Linda Jenkins and Preston Bluff

"Just Folks" Help Write the Democratic Party Platform

The Obama Campaign and the DNC (now merging) asked supporters to meet Saturday afternoon July 12 in house parties to discuss and make recommendations to the committee that will draft the platform prior to the convention in August.

Kim Clark (her house, Meadowbrook)
Linda Walsh Jenkins (White Lake Hills)
Dr. Woodrow Harris (chiropractor, Arlington, a national delegate)
Dozens of respondents, some sent notes

PURPOSE of a Party Platform
To guide and support candidates
To guide elected representatives
To communicate basic precepts to the public
To distinguish one party from others
To inspire voters

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Keep it simple, more about principles than specific issues and solutions
Use language that signals new ways of thinking
Use language that is easy to grasp and share with others
We want to win this election - avoid controversy that might scuttle that
See this and present it as a flexible blueprint for change
It should be an extension of what Obama stands for

SUMMARY PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS
The Democratic Party is about the following (in no particular order):
Believing that we are in a time of extraordinary challenges to re-vision the United States and make our way through invigorating transitions within the framework of our Constitution;
Believing that government serves the public by mediating, leading, inspiring, and working with people and businesses rather than mandating and imposing top down;
Believing a comprehensive national security policy is as much or more about security at home (jobs, health care, education, transportation infrastructure, shelter, public safety, clean air and water) as it is about military might abroad;
Believing that if we do not make clean air and water - and the availability of potable water - a highest priority we will not survive into the next century;
Believing in accountability and responsibility - by each citizen, by politicians, by American businesses, by American government;
Commitment to transparency in government - utilizing the internet and television as well as any other means to share with and include the public in policy discussions and expenditures, not exclude and hide;
Governing from the bottom up, with engaged citizens at the local level feeling heard and empowered;
Serving others through actions and sharing wealth in recognition of mutual interdependence and enlightened self-interest;
Balancing the budget through efficiency, innovation, and long-term vision;
Building a military to defend against 21st century threats while giving a priority to peacemaking;
Reducing the size of the national government while creating new ways of governing, new ways of relating the federal government to regions and states;
Giving struggling Americans and others suffering in the world a hand up, not a hand out;
Asserting and assisting the rights of individuals, municipalities and states to self-governance with the help rather than the heavy hand of the federal government;
Helping American businesses transform and prosper in changing times, energy challenges, and the environmental damages of global warming;
Developing new and better transportation solutions to address climate issues, reduction/elimination of gasoline use, and shifting demographics;
Being realistic, bold and inspiring as we provide global leadership to heal humanity's polluted and endangered ecosystem;
Believing in a robust and expanded middle-class;
Working to end poverty here and abroad;
Re-introducing ourselves to the world as a country of progressive transformation, with liberty and justice for all;
Defending constitutional protections and habeas corpus;
Educating all who live in our country for the 21st century to promote public safety and economic strength while recognizing that a one-size-fits-all policy such as No Child Left Behind is leaving far too many children behind, and that ultimately puts America behind its economic competitors;
Helping all who live in our country pratice healthy living to bring down medical costs through preventive methods;
Helping the sick in our country heal with access to high quality medical care that does not decimate family budgets;
Helping all who live in our country have safe shelter, clean air, and clean water;
Defining the end missions in Iraq and Afghanistan to remove our troops while defining and fulfilling our responsibilities to the people there we have wounded and displaced;
Defining the challenges posed by global radical groups who hate and target the United States and developing innovative defensive as well as proactive tactics that value human life;
Listening to and providing leadership with the global community as we all combat human rights abuses, especially to women and children;
Assisting the people of impoverished countries as they struggle for basic human amenities and dignity;
Hiring people with expertise and passion to serve in the government rather than appointing political cronies;
Creating regulatory mechanisms that enhance business, trade and financial markets for the sake of national stability and human rights;
Making any earmarks transparent and seeking an end to earmarks.

