve stavili na pod, i uvijek se sjećam da sam bio gore, a sve moje sestre su čitale različite dijelove, govoreći: “Gle, Teddy, imaš ovaj dio ovdje. ”Imaju jako dobro rasuđivanje i vrlo dobar politički osjećaj i stvarno su dobri urednici. Pat to čita, i čitala je sve, i jako je dobra, i Jean također, a Eunice ima puno zdravog razuma. I svi su bili vrlo oštri. I dalje su oštri, ali tada su bili posebno oštri i svi su bili dio kampanje. Imali su vrlo važan utjecaj. Sjećam se toga, i to nikada nije izašlo, ali svake večeri od deset do jedan - nismo radili ništa navečer, ali smo se svake večeri vraćali tamo i radili na tome i unosili promjene. Preuredili bi taj dio u drugu, i uvrstili tu stvar, a sljedeće bi noći opet bila tamo.

Dr. Stephen Knott: Zaista bismo trebali ući u zapis o rukovanju.

Kennedy: Pa, nakon mog govora, uslijedila je divna reakcija i veliki prijem za to. Ostali smo tamo neko vrijeme, a zatim smo se vratili u hotel. Bio sam tamo sljedeći dan. Sljedećeg dana, zapravo, za vrijeme ručka, otišao sam sa sestrama kod P.J. Clarke. Sjećam se da su se vraćali hamburgeri i takve stvari.

Ne mogu se sjetiti. Je li moj bio u utorak navečer? A onda smo imali platformu, mislim da je ovo bila srijeda? A onda je progovorio u četvrtak navečer? Je li to bilo to? Bili su tamo u srijedu i radili su platformu. Nisam mogao vjerovati da se još uvijek borimo i borimo oko platforme. Cijelo popodne i tijekom večeri dobivali smo pozive o tome: “Uzet ćemo ovo, nećemo ono. ”I netko je rekao:“ Pa, oni imaju glasove da to izglasaju, ali mogli bismo imati manjinske izvještaje ”, pa će ljudi moći i dalje govoriti o tim stvarima, što je izluđivalo i ljude iz Cartera.

Cijela ova napetost je prošla do kraja, a ja sam imao vrlo značajnu skupinu pristaša koja je rekla da bi bili jako uvrijeđeni nakon ove bitke na platformi da izađem na pozornicu s Carterom. Postojala je vrlo značajna grupa. A onda je postojala još jedna grupa koja je rekla: "Trebao bi." Ali mislim da je to bilo vrlo osporavano - i vrlo dobri ljudi.

Ljudi iz Cartera nisu bili sigurni hoću li ostati, ali nisu se trudili. Bio sam tamo cijeli dan u srijedu i cijeli dan u četvrtak, kao što sam spomenuo. Mogao je reći: „Pa, siđi, volio bih te vidjeti i srušiti tvoju obitelj. Rosalynn [Carter] bi vam se zahvalila. ” Mogli su dobiti sve slike svijeta na tom mjestu i: "Htio bih vas pitati možete li doći gore." Morao bih reći da ili to učiniti u četvrtak. Ili dođi kod mene! Bilo bi milostivo doći i reći: "Mogu li doći i čestitati vam?" To sam i mislio da će vjerojatno učiniti. Vi sami mislite da biste to vjerojatno učinili.

Ali oni su se nastavili boriti za te stvari. Još smo se borili s njima na tome. I onda je bilo pitanje hoćemo li otići, ali rekao sam im da osjećamo da ću otići, i tada sam rekao Tajnoj službi da ćemo poslije toga otići noću. Morao sam se vratiti, jer te tada Tajna služba napušta. Te noći vas ostavljaju kod kuće, i bum, otišli su. I tako, rekao sam: "Pa, gdje ćemo biti?" Rekli su: "Možete ostati u hotelu, jer će vaša recepcija trajati 25 minuta, a njegova 25-35." Rekao sam: "To je u redu."

Dakle, bum! Njegov govor je završio kad smo otišli. Imali smo pratnju dolje. 15 minuta, 17 minuta, na tom je mjestu bilo tiho. Cijela je stvar bila gotova. I tako, umjesto da odem u prostoriju za čuvanje, sve što sam čuo bilo je: „Dođi gore! Moraš potrčati! Svi su zabrinuti, pitaju se: ‘Gdje si, dovraga, bio?’ ”Kukali su se jer sam zakasnio. To je nevjerojatno jer kad sam rekao da ću ostati tamo, bilo mi je dobro. Nije me bilo briga. "Ne ne. Ne morate. "

A onda, kao što ste vidjeli, kad sam izašao na platformu, imali su čitav niz drugih ljudi koji su otišli dalje. Rukovao sam se s njim, stisnuo ruku Rosalynn. A odmah iza mene bio je Tip O’Neill, a odmah iza njega bila je zabava - Bob Strauss i čitav niz stranačkih vođa koji su se svi okupili. Pogledate sliku tog podija, tamo je 30 ljudi, i ne samo ja i on, i ja sa strane. Mogli ste vidjeti sve ostale ljude koji su tamo odlazili. Mondale je bio na tome. Tamo je bila Joan Mondale. Imali smo jednu sliku okrenutu prema gomili na kojoj je s jedne strane bio Carter, a mislim da su to Bob Strauss i Mondale, a zatim ja, a onda pored mene, mislim, gospođa Carter. Mislim da je došla, povukla me unutra.

Mora da sam se s njim rukovao dva ili tri puta. Ali ja nisam podigao njegovu ruku, on se nije potrudio podignuti moju! Mislio sam da je to dovoljno ispravno. No, kako je tisak istaknuo, ne bi bilo nikakvih slika na kojima dižem ruku, što nisam očekivao, ali da mi je podigao obje ruke, ne bih se tome opirao.

Nešto kasnije smo razgovarali. Zadivljen sam što nemamo bilješke, jer se uvijek sjećam da sam svaki put pisao bilješke kad sam sjedio s predsjednikom o tome što ćemo raditi ili što ću raditi u kampanji. Zamolila sam ga za pomoć na nekoliko večera, a on je rekao da će pomoći, te me zamolio da odem na neka od mjesta, a ja sam rekao da hoću.

Bryan Craig viši je istraživač Predsjedničkog programa usmene povijesti i radio je na projektu usmene povijesti Edwarda M. Kennedyja


Više o ovoj temi

Hvala vam puno, Barbara Mikulski, na vašem vrlo rječitom, rječitom uvodu. Uvaženi zakonodavac, velika glasnogovornica ekonomske demokracije i socijalne pravde u ovoj zemlji, zahvaljujem vam na rječitom uvodu.

Pa, stvari su se odvijale malo drugačije nego što sam mislio, ali da vam kažem, još uvijek volim New York.

Dragi moji demokrati i moji kolege Amerikanci, večeras sam došao ne da se raspravljam kao kandidat, već da potvrdim cilj.

Pitam vas - tražim od vas da obnovite predanost Demokratske stranke ekonomskoj pravdi.

Tražim od vas da obnovite našu predanost poštenom i trajnom prosperitetu koji bi mogao vratiti Ameriku na posao.

To je uzrok koji me doveo u kampanju i koji me održao devet mjeseci na 100.000 milja u 40 različitih država. Imali smo svojih gubitaka, ali bol naših poraza je daleko, daleko manja od boli ljudi koje sam sreo.

Naučili smo da je važno pitanja shvaćati ozbiljno, ali nikada sebe ne shvaćati previše ozbiljno.

Ozbiljno pitanje koje je pred nama večeras je razlog zbog kojeg je Demokratska stranka stajala u svojim najboljim satima, uzrok koji održava našu Stranku mladom i čini je, u drugom stoljeću, najvećom političkom strankom u ovoj republici i najdužom trajna politička stranka na ovoj planeti.

Naš uzrok je još od vremena Thomasa Jeffersona uzrok običnog muškarca i obične žene.

Naša je obveza, od vremena Andrewa Jacksona, prema svima onima koje je nazvao "skromnim članovima društva - poljoprivrednicima, mehaničarima i radnicima". Na tim temeljima definirali smo naše vrijednosti, usavršili svoju politiku i osvježili svoju vjeru.

