GOP Convention — Platform

I have served as chair of several county, district and state platform committees so I know how difficult a task it is. It is an even more difficult task when you are faced with an unprecedented number of amendments and an already raucous convention.

So in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I want to publicly acknowledge, congratulate and thank our 2008 State Platform Committee Chairman, Pastor Bruce Branson, from the 5th District. Bruce ran the platform discussion under difficult conditions with humor, patience, grace and just the right amount of firmness.

Bruce made the decision behind the scenes to only bring up those amendments that had been approved by the committee, rather than all sixty-one. When asked for my advice, I said:

No, don't do it. For some people the platform is the main event and if you don't let the convention consider all the amendments, there will be a riot.

Bruce was right, I was wrong. While not everyone was happy, the motion to limit discussion to those amendments recommended by the committee passed overwhelmingly. I am glad that he did not take my advice.

Anyone who has the opportunity to chair a mass meeting could learn something from watching Bruce run our platform debate. I don't know whether Bruce is the kind of guy who reads blogs, but if so.

Thank you Bruce!

Comments

[Tom Shaw]

David,
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express some thoughts on the platform process. I was a member of the state platform committee this year and I was the one who made the motion on the floor to only debate the amendments recommended by the committee.
There was a great deal of discussion by the committee on how we should handle all of the newly proposed planks. Some of the factors we considered were:
- Allowing all 63 to be heard on the floor would have lengthened the convention to the wee hours of the morning.
- Many of the proposed planks were already contained in the platform (at least in spirit).
- Some of them contradicted planks that were already in the platform. This would mean adding a plank and having to remove the one it contradicted.
- We also took into account and was sensitive to the fact that the people's voices deserve to be heard.
- Some of the proposed planks were rejected unanimously by the committee.
I would like to float an idea on how this situation could be avoided at future conventions. I propose a rule change which would require any plank submitted at the state convention gain a 2/3 vote from the platform committee in order to have it heard on the floor. This allows new planks which have merit to be heard on the floor. Remember, the platform starts at the county level, then goes to district before reaching the state platform committee. So, a plank worth its merit would survive the process.
Again, thanks and I look forward to any feedback.