SOME SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reconstitute the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. These are interdependent and have suffered from separation.
Create a Department of Peace that re-imagines the way we look at national security and human rights, shifting from a policy of power and domination so the world sees America as a leader for human liberties and safety.
Continue the focus on defeating Al Qaeda while considering radical alternatives to warfare such as building schools and helping the struggling poor.
Decry the existence of poverty in a country of billionaires - our own as well as Mexico and others to whom we give aid.
Consider denying aid to countries with wealthy individuals and corporations that do not pay income tax.
Use different language for health care: There is sick care and health care as well as long-term care.
Sick care - When people are ill, the system should put their wellbeing first and not be foremost about profit. We should define an acceptable minimum standard for sick care that we can guarantee to all who live in this country.
Health care - Individuals should be more accountable for their own lifestyle choices and encouraged through insurance and tax incentives to take better care of themselves and to use professional resources that contribute to health (preventive medicine). Screening tests and vaccines should be available to everyone regardless of their income or insurance status.
Long-term care, for the elderly and people with special needs, does not have to be treated as sick care and could be more cost-effective.
Insurance for all three forms of medical care should be available and affordable to all, while no one kind of insurance should be mandated for the entire population. People should not be forced to pay into a government-run health care or health insurance system. Many people (like teachers and government workers) never paid into Social Security, don't receive it in retirement, and don't receive Medicare. Make choices available to all but respect individual rights.
The Democratic Party should not strong-arm people to vote a straight ticket. If the Democrats are the best candidates, we'll vote for them. Put the responsibility on the candidates, not the voters or delegates.
Raise the Social Security cap on the wealthiest 2% and stop draining Social Security. Do not privatize Social Security.
Do not open to more offshore drilling or ANWAR. Educate the public as to why these will not improve current gas and oil crises.
Promise to engage in a vast national education and debate process in 2009 regarding all our energy alternatives. The more we believe we will cut our oil habit, the less demand we will place on future supplies, which in turn can cut current costs as we transition.
End habitation of eroding and storm-ravaged coastlines and river floodplains; build for the future while restoring eco-systems.
End the politician/lobbyist revolving door.
Seek ways to encourage more citizen legislators who serve for terms of modest length rather than career politicians.
Investigate establishing bipartisan citizen boards and/or systems for determining legislators' salaries rather than allowing them to set their own.

Uniting for Change Party - June 28

Posted by Linda Walsh Jenkins, White Lake Hills Democrat

Drawn together by the Obama Campaign's call to Unite for Change, two dozen Fort Worth Democrats partied and plotted together Saturday evening June 28 at the White Lake Hills home of Mona and Mike Bailey. We heard from delegates to the recent Texas convention and shared ideas for tactics to elect Democrats from Obama and Noriega all the way "down ticket."

Black and white, gay and straight, male and female, Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, Independents, young and old and in between, we came from North Richland Hills, Arlington, southwest Fort Worth, and throughout the city's eastside. Mona set the tone by citing Howard Thurman: "To postpone living significantly in the present is a serious blunder." Texan Democrats and Independents who want to put the state, the country and the world on a progressive and just path are claiming visibility and voices.

Texas has not seen a Democratic majority in our state government since 1978. We reviewed some of the Dixiecrat/Republican history that led to this skewing. What matters now is that we change the state so that Republicans don't gerrymander redistricting in 2010 a la Tom DeLay and so we can redress some of the judge and justice appointments. We're close to gaining the majority in state legislature; Democrats might gain ten in the House and three or four in the Senate.

All agreed there is tremendous excitement now as we might see 25-30 changes in national congressional seats. Sharp young people are stepping up into leadership, which portends well for the future.

Several delegates to the state convention shared their experiences and views: Doug Forsyth (Obama, White Lake Hills, District 12), Larry Vosberg and John Cortez (Stonewall Democrats for Clinton, White Lake Hills), and Greg Strong (not sure of his candidate, Arlington, Precinct 2317). All reported some tension within the caucuses between the Obama and Clinton folks (tension I didn't sense as a volunteer in the halls), but at the same time feel there is tremendous agreement now to fight for the Democratic ticket.

The Obama supporter who was the convention's temporary chair wasn't very effective, according to Larry. When the majority of the delegates - Obamans included - selected more effective Clinton supporter Steve Lerma as the permanent chair it shocked many, including the temporary chair. That set a useful tone, though, Larry reported, by affirming everyone was there for serious business conducted in a serious bi-partisan fashion.