Sada poduzimam neobičan korak noseći cilj i predanost svoje kampanje osobno našoj nacionalnoj konvenciji. Govorim iz dubokog osjećaja hitnosti o tjeskobi i tjeskobi koje sam vidio diljem Amerike.

Govorim iz dubokog uvjerenja u ideale Demokratske stranke i u potencijal te stranke i predsjednika da naprave razliku. Govorim iz dubokog povjerenja u našu sposobnost da nastavimo sa odvažnošću i zajedničkom vizijom koja će osjetiti i liječiti patnje našeg vremena i podjele naše Partije.

Ekonomski plan ove platforme na licu se tiče samo materijalnih stvari, ali to je i moralno pitanje koje postavljam večeras. Poprimio je mnoge oblike tijekom mnogo godina. U ovoj kampanji i u ovoj zemlji koju želimo voditi, izazov 1980. je dati svoj glas i glas za ta temeljna demokratska načela.

Zavjetujmo se da nikada nećemo zloupotrijebiti nezaposlenost, visoke kamatne stope i ljudsku bijedu kao lažno oružje protiv inflacije.

Zavjetujmo se da će zapošljavanje biti prvi prioritet naše gospodarske politike.

Zavjetujmo se da će biti sigurnosti za sve one koji su sada na poslu, i zaklinjemo se da će biti posla za sve koji su bez posla i nećemo praviti kompromise po pitanju radnih mjesta.

To nisu pojednostavljena obećanja. Jednostavno rečeno, oni su srce naše tradicije i dušu su naše generacije kroz generacije. Slava je i veličina naše tradicije govoriti za one koji nemaju glasa, sjećati se onih koji su zaboravljeni, odgovoriti na frustracije i ispuniti težnje svih Amerikanaca koji traže bolji život u boljoj zemlji.

Ne usuđujemo se napustiti tu tradiciju.

Ne možemo dopustiti da velike svrhe Demokratske stranke postanu prošli odlomci povijesti.

Ne smijemo dopustiti republikancima da se hvataju parola prosperiteta. Čuli smo govornike na njihovom kongresu kako svi pokušavaju razgovarati poput demokrata. Dokazali su da čak i republikanski kandidati mogu citirati Franklina Roosevelta u svoju svrhu.

Velika stara stranka misli da je pronašla sjajan novi trik, ali prije 40 godina ranija generacija republikanaca pokušala je isti trik. I sam Franklin Roosevelt odgovorio je: "Većina republikanskih vođa žestoko se borila i blokirala naprijed prosječnih muškaraca i žena u potrazi za srećom. Nemojmo se zavaravati da su ti vođe preko noći odjednom postali prijatelji prosječnih muškaraca i žena."

"Znate", nastavio je, "vrlo malo nas je tako lakovjernih." I četiri godine kasnije, kada su republikanci ponovno pokušali taj trik, Franklin Roosevelt je upitao: "Može li se Stara garda prenijeti kao New Deal? Mislim da ne. Svi smo vidjeli mnoge čudesne vratolomije u cirkusu, ali nijedan slon se nije mogao okrenuti dodir ruke bez pada na leđa. "

Republikanska konvencija 1980. bila je prepuna krokodilskih suza zbog naše gospodarske nevolje, ali ćete ih znati po njihovim dugim godinama, a ne po nedavnim riječima.

Isti republikanci koji govore o krizi nezaposlenosti nominirali su čovjeka koji je jednom rekao, a ja citiram: "Osiguranje za slučaj nezaposlenosti unaprijed je plaćeni godišnji odmor za slobodne osobe". A taj kandidat nije prijatelj rada.

Isti republikanci koji govore o problemima unutarnjih gradova nominirali su čovjeka koji je rekao, a ja citiram: "Ja sam u svoje jutarnje i večernje molitve svaki dan uključio molitvu da Savezna vlada ne spašava New York." A taj kandidat nije prijatelj ovog grada i naših velikih urbanih središta širom ove nacije.

Isti republikanci koji govore o sigurnosti za starije osobe nominirali su čovjeka koji je prije samo četiri godine rekao da "sudjelovanje u socijalnoj sigurnosti treba učiniti dobrovoljnim". A taj kandidat nije prijatelj starijih građana ove nacije.

Isti republikanci koji govore o očuvanju okoliša nominirali su čovjeka koji je prošle godine dao apsurdnu izjavu, a ja citiram: "Osamdeset posto našeg zagađenja zraka dolazi od biljaka i drveća." A taj kandidat nije prijatelj okoline.

Isti republikanci koji se pozivaju na Franklina Roosevelta nominirali su čovjeka koji je 1976. rekao, a to su njegove točne riječi: "Fašizam je doista bio temelj New Deala". A taj kandidat čije se ime zove Ronald Reagan nema pravo citirati Franklina Delana Roosevelta.

Velike avanture koje naši protivnici nude putovanje su u prošlost. Napredak je naše, a ne njihovo naslijeđe. Ono što je nama kao demokratima pravo, ujedno je i pravi način pobjede demokrata.

Obveza koju tražim nije nadmašiti poglede, već stare vrijednosti koje se nikada neće istrošiti. Programi mogu ponekad zastarjeti, ali ideal pravičnosti uvijek opstaje. Okolnosti se mogu promijeniti, ali rad suosjećanja mora se nastaviti. Sigurno je točno da probleme ne možemo riješiti bacajući novac na njih, ali isto je tako ispravno da se ne usudimo izbaciti svoje nacionalne probleme na hrpu nepažnje i ravnodušnosti. Siromašni možda nisu u političkoj modi, ali nisu bez ljudskih potreba. Srednja klasa može biti ljuta, ali nisu izgubili san da svi Amerikanci mogu napredovati zajedno.

Zahtjev naših ljudi 1980. nije za manju vladu ili veću vladu, već za bolju vladu. Neki kažu da je vlada uvijek loša i da je potrošnja za osnovne socijalne programe korijen naših ekonomskih zala. Ali mi odgovaramo: Trenutna inflacija i recesija koštale su naše gospodarstvo 200 milijardi dolara godišnje. Odgovaramo: Inflacija i nezaposlenost najveći su potrošači.

Zadaća vodstva 1980. nije paradirati žrtvene jarce ili tražiti utočište u reakciji, već uskladiti našu moć s mogućnostima napretka. Dok su drugi govorili o slobodnom poduzetništvu, djelovala je Demokratska stranka, a mi smo ukinuli pretjeranu regulaciju u zrakoplovnoj industriji i industriji prijevoza, te smo vratili konkurenciju na tržište. Zadovoljstvo mi je što je ovo zakonodavstvo o deregulaciji koje sam sponzorirao i usvojio na Kongresu Sjedinjenih Država.

Kao demokrati prepoznajemo da svaka generacija Amerikanaca ima sastanak s drugačijom stvarnošću. Odgovori jedne generacije postaju pitanja sljedeće generacije. No, na američkom nebeskom svodu postoji zvijezda vodilja. Staro je koliko i revolucionarno uvjerenje da su svi ljudi stvoreni jednaki, a isto tako jasno kao i suvremeno stanje Liberty Cityja i južnog Bronxa. Demokratski čelnici uvijek su slijedili tu zvijezdu i davali su novo značenje starim vrijednostima slobode i pravde za sve.

Mi smo stranka - mi smo stranka nove slobode, novog dogovora i nove granice. Oduvijek smo bili Stranka nade. Stoga ove godine ponudimo novu nadu, novu nadu Americi nesigurnoj u sadašnjost, ali neprevaziđenoj u svom potencijalu za budućnost.

Svima onima koji ne rade u gradovima i industrijama Amerike pružimo novu nadu u dostojanstvo korisnog rada. Demokrati su oduvijek vjerovali da je osnovno građansko pravo svih Amerikanaca njihovo pravo da zarađuju na svoj način. Narodna stranka uvijek mora biti stranka pune zaposlenosti.

Svima onima koji sumnjaju u budućnost našeg gospodarstva, pružimo novu nadu u reindustrijalizaciju Amerike. I neka naša vizija seže nakon sljedećih izbora ili sljedeće godine do nove generacije prosperiteta. Ako bismo mogli obnoviti Njemačku i Japan nakon Drugog svjetskog rata, onda bismo zasigurno mogli reindustrijalizirati vlastitu naciju i oživjeti svoje unutarnje gradove 1980 -ih.

