There are people called "ADP's," or Anti-Democratic Party people.
We are not clear on the definition, but we know they mean people in the Democratic party.
We are listening to Diana Wentz interview Jim Burn and Ian Harlow of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee. They are inviting ADP's to call in and discuss the endorsement process.
Before her guests arrived, Wentz avowed that Chairman Burn and the new leadership of the ACDC are pursuing wondrous reforms, but alas, these things take time. We would like to have heard specifically what problems they think they have -- we actually don't know, and the P-G op-ed did not make that clear.
There was some rote argument on how the recent primary was not so bad for endorsed candidates (deconstructed already on the Burr Reporr), and also on how the endorsement as it stands today must be tactically important because it is widely sought.
As to whether the endorsement is necessary or beneficial, there was only an oblique suggestion about the role of committee members in a endorsement-free world. We ourselves assume that committee people will still be needed to inform their communities, and advocate for Democratic principles.
But the way it was phrased seemed like a threat and a warning -- you don't want to give up your power, do you? How's your street gonna get paved?
The first caller supported endorsements, but wound up opposing the rule that committee people are blood-bound to support only endorsed candidates in thought, word, and deed. Jim Burn sounded open to the notion, suggesting a debate may open to amend the by-laws. He did not advocate one way or the other on the air.
A certain Maria from the south side (?) called to raise an inside-baseball seeming question circulating on some choice websites, and again the chairman made some open-sounding sounds -- before cutting her off (maybe due to time) and promising a debate.
We can not help but wonder whether there will follow a series of dog-and-pony reform debates in which the fix is in, and members inevitably vote to retain their power and insularity, but the party can claim there was a vote! There was transparency! We took calls on talk radio!
Just before the hour was up, Burn delivered a shot across the bow of bloggers, who are invited to call the committee, instead of continuing to be "part of the problem by blogging anonymously."
1) We may just do that.
2) We blog under our real name, as do the 2PJs.
3) We hardly think the Burgh Report, for example, is part of any problem.
4) We have a comments section. You are invited to join the discussion, Mr. Chairman, and stop being part of the problem.