Coming from a third generation "grassroots/farmer/populist" Democratic background, Doug hasn't been politically active since his college days, when he spoke out for Nixon's impeachment. He told us that at first the Obama folks weren't well organized, while the Clinton delegates were; some Obama campaign reps stepped in to help the Obamans vote in a bloc and get their act together. However, because Obama had "won" the primary just days before, the Obamans didn't want to overwhelm the Clintonites with heavy bloc voting. For their delegate to the national convention they elected an elderly white man who asked to be allowed to cast an electoral vote for a Democrat before he dies.

The last state convention Greg attended was in 1972, and even though he comes from a family of Democratic politicians (dad was a state senator, granddad was a pol) he hasn't supported a Democrat since the first time he voted. But "change" absolutely must occur, he believes, and Obama is bringing out moderates, Republicans, and Independents who share that view. Greg was impressed by Chelsea Clinton's message that since Texas was where Hillary began her political life (registering voters in near the southern border), it should be the first state she asked to unite for Obama. After Chelsea's speech, he said, Obama and Clinton supporters came to the podium in pairs, people stood and held hands, and all committed to turning Texas blue.

Larry and John told us that all the state candidates paid their respects to the Stonewall Democrats - who work extremely hard for the party. Larry supported Hillary because she has worked for the Human Rights Campaign (the gay rights lobby). Now that campaign is calling on its members to dedicate themselves to electing Obama - and the full Democratic ticket. Noriega made a strong impression on the Stonewalls; he vows to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell."

While Larry describes himself as a Yellow Dog Democrat, his partner John is more Blue Dog - a fiscal conservative and social liberal. He believes Obama and Noriega can and must appeal to mainstream Democrats.

Kim Clark (Meadowbrook) spoke on behalf of Independents who are rejuvenated by the possibility of a new government that's about working together. She recalled hearing her insurance agent father refer to Washington politicians as "puppets" manipulated by big business interests. The number of registered Independents has grown, and many young people find that the best way to self-identify as they search for ways to address stale values.

After the reports we opened to general discussion, moderated by Mona. I can offer only a few slices here, but it was a rich repast we all want to continue. She asked if Hillary supporters wanted to say anything, observing that we're still quite close to the suspension of the dynamic Clinton campaign. The Clinton supporters said they are committed to the party and to change, so now they're committed to Obama.

Lorene, Larraine, Linda, Gwen, Mike, Susan, John, and others whose names (I apologize) I didn't keep track of shared observations and tactics. All agreed on the importance of getting out the vote, registering people, helping people with transportation to the polls. Over 2.8 million Democrats voted in the recent primary; all agreed that many more will come out now that they know there is a real possibility for Demcratic victory.

Gwen cautioned us not to assume that people in our immediate circle/family share our views. We need to talk with everyone we know and encourage those who are undecided to get on the Democratic bandwagon.

Susan, one of the younger attendees, goes by the rule, "If you don't vote you can't bitch." A public school science teacher fed up with the many problems in education, she pointed out that "Obama doesn't talk down to my generation."

We have to fight the "lie" some promulgate that Republicans and Democrats are all the same, John urged us. Larraine agreed - she worked in the federal government for thirty plus years and saw a definite difference depending on which party was in control. And yet, Mike cautioned - and we nodded approval - we must have checks and balances. We don't want an arrogant party that railroads diverse views and props up corruption.

How do we help to get out the vote? Greg suggested we volunteer to local campaigns - they'll know how to put us to work. Anyone can access the county party website for contact and candidate information. Mid-Cities Democrats has some yard signs and bumper stickers; more should be available after the national convention. We might put cordial flyers on neighbors' doors, urging them to vote and suggesting we're available to talk about Democratic candidates if they're undecided.

I stressed Obama's community organizing experience as one of his strong cards: Not only does this give him knowledge of urban America we never have had in a President, but it tells us he really knows how to bring people together across ideologies and backgrounds, from the ordinary citizen to the fat cat, putting petty politics aside to help people help themselves.

Too many people with progressive mainstream values (Democrat, Independent and Republican) have become so disenchanted with government and exhausted by the current administrations (in Washington and in Austin). This year's campaign is giving people hope, a reason to believe that voting matters, that participating matters, that "living significantly" is possible and necessary.

A good time was had by all. It's much more fun to gather for a party instead of just a "meeting," so we look forward to more social occasions. Contact me through a comment to this column if you want to be on the invitation list.