Svima onima koji vrijedno rade za dnevnicu pružimo novu nadu da njihova cijena zaposlenja neće biti nesigurno radno mjesto i smrt u ranijoj dobi.

Svima onima koji nastanjuju našu zemlju od Kalifornije do otoka New Yorka, od šume Redwood do vode u zaljevskom potoku, pružimo novu nadu da se prosperitet neće kupiti trovanjem zraka, rijeka i prirodnih bogatstava najveći dar ovog kontinenta. Moramo inzistirati na tome da će naša djeca i naši unuci naslijediti zemlju koju uistinu mogu nazvati Amerikom lijepom.

Svima onima koji vide vrijednost svog rada i svoje uštede uzete inflacijom, ponudimo novu nadu u stabilno gospodarstvo. Moramo se suočiti s pritiscima sadašnjosti pozivajući se na punu moć vlade da ovlada povećanjem cijena. Iskreno moramo reći da se federalni proračun može uravnotežiti samo politikama koje nas vode do uravnoteženog prosperiteta pune zaposlenosti i ograničavanja cijena.

A svima onima preopterećenim nepravednom poreznom strukturom pružimo novu nadu u pravu poreznu reformu. Umjesto zatvaranja učionica, zatvorimo porezna skloništa. Umjesto rezanja školskih ručkova, odrezimo porezne subvencije za skupe poslovne ručkove koji nisu ništa drugo do bonovi za hranu bogatima.

Smanjenje poreza naših republikanskih protivnika uzalud uzima ime porezne reforme. To je čudesna republikanska ideja koja bi preraspodijelila prihod u pogrešnom smjeru. To je dobra vijest za svakoga od vas s prihodima većim od 200.000 dolara godišnje. Za nekolicinu vas nudi lonac zlata vrijedan 14.000 dolara. No, republičko smanjenje poreza loša je vijest za obitelji sa srednjim prihodom. Za mnoge od vas, oni planiraju bijedni prihod od 200 dolara godišnje, a to nije ono što misli Demokratska stranka kada kažemo porezna reforma.

Velika većina Amerikanaca ne može si priuštiti ovu lijek od republikanskog kandidata koji je osudio progresivni porez na dohodak kao izum Karla Marxa. Bojim se da je zbunio Karla Marxa s Theodorom Rooseveltom - tim opskurnim republikanskim predsjednikom koji je tražio i borio se za porezni sustav temeljen na sposobnosti plaćanja. Theodore Roosevelt nije bio Karl Marx, a republički porezni plan nije porezna reforma.

Konačno, ne možemo imati pravičan prosperitet odvojeno od poštenog društva. Stoga ću se i dalje zalagati za nacionalno zdravstveno osiguranje. Moramo - Ne smijemo se predati - Ne smijemo se predati nemilosrdnoj medicinskoj inflaciji koja može bankrotirati gotovo svakoga i koja bi uskoro mogla slomiti vladine proračune na svim razinama. Inzistirajmo na stvarnoj kontroli onoga što liječnici i bolnice mogu naplatiti, te odlučimo da stanje zdravlja obitelji nikada neće ovisiti o veličini obiteljskog bogatstva.

Predsjednik, potpredsjednik, članovi Kongresa imaju medicinski plan koji u potpunosti zadovoljava njihove potrebe, a kad god se senatori i predstavnici malo prehlade, liječnik s Kapitola će ih odmah posjetiti, odmah ih liječiti, na licu mjesta ispuniti recept . Ne dobivamo račun čak i ako ga tražimo, a što mislite kada je zadnji put član Kongresa zatražio prijedlog zakona od savezne vlade? I opet kažem, kao i prije, ako je zdravstveno osiguranje dovoljno dobro za predsjednika, potpredsjednika, Kongres Sjedinjenih Država, onda je to dovoljno dobro za vas i svaku obitelj u Americi.

Bilo je nekih - Bilo je nekih koji su rekli da bismo trebali šutjeti o svojim razlikama u pitanjima tijekom ove konvencije, ali baština Demokratske stranke bila je povijest demokracije. Borimo se žestoko jer nam je jako stalo do naših načela i svrha. Nismo pobjegli od ove borbe. Pozdravljamo kontrast s praznim i svrsishodnim spektaklom prošlog mjeseca u Detroitu u kojem se nije osporavala nominacija, nije raspravljalo ni o jednom pitanju i nitko se nije usudio izazvati sumnju ili neslaganje.

Demokrati mogu biti ponosni što smo odabrali drugačiji kurs i drugačiju platformu.

Možemo biti ponosni što se naša stranka zalaže za ulaganje u sigurnu energiju, umjesto za nuklearnu budućnost koja bi mogla ugroziti samu budućnost. Ne smijemo dopustiti da američke četvrti budu trajno zasjenjene strahom od drugog otoka Tri milje.

Možemo biti ponosni što se naša stranka zalaže za pošten zakon o stanovanju koji će otključati vrata diskriminacije jednom zauvijek. Američka kuća bit će podijeljena sama sa sobom sve dok postoji predrasuda prema bilo kojoj američkoj kupnji ili iznajmljivanju kuće.

I možemo biti ponosni što se naša stranka jasno, javno i ustrajno zalaže za ratifikaciju Amandmana o jednakim pravima.

Žene zauzimaju svoje pravo mjesto na našoj konvenciji, a žene moraju imati svoje pravo mjesto u Ustavu Sjedinjenih Država. Po ovom pitanju nećemo popustiti, nećemo se dvoumiti, nećemo racionalizirati, objasniti ili opravdati. Zalagat ćemo se za E.R.A. i konačno priznanje da su našu naciju činile majke utemeljiteljice kao i očevi utemeljitelji.

Pošten prosperitet i pravedno društvo su u našoj viziji i našem dohvatu, a mi nemamo svaki odgovor. Postoje pitanja koja još nisu postavljena i čekaju nas u udubinama budućnosti. Ali u ovoliko možemo biti sigurni jer je to pouka cijele naše povijesti: Zajedno predsjednik i narod mogu napraviti razliku. Otkrio sam da je ta vjera još živa gdje god sam putovao ovom zemljom. Pa odbacimo savjet povlačenja i poziv na reakciju. Idemo naprijed u spoznaji da povijest pomaže samo onima koji sami sebi pomažu.

U godinama koje su pred nama bit će zastoja i žrtvovanja, ali uvjeren sam da smo kao narod spremni vratiti nešto našoj zemlji u zamjenu za sve što nam je dala.

Neka ovo - neka ovo bude naše opredjeljenje: Sve žrtve koje se moraju podnijeti bit će podijeljene i podijeljene pošteno. I neka ovo bude naše povjerenje: Na kraju našeg putovanja i uvijek pred nama sjaji taj ideal slobode i pravde za sve.

Za kraj, dopustite mi da kažem nekoliko riječi svima onima koje sam upoznao i svima onima koji su me podržali na ovoj konvenciji i diljem zemlje. Na našem putu bilo je teških sati, a često smo plovili protiv vjetra. No, uvijek smo držali kormilo istinitim, a bilo je toliko vas koji ste ostali na putu i dijelili našu nadu. Dali ste svoju pomoć, ali još više, dali ste svoja srca.

Zbog vas je ovo bila sretna kampanja. Dočekali ste Joan, mene i našu obitelj u vaše domove i susjedstva, u vaše crkve, u kampuse, u sindikalne dvorane. I kad se sjetim svih kilometara, svih mjeseci i svih sjećanja, pomislim na tebe. Prisjećam se pjesnikovih riječi i kažem: "Kakve sam zlatne prijatelje imao".

Slušao sam i učio među vama, moji zlatni prijatelji širom ove zemlje.

Slušao sam Kennyja Duboisa, puhača stakla u Charlestonu u Zapadnoj Virginiji, koji ima desetero djece za uzdržavanje, ali je izgubio posao nakon 35 godina, samo tri godine prije nego što je stekao uvjete za mirovinu.

Slušao sam obitelj Trachta koja se bavi poljoprivredom u Iowi i pita se mogu li prenijeti dobar život i dobru zemlju na svoju djecu.

Slušao sam baku u East Oaklandu koja više nema telefon da zove unuke jer se odrekla da plati stanarinu za svoj mali stan.

