On December 17th, Irregular Times ran this article by J Clifford that was critical of 1787. In the article, J Clifford asserted that 1787 was “a new independent political party that purports to be open to any new ideas from its members, and not promoting any particular ideology”. His specific criticism was based on this statement from 1787:
“…our leaders have failed us. Instead of using this rare show of bipartisanship to bravely tackle the root causes of our financial Apocalypse – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…”
Mr. Clifford pointed out that Social Security is independent of the federal budget.
In a comment posted to the article, 1787’s chairwoman, Emily Mathews, directly responded to the criticism. She took issue with the claim that 1787 does not have any ideology and described the party as “a type of modern-day Constitutional Convention”. She also pointed out that 1787’s platform is fluid, but stood by the recent statement on Social Security.
Read the full article here, Ms. Mathews’ statement immediately follows.
Jed – much appreciated.
Cody – it is basically the new version of Americans Elect.
The 1787 Party does have some things in it’s platform that I agree with, but it also has plenty of other things I don’t agree with, especially on foreign policy.
Thanks, glad to know my work is appreciated. 🙂
It sure is great to have you posting so many articles, Jed. I’m so busy this time of year, and I’m glad I can just check in once in while. You and Paulie and a few others are certainly keeping things going here–