Now if we can just get Barack and Michelle to visit us . . . .

See Pictures from the 08 Texas State Democratic Convention

See dozens of photos from the 2008 Texas State Democratic Convention, June 5-7 in Austin:

http://lindawalshjenkins.typepad.com/photos/txdem_convention08/index.html

Texas State Democratic Convention

June 9 I posted two blogs (with loads of pictures) about the Texas Democratic Party Convention (June 5-7) on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s online opinion site. Scroll down or search archives to More Views (an addendum, posted second) and Hats and Bats (the more comprehensive blog, posted first):
http://startelegrameditwriters.typepad.com/donkeytales08

Also, you can find it by Googling "DonkeyTales08"

See my Photo Albums to the left for TX 08 Convention beginning June 11 for a visual journey through the convention.

State Convention Countdown - Volunteer Update

Linda Walsh Jenkins - Fort Worth eastsider, Obama supporter and Precinct 1277 delegate to the county convention

Karen Vlach (Trophy Club) and I just received notice that we've been accepted as volunteers to the state convention in Austin the weekend of June 6. Although the folks in the office there had earlier told me it was okay if we didn't arrive until Friday noon - now they want us there for a training session Thursday night. Mad scramble to find a room was successful. I'll take a camera and hope to have wireless connection to blog on site.

We'll try to report on the Obama-Clinton conflict without too much bias (cain't promise none). By that weekend Obama should have assembled enough delegates to have the nomination, so sparks may fly from angry Hillary supporters. As I write this the party is handling delegate challenges, so we'll see who manages to scoot ahead in Texas (Obama now leads by 5). There'll be some drama - that's for sure.

I'm interested in how the Texas Democrats are defining us relative to the state's Republicans. This year Rick Noriega will take on Jon Cornyn (John?), and it looks like Noriega might have a real shot at it. I heard him speak a couple of years ago and now want to see how he handles the crowd and the spotlight. If Hispanics, African-American and moderate to semi-progressive Texans band together, we can swing the state from the grip of the conservative right. Even if Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Kay Granger stay in office, a more flexible and populist (oh go ahead and say liberal) state psyche could help them loosen up a bit. I think Granger was a Democrat before she realized she'd get nowhere in Texas that way.

This Clinton/Obama fever might pop by the middle of next week. That should let us get on with figuring out what Democrats really stand for vis a vis Republicans and how Texas Democrats are going to fight for the blue. I'm holding back on giving more money, even to Obama, until I see how the national party handles the Clintons. I think Obama can raise tons of money as the nominee and he's still sitting pretty (compared to her debt). He has been the better campaign manager of the two, hands down. Wouldn't we like that quality in a President?

Wagons ho to Austin next week!

Talking is not Negotiating is not Appeasing

Surely John McCain and George Bush know that talking to Iran is not negotiating with Iran, and that negotiating is not necessarily appeasement. They're counting on their American audience not to know the difference.

I'm disappointed that Obama isn't drawing the distinctions, but maybe he'll do that in debate with McCain. The American electorate seems sorely in need of some educating and I look forward to Obama's providing leadership that helps the public understand international diplomacy rather than merely salivate at militaristic blather.

Yesterday Chris Matthews caught some fool (I missed his name - Kevin Something?) who was playing attack dog for Bush/McCain by furthering the talking equals appeasing illusion. Kevin repeated Bush's reference to appeasing Hitler. Matthews prodded the man to explain exactly what Neville Chamberlain did that appeased Hitler - and Kevin finally had to deflate his cloud of loud words to admit he didn't know. Chamberlain appeased not by merely talking but by offering a piece of Czechoslovakia if Hitler would stop. Big difference - talk, Czechoslovakia.

Is it possible that Bush really doesn't know the difference? Surely McCain does. In debate, I suspect/hope Obama is going to push McCain to the wall on this matter. Will the general public notice or care? Will the Jewish voters and campaign supporters Bush clearly was playing to notice or care?

Linda Walsh Jenkins, an Obama precinct delegate from Fort Worth's eastside

On Clinton as VP

With her nuanced victory speech in West Virginia Tuesday night Hillary Clinton seemed to signal that while she will fight on (to please her supporters and bring in more voters, and because she still thinks she's the best candidate), she also sees she's likely to lose the nomination and will support whomever the party chooses. She appears to be setting the stage for the next act: Transition into Second Place. (Unless this is a diversionary tactic and she still has a thing or two up her sleeve to try to convince the superdelegates to choose her. With John Edwards and NARAL pledging allegiance to Obama today, that is unlikely.)