Slušao sam mlade radnike bez posla, studente koji nemaju školarinu za fakultet i obitelji bez mogućnosti posjedovanja kuće.

Vidio sam zatvorene tvornice i zaustavljene montažne linije u Andersonu, Indiana i South Gate, Kalifornija, i vidio sam previše, previše besposlenih muškaraca i žena koji očajnički žele raditi.

Vidio sam previše, previše radnih obitelji koje očajnički žele zaštititi vrijednost svojih plaća od posljedica inflacije.

Ipak, osjetio sam i žudnju za novom nadom među ljudima u svakoj državi u kojoj sam bio.

Osjetio sam to u njihovim rukovanjima, vidio sam u njihovim licima i nikada neću zaboraviti majke koje su nosile djecu na naše skupove.

Uvijek ću se sjećati starijih osoba koje su živjele u Americi visoke namjere i vjeruju da se sve to može ponoviti.

Večeras sam u njihovo ime došao ovdje govoriti umjesto njih. I radi njih, molim vas da stanete uz njih. U njihovo ime tražim od vas da ponovite i potvrdite bezvremensku istinu o našoj Stranci.

Čestitam predsjedniku Carteru na pobjedi ovdje.

Ja sam - uvjeren sam da će se Demokratska stranka ponovno okupiti na temelju demokratskih načela i da ćemo zajedno krenuti prema demokratskoj pobjedi 1980. godine.

I jednog dana, dugo nakon ove konvencije, dugo nakon što su se znakovi spustili i gomila prestala navijati, a bendovi prestati svirati, može se reći o našoj kampanji da smo zadržali vjeru.

Neka se za našu Partiju 1980. kaže da smo ponovno našli svoju vjeru.

I neka se za nas kaže, i u mračnim odlomcima i u vedrim danima, Tennysonovim riječima koje su moja braća citirala i voljela, a koja za mene sada imaju posebno značenje:

„Ja sam dio svega što sam upoznao
[Tho] mnogo se uzima, mnogo ostaje
Ono što jesmo, mi smo -
Jednaka narav herojskih srca
Snažne volje
Nastojati, tražiti, pronaći, a ne popustiti. "

Za mene je prije nekoliko sati ovoj kampanji došao kraj.

Za sve one čije su nam brige bile briga, posao se nastavlja, cilj traje, nada još uvijek živi, ​​a san nikada neće umrijeti.


Kao što dobro znamo, dobivanje podrške političkih stranaka za LGBT prava može biti (i bio je) dug i mukotrpan proces. Takav je bio slučaj s Demokratskom strankom Sjedinjenih Država, koja je raspravljala o tom pitanju dugi niz godina prije nego što je konačno uključila LGBT prava u svoju političku platformu 1980.

Prvi znakovi kretanja bili su 1972. godine kada je otvoreno LGBT govornicima Madeline Davis i Jimu Fosteru dopušteno da se obrate Demokratskoj nacionalnoj konvenciji. Sama činjenica da se to dogodilo odraz je sve veće razine LGBT političke organizacije u cijeloj zemlji.

U 60 -im i 70 -im godinama, na primjer, LGBT politički kandidati bili su u velikoj mjeri ograničeni na lokalne kampanje u područjima s velikom queer populacijom, poput San Francisca, New Yorka i Los Angelesa. No, i kandidatima i Demokratskoj stranci uskoro je postalo jasno da bi LGBT glasači mogli imati značajan politički utjecaj. Posljedično, LGBT prava su sve više prelazila na nacionalnu političku agendu.

Naravno da nije sve išlo glatko. Unatoč revolucionarnim govorima Davisa i Fostera 1972., u Partiji je još uvijek bilo mnogo onih koji su se bojali da će LGBT prava izgubiti glasove. Na primjer, jedna druga govornica na konvenciji 1972. godine, Kathy Wilch, održala je posebno neprijateljski govor, što je dovelo do toga da se LGBT prava drže izvan demokratskog političkog programa.

Iako je Wilchov govor poslužio da se odgodi predanost demokrata LGBT pravima, također je poslužio za poticanje LGBT aktivista unutar i izvan Demokratske stranke. I govori Davisa i Fostera uspjeli su političarima koji nisu pripadnici LGBT zajednice označiti važnost LGBT glasovanja. Toliko da je demokratski predsjednički kandidat George McGovern brzo izdao priopćenje distancirajući se od Wilchove pozicije.

Četiri godine kasnije, Jimmy Carter također je tijekom svoje predsjedničke kampanje tražio glas LGBT osoba i susreo se s čelnicima LGBT zajednice nakon njegovog izbora. (Nažalost, nije uspio ispuniti svoja izborna obećanja).

I tako je zamah nastavio rasti i LGBT prava ponovno su dovedena na Demokratsku konvenciju 1980. ovaj put sa znatno većim uspjehom. U praksi je to značilo tek nešto više od izmjene njihove izjave protiv diskriminacije koja uključuje seksualnu orijentaciju. Ali to je bilo barem polazište na kojem se može graditi.


Tv Predsjedništvo Jimmy Carter Demokratska nacionalna konvencija 1980. CSPAN 23. kolovoza 2020. 10:21 do 11:15 EDT

Predsjednik Jimmy Carter (D) prihvatio je predsjedničku nominaciju svoje stranke za drugi mandat na Demokratskoj nacionalnoj konvenciji 1980. u New Yorku. U svom govoru, predsjednik Carter nazvao je ideje svog protivkandidata Ronalda Reagana "fantazijskom Amerikom", te je napao Reaganove planove za obranu i smanjenje poreza.

Sponzor: Demokratski nacionalni odbor

TEMA FREKVENCIJA Carter 20, Amerika 16, Mi 6, Izrael 4, Sjedinjene Američke Države 4, Franklin Delano Roosevelt 3, Harry Truman 2, Humphrey 2, Ronald Reagan 2, Kuba 1, Sjeverna Amerika 1, Prerije 1, Afganistan 1, Zimbabve 1, Moskva 1, Iran 1, New York City 1, Vijetnam 1, Jugozapadna Azija 1, Dallas 1


Najluđi trenuci konvencije za koje nikada niste čuli

Konvencijska povijest prošarana je dramatičnim, čak i farsičnim, događajima koji su promijenili tijek politike.

Jeff Greenfield je peterostruki dobitnik Emmyja, televizijski analitičar i autor.

Legija političkih novinara ovog mjeseca kreće u Cleveland s osjećajem iščekivanja koji je odsutan desetljećima: konačno, nacionalna konvencija s mogućnošću da se zaista dogodi nešto neočekivano.

Nakon desetljeća beznačajnih, pro forma konvencija na kojima je identitet stranačkog kandidata poznat mjesecima unaprijed i svaki trenutak opisan kao lansiranje korporativnog proizvoda, Republikanska nacionalna konvencija barem drži mogućnost za nešto što se približava nepredvidivosti.

Hoće li se Trump suočiti s odlaskom delegata? Hoće li vojska Teda Cruza zajedno prikupiti glasove za promjenu pravila konvencije i otpuštanje delegata? Hoće li stranka, u divljoj izbornoj sezoni, pronaći neki način da se probijete od trunčanja, napravljenog za TV krunidbu kakva su konvencije postale?

Dosadne konvencije nisu uvijek bile norma. Kroz veći dio američke povijesti ustvari su hrapava i živahna okupljanja bila pravilo, a ne iznimka. Neočekivano je bilo rutinsko-veliki govori, izgubljene bitke, otegnute borbe sa značajnim posljedicama za tijek zemlje.

Sada, dok Donald Trump nastoji konačno i službeno pobijediti u nominaciji stranke koju je njegova kandidatura teško raskinula, postoji barem šansa da se dio te stare drame vrati.

A ako ne, još uvijek postoji šansa da se dogodi nešto smisleno. Povijest je prošarana manje poznatim konvencijskim trenucima koji su drami-čak i farsi-dodali začin onome što je postalo dijeta od kaše. A ponekad su i oni mijenjali tok politike.

FDR i glas iz kanalizacije

In 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was halfway through his eighth year in office and at pains not to be seen breaking the “no third term” tradition that had been recognized by every president since George Washington. Roosevelt himself had often expressed his wish to retire, but with Europe engulfed in war and a strong isolationist movement resisting any attempt to help beleaguered Britain, the absence of Roosevelt could prove decisive for both party and country.

There were big-name Democrats eager to succeed him for the nomination, including Vice President John Nance Garner, and longtime FDR aide James Farley. But one question loomed over Democratic convention-goers in Chicago: What were Roosevelt’s real intentions?

The answer to that key question became even more uncertain after Kentucky Senator Alben Barkley read a message from Roosevelt to the assembled convention: “[The president] wishes in earnestness and sincerity to make it clear that all of the delegates in this convention are free to vote for any candidate.”

Bilo koji candidate? Did that include Roosevelt himself? In the confusion, before a debate could break out in the convention hall, a voice suddenly roared over the loudspeakers: “Illinois Wants Roosevelt! Ohio Wants Roosevelt! We All Want Roosevelt!”

Delegates quickly joined in on the chant, and “We Want Roosevelt!” echoed through the Chicago Stadium rafters.

And whom did that voice on the loudspeakers belong to? None other than Thomas Garry, superintendent of Chicago’s Department of Sanitation and—more importantly—boss of the 27th Ward and a loyal footsoldier of Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly, a New Dealer and an FDR loyalist.

History does not reveal whether this “voice from the sewers” was Kelly’s brainchild or was inspired by people inside Roosevelt’s inner circle. What is clear is that the rallying cry helped stampede the convention into nominating FDR for a third term in office. Garner and Farley, who had entered the convention as the most popular declared candidates, each ended up with less than 7 percent of the vote. The unexpected intervention over the P.A. system made a decisive difference in who led the nation through the Second World War.

Reagan’s “Co-Presidency” Tease

Ronald Reagan had locked up the 1980 Republican nomination long before the party gathered in Detroit. But two days into the convention, an incredible story was spreading: Reagan was seriously considering naming former President Gerald Ford, the man he had nearly unseated four years earlier, as his running mate. Ford more or less confirmed the rumors in a series of TV interviews. CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite pinned down Ford, asking whether he and Reagan were considering a “co-presidency.” Ford didn’t shoot down the rumors and, as the interview progressed, displayed a deep knowledge of the constitutional complications that such an arrangement would produce.

Allies of the two men were meeting to discuss the terms of such a deal. Would ex-President Ford be given “portfolios” to manage—say, foreign policy? Would Henry Kissinger return to power under a President Reagan, who had for years denounced Kissinger’s foreign policy approach? Late into Wednesday night, the convention came to a standstill, and delegates on the floor were buttonholing TV reporters to ask about the latest rumors (it was a pre-cellphone age).

The expectations turned to near certainty—Reagan and Ford were heading to the convention! And then Reagan himself, in a sharp break with tradition, came to the hall, unaccompanied, to say that the much-discussed “co-presidency” would not happen. He had chosen a running mate: his rival during the primary campaign, George H.W. Grm.

It was in political terms, a near-escape for Reagan. That year, the Democrats’ chief critique of Reagan was that he was in over his head. The specter of a nominee turning to a defeated ex-president for gravitas would not only have fed that narrative, but validated the accusation.

Two Speeches That Launched Presidencies (And Two That Didn’t)

The best-known convention speech in American history is almost surely the fiery attack that 36-year-old former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan made on the gold standard at the 1896 Democratic Convention. “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns!” he thundered. “You shall not crucify mankind upon a Cross of Gold!” The speech propelled Bryan into the first of three losing campaigns as the party’s presidential nominee.

Bryan, however, never won the White House. By contrast, look at what happened after a far less memorable speech at the 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York. A promising political figure, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had served as assistant secretary of the Navy during the Great War, and in 1920, was the Democratic candidate for vice president. A year after that campaign, he was disabled by polio. It was certain that this disability would sideline his designs on running for a higher office. But in 1924, the 42-year-old Roosevelt maneuvered himself up to the rostrum at Madison Square Garden and entered New York Governor Al Smith’s name into nomination. It marked Roosevelt’s return to politics. Four years later, he succeeded Smith as governor of New York eight years after that, he won the presidency in a landslide election.

Decades later, another promising 42-year-old Democrat gave a more memorable though equally historic speech. In 2004 in Boston, Democratic convention-goers listened to an obscure Illinois state senator with an odd name enrapture delegates with his assertion that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America.” Barack Obama’s introduction to a national audience was a powerful tutorial on how you can tell if a convention speech is truly memorable: the delegates stop cheering every 10 seconds, and actually begin to listen.

At the other end of the spectrum, Texas Senator Phil Gramm was picked to keynote the 1992 GOP convention in Houston. Gramm was a man of high intelligence, undisguised presidential ambitions, and minimal people skills (“even his best friends can’t stand him,” according to one popular gibe). A few minutes into his address, Gramm was talking about President Bush unveiling a new commemorative postage stamp. It was clear that Gramm was not connecting with his audience: The delegates weren’t cheering, and they weren’t really interested in listening to him, either. He continued to speak for a half hour more. It was an early clue that Gramm’s 1996 presidential bid would not end well.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter limped into the New York convention after a bruising primary battle with Senator Ted Kennedy. After an effort to “unbind” the delegates failed, Kennedy conceded to Carter in a lofty, moving speech with a rousing conclusion: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

The bar was high for Carter’s acceptance speech: It needed not only to inspire a divided convention but also deliver an image of unity to viewers in the hall and watching at home: The president needed a friendly Carter-Kennedy embrace, and a festive post-speech celebration.

It didn’t quite happen like that. In his acceptance speech, Carter tried to pay tribute to liberal champions of the past, including “a great man who should have been president, who would have been one of the greatest presidents in history: Hubert Horatio Hornblower—Humphrey!”, thus conflating the name of Minnesota’s progressive champion with that of a fictional British naval officer.

But the “Hornblower” flub was a mere prelude to twin disasters at the end of his address.

First, when his defeated primary foe, Kennedy, came to the platform, Carter desperately wanted the “arms raised in victory” photo shot Kennedy offered only a tepid handshake. Second and simultaneously, the obligatory balloon drop became snarled in the rigging of Madison Square Garden instead of the anticipated blizzard of red, white and blue, there came a pathetic dribble of occasional balloons, as though the convention hall had become afflicted with an enlarged prostate. (In 2004, the same thing happened to the balloons in Boston after John Kerry’s acceptance speech CNN somehow managed to broadcast it with audio of the increasingly frenetic and obscenity-laced demands of a convention logistics manager, who likely knew full well how the news media would seize on the incident as a symbol of a faltering campaign.)

The “Undermine the Catholic” Plan

There was a time when newspapers would print “scorecards” so that radio listeners and TV viewers at home could watch how candidates’ fortunes ebbed and flowed through several convention ballots. They haven’t done it in a while, probably because the last time any major-party national convention went past a first ballot was in 1956—and it wasn’t to choose a presidential nominee.

After winning the presidential nomination for the second time, former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson jolted the delegates by throwing open the vice-presidential contest—in effect, letting the delegates decide who his running mate should be. It was designed to provide a dramatic contrast to Vice President Nixon, who was far less popular than incumbent President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Through two ballots, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver and Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy staged a back-and-forth race, with Tennessee’s other Senator, Al Gore Sr., providing the difference. Following the second ballot, JFK was only a handful of delegates away from victory (he had 618 votes out of the required 687), and state delegations clamored for the recognition of the chair so that they could switch their votes. It was up to the convention chair, House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas, to decide which state would be called upon first. Rayburn, fearing the presence of a Roman Catholic on the ticket, recognized Tennessee—whereupon Gore withdrew from the race, threw his support to Kefauver, and the stampede was on.

In one sense, it made little difference: There was no way Stevenson was going to deprive Eisenhower of a second term. In another sense, what did ne happen proved to be a godsend: As Kennedy himself later observed, if the Democrats had lost in a landslide with JFK on the ticket, it would have been “proof” that a Catholic was still politically unacceptable to the American electorate—prematurely derailing his victorious presidential campaign just four years later.

Will we see anything in Cleveland that approaches such genuinely unpredictable and historic levels? If the 2016 GOP convention—with all of the passions surrounding the impending nomination of Donald Trump—winds up being a by-the-numbers infomercial, maybe it’s time to give up on conventions and take a lesson from the Democratic Party in 1872.