Obama gave her a gracious boost by not campaigning hard in West Virginia and is helping her further by not trying to best her in Kentucky. That gives her two strong wins to help replenish her heavily indebted treasury ($21 million and rising), keep her supporters psyched, bring in more active participants, and let her finally bow out as a tough opponent who lost by a decision and not a knock out as the primaries at last melt away.

Pat Buchanan chewed Obama out for not bulldogging her in WVA; but Buchanan misses the point that the race is over. Obama can and will get down and press flesh in WVA as he combats McCain, with Billary at his side in one capacity or another.

That raises the question, What role does Hillary want to play in the act following Transition - Battle for the White House? She isn't saying so publicly, but Carl Bernstein among others gossips that people close to her affirm she does want the VP.

My guess is she wants to be wooed. She is making the case that her supporters (blue collar white folks who won't vote for a black man, rural folks without much education, and "older" women) won't vote for Obama unless she tells them to. She doesn't acknowledge that she and her husband have played a huge role in turning these people against Obama - oh no, they're just racist to begin with. And while some of us find it odious that the Democratic Party can't win without racists, Hillary brings them to the party like her dowry.

If Obama wants her to be the VP, he should make her feel needed, appreciated, important. No begging, of course, but a good old fashioned bent knee with a rose and kind words wouldn't hurt. It is almost medieval, as if Hillary is the Warrior Queen offering to unify a Holy Democratic Empire if chosen or given the proper imperial settlement if not. Obama must observe chivalric codes, give the lady her dignity and pay off her debt, to prevent defeat.

And so far it appears he is being very gentlemanly. Whether he wants Hillary as VP or not, he must make her and her fans feel like she's highly regarded. If he doesn't want her - he'll find a way to create the illusion that it was her decision, not his.

Many say it wouldn't be good to have the two on the same ticket, after all the rancor and the racist mud-slinging, after her followers' belief she has been the victim of sexism. Some say Michelle can't stand Hillary. Some say Bill can't stand Obama. Others suggest the VP should be someone with foreign policy and military experience to trump McCain (like Wes Clark). Or, what about Bill Richardson and the Hispanic vote? John Edwards and his white blut-collar populist base? Furthermore, if Obama really is about a "new Washington," how can he choose someone as "old Washington" as the Clintons?

On the other hand, the VP is about party unity and winning the White House. The VP participates in policy discussions, reps the Prez here and there around the world, and of course steps in if the Prez is downed. Well, an Obama/Hillary ticket probably would bring in record Democratic voters (if she can convince her fiefdom it's okay now to vote for the black man) and help wallop the Republicans down ticket. She's such a chameleon that if she wants to be VP she would fight fight fight to win. Though she and Bill could be pesky in close quarters with Obama, he appears to have the leadership abilities to manage them and take advantage of their positive contributions.

Obama won't choose her just to win votes. If he does select her, he sees her as a real asset in the VP spot.

Watch Hillary carefully. She has to calm down her followers while continuing to lay claim to her queendom, raise more money to pay her vendors, bring in more voters, but turn the focus on McCain while preparing to recognize Obama as her liege. It won't be long now.

Linda Walsh Jenkins, an Obama supporter from Fort Worth's eastside, will attend the state convention as a volunteer and hopes to attend the national, to cheer Obama's nomination.

Short Memories About Long Associations

Let me see if I understand this. Hillary Clinton's husband had sex with another woman in the Oval Office while he was President, lied about it to her and the nation and was impeached. Among the ministers he called into his office to pray with him and Hillary in the ugly aftermath was Jeremiah Wright.

Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground as well as at least one slimy rich man and since his presidency has earned millions working with and for questionable business associates, at least one of whom calls the Cayman Islands home.

Hillary had her own shady dealings in Arkansas, which most of the nation agreed to just let go on by. And she has lobbyists working for her campaign. Her daughter is a hedge fund consultant.

John McCain was excoriated by Congress for his dealings with Charles Keating in a fraudulent pre-Enron scheme that destroyed countless lives. His wife is worth over $100 million, they have eight homes, he is an admiral's son, but gee shucks he's just an ordinary guy.