When Democrats met in Baltimore that year, they were so bereft of viable presidential candidates that they simply decided to nominate Horace Greeley, the candidate of a breakaway Republikanac faction opposed to GOP President Ulysses Grant, and a journalist, no less.


Carter: Kennedy was drinking before 1980 snub

By Steve Kornacki
Published September 20, 2010 7:12PM (EDT)

Jimmy Carter, left, shakes hands with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the podium at the Democratic National Convention in 1980.

Dionice

This week marks the publication of Jimmy Carter's private journal of his presidency, "White House Diary." The entries are often brief, but Carter does offer an interesting account of one of the most widely discussed moments of his doomed 1980 reelection effort: Ted Kennedy's apparent snub of him on the final night of the Democratic convention in New York, just after Carter had delivered his acceptance speech.

"Afterward," Carter writes in his diary, "Kennedy drove over from his hotel, appeared on the platform along with a lot of other people, seemed to have had a few drinks, which I probably would have done myself. He was fairly cool and reserved, but the press made a big deal of it."

They sure did -- and for good reason. Kennedy's challenge of Carter for the '80 nod was unusually bitter and protracted. Even though Carter won twice as many delegates in the primary and caucus season, Kennedy fought all the way to the August convention, attempting to convince delegates to support a rule change that would have allowed them to vote their conscience on the first ballot -- instead of being forced to cast a ballot for the candidate they'd been pledged to during the primary season. Only when this effort failed did Kennedy back down and end his campaign (with what was probably the best speech of his career). So it was only logical that the press would watch the body language closely when the two men came together onstage after Carter's acceptance speech two nights later -- and Kennedy's discomfort was obvious. As the Washington Post reported it:

When Kennedy did arrive, wearing that familiar tight-lipped smile his traveling press corps has come to call "the smirk," he strode into the crowd of Democratic officials already on the podium, gave Carter a perfunctory shake of the hand, and walked away to the side of the platform.

There followed a comical ballet in which Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr. (Mass.) all tried futilely to lead Kennedy back to center stage for an arms-up pose with the president.

When Kennedy went to the left side of the platform to raise a fist toward his Massachusetts delegation, Carter made a beeline to join him and struck the same pose. But Kennedy's arm had come down a split-second before Carter's shot up.

You can watch some of Kennedy's snub of Carter in this video:

Carter has already rasied eyebrows while promoting his diaries. In a "60 Minutes" segment that aired over the weekend, he told Lesley Stahl that "we would have had comprehensive healthcare now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy’s deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed" as president. "It was his fault," Carter added. "Ted Kennedy killed the bill."

Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki is an MSNBC host and political correspondent. Previously, he hosted “Up with Steve Kornacki” on Saturday and Sunday 8-10 a.m. ET and was a co-host on MSNBC’s ensemble show “The Cycle.” He has written for the New York Observer, covered Congress for Roll Call, and was the politics editor for Salon. His book, which focuses on the political history of the 1990s, is due out in 2017.

MORE FROM Steve KornackiFOLLOW stevekornacki


1980 Democratic Convention - History

The Democrats Abroad Charter outlines the rules that our party follow as an organization. Changes in the charter are voted on by the voting body of the organization during annual general meetings.

Our History

American Democrats living and working abroad have contributed to the political life of the United States since its very beginning. The first famous Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, drafted the Bill of Rights while in Paris, France. Since then, many other Democrats residing in foreign countries have participated in U.S. politics. In the 1960s, Democrats living overseas began to organize themselves into a group, and Democrats Abroad was born.

Creation of Democrats Abroad

During the 1960 Presidential campaign between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Democrats in Paris and London began discussing ways they could help the Democratic Party. Four years later, they were ready.

Democrats Abroad first organized simultaneously in Paris and London in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. Democrats in each of those cities formed committees and elected officers. Under the leadership of Toby Hyde (London) and Al Davidson (Paris), Democrats held parades and raised funds. The nascent committees also solicited votes, but few were cast from abroad because in 1964 U.S. citizens living overseas did not have a federal right to an absentee ballot.

The activities of Democrats Abroad in 1964 were the first U.S.-style political campaigns ever mounted in foreign countries they aroused considerable local interest and generated wide publicity in France and England.

Democrats Abroad also attracted interest in the United States. John Bailey, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, recognized the Paris and London committees, and the White House appointed James Rowe, a well-known political figure in Washington, as the liaison with President Johnson.

After the 1964 victory, Democrats Abroad continued to grow. In 1968, they campaigned for the Humphrey-Muskie ticket against Nixon and Agnew. Between the two elections, the leaders of Democrats Abroad started another campaign, one that would last twenty years and have a significant impact on all U.S. citizens living overseas: the campaign for full voting rights for U.S. citizens overseas.

The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 & The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA)

In the 1960s, Democrats Abroad were able to raise funds and generate publicity. Getting out the vote was another matter, since U.S. citizens overseas did not have the right to an absentee ballot. The issue was complicated by the state-based nature of voting regulations, even for voting in federal elections. Providing a federal right to vote required modifying all state voting systems.

The first demands for the right to vote by absentee ballot had been made more than 100 years earlier, in the 1860s, when Union soldiers fighting in the Civil War who wanted to vote had to return to their States for the election. In World War II, the issue of absentee ballots was raised again.

A century later, U.S. voters in the United States could vote by absentee ballot if they were unable to get to the polls on election day. It was not so easy for U.S. voters living overseas. To remedy the injustice, leaders of Democrats Abroad formed the Committee for Absentee Democrats Abroad Voting, a bi-partisan group with the Republicans, and began a ten-year struggle to expand the franchise to overseas U.S. citizens.

Hubert Humphrey and Bob Strauss were early supporters. In the Congress, Senator Claiborne Pell and Representative Thompson were formidable leaders in the campaign to end the disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens living and working all over the world.

During the final days of the 94th Congress, House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill engineered the passage of "The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975" through a crowded calendar. President Ford signed the Act into law in January 1976. Many Americans, however, refrained from voting while overseas because they feared tax consequences. In 1977-78, Dean Ferrier and Peter Alegi led the efforts to resolve this problem. In November 1978 Congress modified the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act to make clear that exercising a vote in a federal election would not by itself cause any state, local or federal tax consequences. With this solid base, Democrats Abroad then helped convince Congress to pass the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986, which laid the legal basis for a vast expansion of access to voting by Americans residing abroad. Each year more local barriers are removed as the federal legislation is enforced at the state and local level. This breakthrough legislation has swept away almost all important legal obstacles to absentee voting by Americans abroad.

In 2001, following major election irregularities in Florida, Democrats Abroad began a campaign to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to remove further obstacles to overseas voting. Chair Smallhoover and Executive Director Fina hired a Republican lobbyist to help gain access to members of the then-Republican majority. Many, but not all, of our proposals were embodied in the Help America Vote Act of 2002. These included permanent registration for two full federal election cycles (rather than one previously) and the collection of statistics on overseas absentee voting never before available.

Democrats Abroad also began to play a major role in the inclusion of overseas Americans in the decennial census. Chair Smallhoover and Executive Director Fina, with the support of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, won the agreement of the Bureau of the Census to begin a series of trial counts after the completion of the 2000 Census to determine whether the inclusion of overseas Americans would be feasible for the 2010 Decennial Census. This trial period was begun in 2004.

The Democratic Party was far ahead of its Republican rivals in understanding and recognizing the potential political power of political rights of U.S. citizens overseas. Chairpersons of the Democratic Party since 1964 have granted increasing recognition to Democrats Abroad. John Bailey, Larry O'Brien, Bob Strauss, Chuck Manatt, Don Fowler, Ron Brown, David Wilhelm, Steven Grossman, Joe Andrew, Howard Dean, Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz have all shown support for Democrats Abroad.

As a result of the view taken by the Democratic Party and its successive chairpersons, Democrats Abroad has made steady progress achieving official status within the organizational framework of the Democratic Party. Each year brought new advances:

1972: Chairman O'Brien grants nine non-voting delegates to Democrats Abroad for the National Convention in Miami. Nine Democrats Abroad from four countries attend.

1973: Chairman Strauss gives Democrats Abroad representation on the Democratic Charter Commission, a group of 160 leading Democrats from all States in the Union.

1976: Eight Country Committees form the Democratic Party Committee Abroad (the DPCA) and the DPCA's by-laws are filed with the DNC in Washington, D.C.

1976: The Party Call to the 1976 National Convention gives Democrats Abroad voting delegates, enabling us to participate directly for the first time in the selection of the Party's presidential nominee.

1976: Committees in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold an election for delegates to the National Convention New York City. A delegation of nine Democrats Abroad attends. International Chair Toby Hyde casts the final votes in the roll call to nominate Jimmy Carter.

1976: Democrats Abroad begins its campaign with members of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) for an amendment to the Charter of the Democratic Party in order to give Democrats Abroad membership on the DNC.

1977: Bob Strauss, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, grants time to the DPCA Chair, Toby Hyde, to persuade the full DNC to grant DNC membership to Democrats Abroad. The DNC amends the Charter of the Democratic Party and gives the DPCA four members on the DNC, having one aggregate vote.

1977: FEC Advisory Opinion (AO 1976-112) finds that Democrats Abroad is a party committee and that transfers of funds between party committees are not subject to contribution limits. But, the FEC also found that Democrats Abroad cannot be granted the status of a state party committee but must be a subordinate of the national party committee. (See also 13 July 1990 opinion of Patton, Boggs.)

1978: Democrats Abroad is given six voting delegates to the National Party Conference, and the DPCA holds its third international election to choose delegates.

In the 1980s, Democrats Abroad continued the progress of the 1970s and expanded the activities of Democrats Abroad within the organization of the Democratic Party, particularly in the Association of State Democratic Chairs:

1980: More than 1900 Democrats participate in the Democrats Abroad Worldwide Postal Primary and elect 4 delegates and alternates to the National Convention in New York City. The delegation's Tshirts and political songs are a big hit and generate publicity.

1981: Washington Liaison position created by DPCA Chair Andy Sundberg Martha Hartman was first appointee.

1982: A Democrats Abroad delegation of 12 (consisting of the DPCA Chair and Vice-Chair, the DNC members-at-large, and eight voting delegates and alternates) attend the Party Conference in Philadelphia.

1982: DPCA sponsors the first overseas political seminar in Brussels for Democrats Abroad, covering fundraising and public relations.

1983: Democrats Abroad is granted one voting representative on each of the four regional caucuses of the DNC.

1984: More than 2500 Democrats participate in the Democrats Abroad Worldwide Postal Primary, a 20% increase. The primary receives broad press coverage because its unique timing provides results ahead of the primaries occurring on the same day in the United States.

1984: A Democrats Abroad delegation of 20 attends the National Convention in San Francisco. DPCA Chair Andrew Sundberg casts the delegation's five votes in the roll call on behalf of the "more than 2,000,000 U.S. citizens living and working outside the United States."

1985: Democrats Abroad absorbs the Latin American Democratic Party (LADP), thus becoming the only entity at the DNC representing Americans residing outside the U.S. and its territories.

1985: Eugene Theroux appointed Exec Director and Thomas Fina Deputy Exec Director by DPCA Chair Dean Ferrier.

1986: Membership on the DNC and the number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention allocated to Democrats Abroad are doubled as a result of the merger with LADP.

1985: Thomas Fina appointed volunteer Executive Director.

1986: Monthly “Letter from Washington” begun by Executive Director Fina.

1986: First direct mail fund raising campaign run by the Executive Director, with DNC.

1986: DPCA Chair Dean Ferrier testifies before the House Subcommittee on Elections on behalf of amending the Voting Rights Bill to provide for the Write-in Ballot.

1987: The Democrats Abroad by-laws are amended to provide for increasing the numbers of electors eligible for electing members to the Democratic National Committee. Democrats Abroad Handbook 35 May 2012 1987: DPCA registers with the Federal Elections Commission.

1988: After an energetic effort, the Democrats Abroad primary is recognized as a state primary. As a result, all U.S. consular posts are ordered to distribute primary ballots to those Democrats residing overseas who wish to participate in the overseas primary.

1988: First international meeting held outside Europe. 55 overseas Democrats from 12 countries attend a DPCA meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, before the Democratic National Convention.

1988: Barbara Mellman and Robert Bell cofound Democrats Abroad Canada.

1989: The number of country committees reaches 20.

1990: Democrats Abroad discusses plans for the method of selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Chair Sam Garst, a native Iowan, creates a caucus system used in several subsequent elections. 1990: Patton, Boggs & Blow memorandum of 13 July, 1990, advises DPCA and DNC of the legal status of Democrats and Republicans Abroad and explained that both must register with the FEC. Basis for our later forcing Republicans Abroad to register.

1991: Democrats Abroad adopts caucus system to elect Convention delegates.

1992: Democrats Abroad launches first international coordinated campaign. First ad campaign in major international newspapers supporting Democratic candidates cost $26,000.

1992: Democrats Abroad successfully carries out a caucus system for the selection of our presidential preference and our delegates to the New York Convention. Members gather in local, regional, and global caucuses to cast their votes in an outstanding example of global democracy.

1993: Representatives from fifteen country committees attend President Clinton's inauguration.

1993: November: Chairman Peter Alegi launches campaign to include overseas Americans in President Clinton’s universal health care system.

1993: On advice of the Executive Director, the DPCA hires former Republican Chief of Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lobby for inclusion of overseas Americans. Country committees around the world contribute to funding.

1993: Democrats Abroad begins quarterly electronic publication in Paris of theOverseas Democrat under the editorship of Lois Grjebine and with technical support from Tom Fina. This is the first DPCA newsletter designed to provide country committees with ready-made text for local mailings.

1993: By unanimous vote, Democrats Abroad revises its bylaws in accordance with the changed political and administrative needs of a truly global organization. An Executive Committee is created to streamline management. DNC membership positions reserved for election by each of major world regions: Europe and Middle East, Asia, the Americas.

1994: Clinton Health Care legislation defeated in October, but our efforts had gotten overseas Americans included in drafts before the debacle.

1994: Democrats Abroad testifies on reform of citizenship legislation, suggesting "one-stop shopping," i.e., allowing applications to be filed abroad. The House sub-committee immediately accepts this idea and incorporates it into the bill, which becomes effective March 1, 1995.

1995: Executive Director arranges first time visit by delegation of Democrats Abroad to Oval Office led by Chair Peter Alegi to meet individually with President Clinton.

1995: Alice Lauthers succeeds deceased husband to be volunteer Assistant Treasurer in US.

1995: Incoming Chair Sally McNulty arranges successful European tour of Democrats Abroad by immediate past DNC Chair, David Wilhelm, who visits London, Paris, and Heidelberg.

1996: First non-European officer elected to DPCA— Carolyn Hansen from Taiwan.

1996: First non-European DNC member elected— Maureen Keating Tsuchiya from Japan.

1996: Executive Director negotiates procedure with Clinton White House to include Democrats Abroad in Presidential visits abroad. Democrats Abroad Handbook 36 May 2012

1996: Creation of first Democrats Abroad website by Executive Director (www.democratsabroad.org ) in Washington overseen by Vice Chair Joe Smallhoover with webmaster in US the site includes links to country committee websites. This made Democrats Abroad the first State Party to have a website.

1996: In order to make distribution of Overseas Demokrata more rapid and less costly, operation shifted to Ruth McCreery in Yokohama who prepares page layouts that are transmitted as pdf files to web master who up-loads them to Democrats Abroad website for instant downloading and printing by country committees.

1996: DPCA Secretary takes over keeping of records of DPCA and Country Committee officer directory.

1996: DPCA convention in Toronto adopts resolution asking for inclusion of overseas Americans in census.

1996: E-mail begins to supplant fax as predominant communications medium with significant reduction in communications cost despite increased volume of communication.

1997: Sally McNulty leads Democrats Abroad in successful effort to maintain Section 911 of the tax code, the $70,000 exclusion of earned income from U.S. federal income tax.

1997: Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard C. Holbrooke attends gala Democrats Abroad fundraiser in Paris. 1998: US funds transferred from Citibank, NY, to Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust, Alexandria, VA for better and more economical service as volume of income increased.

1999: June: Chairman Smallhoover testified before House Committee on Census in support of inclusion of overseas Americans in 2010 Decennial Census.