Barack Obama's feet will be held to the fire for the behavior of his former pastor, who wasn't - as the press continues to falsely claim (see Tim Russert late yesterday for example) - his spiritual advisor or spiritual mentor. There's something "wrong" with Obama for faithfully attending that man's Southside Chicago church, lauded nationally (and by Hillary Clinton's former paster) for its outstanding social work.

And now some folks are claiming Hillary is best suited to "unite" the country. Hmmmm. What's really going on here?

Linda Walsh Jenkins, an Obama supporter from Fort Worth's eastside

What Is the "Real" Democratic Party "Base"?

What is the Democratic Party's "base" now that so many new voters have come into the party for this election? Is it the old conservative, white, bluecollar, older, Mid-American voter (who won't vote for a black person) the Clintons and some of the press argue must support a candidate who hopes to defeat McCain?

If so, how is that "base" different from the small-minded Republican "base" Karl Rove carved out? Is it enough that it's a little more progressive, a little more inclined to want "big government"? Is that really the consciousness that should dominate this country the next four to eight years?

Is that base really necessary to defeat McCain?

Look at the ultimate disaster America has suffered because the Rovean evangelical issue-oriented base frightened progressive Republicans out of standing up for what was best for this country.

If that lowest-common-denominator base rules who gets the Democratic nomination, will the new voters and independents fall into line?

How can anyone feel inspired by the idea that the limited old base the Clintons are pandering to will be in charge of America's future?

Linda Jenkins, an Obama supporter from Fort Worth's eastside

NOTES FROM LIMBO

Several weeks ago I emailed the Texas Democratic Party that I would work as a volunteer for the state convention. No response. Nada. Not even a generic "thanks we'll get back to you." Now as I watch the national political drama (farce?) unfold and contemplate the possibility of the Clintons' Dixiecrat attempt to take over, I wonder if I really do want to work for the Democrats. I'll wait until after the Pennsylvania vote to decide if I should be aggressive about being engaged in the party.

I'm not a Republican, though I agree that government needs to be smaller and more efficient, taxes need to be as low as possible, national defense is important, Americans must be entrepreneurial, and some other basic principles that most Democrats support. In general I observe that Democrats tend to believe it's enlightened self-interest to care for the least among us and accept communal responsibility for a robust common good, while Republicans tend not to think that way.

And yet, must I agree to support the Democrats no matter what? I truly believe the Clintons and their surrogates are engaging in nuanced rhetoric that plays to old racist politics, old racist fears. I have a Ph.D. in Theatre and Speech Communication, so I have at least a tiny bit of street cred when it comes to reading between their lines. I'm not, as the Clinton's spin would have it, a black voter blinded by Obama's charismatic light. I don't want Democrats in power if it's a return to the old Jim Crow consciousness, and I do believe that's what I'm seeing. In a new cloak, of course: The cloak of "we have to get rid of the Republicans, so put up with whatever racist subtext we feed the voters in order to get Billary in office again."

I was happy during the Clinton years, no doubt. But even I could see several aspects to the prosperity that were not due to the Clintons or the Democrats. Much of the prosperity derived from the Silicon Valley Bubble that burst late in his presidency. Monicagate, a disgusting debacle of his making, in some ways overwhelmed that economic downturn. Bush inherited the recession that began under Clinton.

Welfare reform and deficit reduction were pushed onto Clinton and the Democrats by the Gingrich revolution, much as I hate to admit that.

Now I watch the Democrats bungling this race, I view with dismay the Clinton machine in full operation, and I just don't know if I want to work for the Democratic Party.

When I returned to Texas several years ago, having lived in Minnesota, Illinois, and California for nearly forty years, I volunteered to work for the local Kerry campaign office. I wanted to meet people in town who shared my views. Instead, all I received was an email asking me to call people in Colorado to encourage them to go to the polls. I did. I met no one in the local party.

How are we supposed to be energized locally and to work for the rest of the Democratic slate if our offers to help are ignored?

I'll report here on my efforts to connect with the state party regarding volunteering. If they can't organize enough to respond respectfully to someone offering time and skill, what does that say about the Democrats' ability to manage government?

Linda Walsh Jenkins