2000: In January, Andrew Goldberg is appointed Deputy Executive Director. First paid DPCA employee.

2000: DPCA spends $115,000 for 2000 campaign advertising in Israel, Mexico, Canada,Stars & Stripes, USA Today i International Herald Tribina.

2000: DPCA spends $115,000 for 2000 campaign advertising in Israel, Mexico, Canada, Stars & Stripes, USA Today i International Herald Tribina.

2000: Executive Director creates Emergency Committee to Reform Overseas Voting (ECROV) to provide proposals to reform Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act (UOCAVA) in light of 2000 election irregularities.

2001: DPCA hires lobbyist to help win changes in overseas absentee voting legislation.

2001: Executive Director testifies before House Committee on Census in support of inclusion of overseas Americans in decennial census of 2010. 2001: Help America Vote Act (HAVA) becomes law in October it embodies important proposals made by ECROV. 2001: Andrew Goldberg becomes Executive Director upon the retirement of Thomas Fina, who becomes Executive Director Emeritus.

2004: At the National Convention, Democrats Abroad is moved forward in the roll call to its proper alphabetical order.

2005: Michael Ceurvorst elected first Democrats Abroad International Chair from the Asia-Pacific Region

2008: The voting weight of Democrats Abroad is increased at the National Convention.

2008: Regional caucuses held to elect DNC regional representatives and delegates to the 2008 DNC Convention in Colorado. Global meeting held in Vancouver to elect further delegates and DNC members.

2008: Autumn meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, results in the creation of a formalized Resolution process and Resolutions Committee.

2009: The MOVE Act is signed into law by President Obama, written specifically to address problems encountered by overseas voters. Democrats Abroad quickly adopts new voter registration procedures and begins monitoring states’ compliance with the law.

2010: International meeting in Florence, Italy. The DPCA Bylaws Committee presents the first draft of improvements to move towards proportional representation worldwide.

2010: Tim Kaine, DNC Chair, visits Paris.

2011: Tim Kaine, DNC Chair, visits London.

2011: International meeting in Seoul, Korea. Bylaws passed unanimously. The Czech Republic joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee. Autumn meeting in Washington DC includes Doorknocks, which result in the formation of the FBAR/FATCA Taskforce. Democrats Abroad Handbook 37 May 2012

2012: First Global Primary held in May 2012. Number of delegates from Democrats Abroad to the DNC Convention increases. The number of Country Committees reaches 51. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz distributes a video thanking Democrats Abroad members.

2014: 50th Anniversary of Democrats Abroad celebrated in Washington DC.

2016: Second Global Primary held in March 2016. Ecuador joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee.

2017: China joins Democrats Abroad as an official country committee. Global Black Caucus and Global Hispanic Caucus founded.

2018: Tom Perez, DNC Chair, visits Geneva and London. Nicaragua, Haiti and Romania join DA as official country committees. Global Progressive Caucus founded.

2019: Finland joins DA as an official country committee. Global Veterans and Military Families Caucus founded.

2020: Global AAPI Caucus founded.

The following have served as Chair of the DPCA since it was first granted membership in the DNC in 1977:


4 Memorable Fiascos from Past Democratic Conventions

Will the socially distanced convention of 2020 rob America of a chance to cringe in unison?

Tim Dickinson

Tim Dickinson's Most Recent Stories

Vice President Al Gore kisses his wife Tipper Gore after accepting the democratic nomination for President of the United States on the the fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, CA, August 17, 2000.

Robert Nickelsberg/Liaison/Getty Images

The socially distanced Democratic National Convention is sure to give us some high-tech bloopers. <<I’m sorry Governor Cuomo, you’re going to need to take yourself off mute.>> But without live delegates, in a physical stadium, with actual balloons and streamers, and politicians trying to project the best (if not most authentic) versions of themselves, Democrats will be missing something, namely a chance to broadcast cringeworthy flubs, mishaps, and miscalculations to millions across the country.

Here four moments from past DNC conventions that went sideways, and live on in infamy (or at least hilarity):

When Democrats Booed Carter

Nothing like bringing out the boo birds at your own convention. In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was going up against Ronald Reagan who promised a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Carter, eager to project his own strength on a national stage, began a simple recitation of the actions he’d taken after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But number two on his list &mdash calling for draft registration &mdash did not hit right with Democratic delegates, in an America still reeling from its bloody and senseless misadventure in Vietnam. The leader of the Democratic party got an earful from those who ought to have been his heartiest backers:

Povezano

Is Biden's Climate Summit Just Big Talk or a Prelude to Real Action?
Walter Mondale, Former Vice President and Presidential Candidate, Dead at 93

Povezano

Singer Paulette McWilliams on Her Years With Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson, and Steely Dan
'Silence of the Lambs': 'It Broke All the Rules'

CONVENTION THROWBACK:#OTD August 14, 1980 — Pres. Jimmy Carter is booed during his nomination acceptance speech at Democratic Convention when he says, "I called for draft registration"

pic.twitter.com/REERIQHG7J

&mdash Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) August 14, 2020

The Clinton Macarena

Long before online memes and TikTok teens performing the Renegade, there was the Macarena, the Latin dance sensation that went viral the old fashioned way &mdash awkwardly, at weddings, and birthday parties, and family reunions. To the pain of modern eyeballs, the Macarena infected the 1996 convention in Chicago, where then first-lady Hillary Clinton clapped off the beat, as convention delegates swung their hips and flailed their arms, giving alegría prema cuerpo of absolutely nadie.

The Gore Kiss

Running in 2000, Al Gore had relatability problems. The Tennessee technocrat had a reputation for being a stiff, wooden politician with little of George W. Bush’s common touch. At the convention in Los Angeles, Gore’s advisers had plainly advised him to go out and show a little passion, a little simmer with wife Tipper, who was then known as America’s scold, a crusader against the coarseness of popular music. But as an awkward technocrat, Gore tended to over-correct when given this kind of stage direction. Instead of a spontaneous-seeming display of marital bliss, what ensued was “the kiss” (followed by an equally lamentable bear hug).

CONVENTION THROWBACK …#OTD August 17, 2000 …

THE KISS

Al Gore and Tipper Gore, on stage, on national TV, with soaring music. pic.twitter.com/OdyuZYQfHQ

&mdash Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) August 17, 2020

The Balloon Drop that Wasn’t

Conventions are all about the pomp and circumstance, and the culmination of the week-long party is the balloon-and-confetti drop to mark the official nomination of the party’s candidate for president. But at the 2004 convention at the Boston Garden, the most of the balloons somehow got stuck up in the rafters. It’s not that balloons didn’t drop. They just didn’t create the spectacle planners were hoping for. This is the kind of small anticlimax that most viewers at home would never notice. But CNN somehow had the fortune to be plugged into the profane backstage feed of the convention director progressively losing his shit as the red-white-and-blue balloons he so anticipated showering John Kerry and John Edwards failed to fall from the ceiling, finally screaming, “WTF are you guys doing up there.”


So what should we expect this year?

History would suggest that whoever goes into the convention with 1,991 delegates is pretty much assured the nomination.

True, delegates are not robots, as Mr. Kennedy tried to argue in 1980, and party rules allow them to switch allegiances. The rules say delegates “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” This gives wiggle room to a delegate who may be worried that Mr. Sanders’s objectives are too far out of the mainstream to make him electable in the fall.

“Sanders is a very polarizing candidate, and as we learn more about him we’ll have to see if people develop buyer’s remorse,” Ms. Kamarck said.

It was the same dilemma Republicans faced in 2016 when Donald J. Trump became the nominee.

But like Republicans, Democrats are unlikely to overrule voters and create a situation where candidates and party operatives begin wheeling and dealing, Professor Williams said.

“Brokered conventions are a bad thing for the health of the party and democracy,” he said. “Now it’s not the voters making a choice, but the candidates or party insiders making the choice.”


Gledaj video: Срби староседеоци (Srpanj 2022).


Komentari:

  1. Carroll

    Perhaps I agree with your phrase

  2. Shipton

    Exclusive idea))))

  3. Efrem

    What words... super, a brilliant idea

  4. Corvin

    Indeed, and how I had not thought about it before

  5. Jum

    Kakve riječi...super



Napišite poruku