« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Questions underlying the MI and FL primaries drama
Before I decide for myself how the delegates should be split, I need
better background. Now, I am tired of listening to posters—on both
sides—shoot their mouths off. I will decide my own opinion, but I want facts first:
Rules:
A.) Number your answers. You can quote the question, too.
B.) Answer only questions for which you have facts. If you don't cite a credible, factual
source, you are speculating and I will discount your information until you prove it.
C.) You may NOT discuss here how the delegates should/will be split—do so in OTHER threads.
Questions
1. Why did the DNC decide that MI and FL could not move their primaries up, but that Iowa, NH, and SC could? (Apparently, all three moved up several days, ahead of DNC sanctioned dates.) Didn't the DNC know it was going to disenfranchise voters by creating and enforcing such rules?
2. Why did Edward and Obama voluntarily remove their names from Michigan's ballot? What evidence is there that it was or was not political maneuvering? Why should we believe that it was 100.00% to punish Michigan?
3. Why didn't Obama and Edwards ALSO remove from Florida's ballot? What made it okay to stay on Florida's ballot, but not Michigan's?
4. Why did Clinton decide to keep her name on Michigan's ballot contrary to her opponents' decisions? What did she actually say, verbatim, about whether or not Michigan should count BEFORE the primary?
5. What rules, if any, did Clinton break with regard to MI and FL? Cite both the rule and the infraction.
6. What rules, if any, did Obama break with regard to MI and FL? Cite both the rule and the infraction.
7. Is it possible that some people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan
actually had no preference?
8. What are the established rules for translating "Uncommitted" primary votes into delegates?
Comments (26)
Oh geez, are you fucking kidding me? Have you just not bothered to pay attention at all since last August?.
Where were you last summer when the talk coming out the DNC was to grant IA and NH their traditional roles of first in the nation and allow SC and NV to move up to represent various regions? How can it be almost June and you have no idea of what happened? There's not hillarytalkingpointdisenfranchisement going on. It's a party election. No one has the right to vote in primaries, which is why some states close theirs to non-Democrats. I can't believe this is even a credible question.
Honestly, you have Google...all these questions can be easily found. Considering people in the blogosphere have been talking about this issue for 8 months now, I find it close to impossible that anyone is this clueless as to what has happened and what has been said.
The rule was set last summer or fall. Any state can hold their primary so long as it was 10 days after the first 4 and before June 3rd. Is your link to the DNC rules broken? Your computer not access the DNC site? Or is it sheer laziness?
And Edwards, Richards, Biden and Obama removed their names as part of pledge those four AND Clinton signed. Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd didn't sign that particular pledge.
And considering the lameass "rules" you decided you were going to try enforce, how exactly do you expect "facts" to fit with supposition?
May 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevada was supposed to be 2nd. They got screwed when New Hampshire moved up.
May 27, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe how many times I've seen Obama supporters in the most nasty and insulting terms shout about the "facts" and the "rules" when its clear to anyone who has followed this story that they are completely ignorant of both the facts and the rules.
The only candidate that didn't sign the pledge is Gravel. In fact Dodd was the first one who signed the pledge. Kucinich signed the pledge and announced that he was going to remove his name from the Mi ballot but didn't get his paper work in on time.
When Dodd refused to remove his name from the MI ballot he released this statement.
Dodd communications director Hari Sevugan has also explained their reasoning. "We are committed to the importance of the Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation," he said. "However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name of the ballot and slight Michigan voters."
Don't you bother to read before you spout off nonsense? Its not just that you are factually wrong from the top of your post to the bottom but you feel some need to be insulting in your complete ignorance.
May 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why you're wrong as usual: There are two different pledges in play here.
May 27, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
?
Aug 31, 2007 4:23 PM
CHRIS DODD SIGNS PLEDGE TO EARLY CAUCUS AND PRIMARY STATES
Calls Commitment to Retail Politics More Important This Year
WASHINGTON, DC – Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd today signed a pledge from the Democratic Parties of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to honor their status as the early primary and caucus states as established by the Democratic National Committee’s 2008 nominating calendar. Dodd reaffirmed his belief in the power of retail politics and the serious thought and weight that citizens of these states put into their consideration of the candidates.
“I believe that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada offer a cross-section of America and allow for voters to probe the experience and vision of candidates in a meaningful way,” said Dodd. “In this year, where the national media focus seems to be on celebrity and bank accounts, the role of these states is more important than ever. I am committed to the DNC nominating calendar and preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire.”
May 27, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me pull a Hillary on you:
"Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!"
Seriously, you propose to "decide for myself how the delegates should be split?"
I think the DNC's rules and bylaws committee will carry a bit more weight than your decision does.
But thanks for the laugh.
May 27, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
4. Why did Clinton decide to keep her name on Michigan's ballot contrary to her opponents' decisions? What did she actually say, verbatim, about whether or not Michigan should count BEFORE the primary?
Why she kept her name on the ballot is not something you can prove one way or the other. If you're going to take Hillary's explanation at face value, then you should take Obama's explanation at face value, but in either case you're just speculating about whether they gave the "real" explanation or not.
But for "What did she actually say, verbatim" before the MI primary was held:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html
Now how about adding some further questions about, say, McAuliffe's 2004 comments on when he was DNC chair on the likely outcome of making rules and then not enforcing them. Among other things. Your choice of the questions to include and the questions to omit gives the appearance of a bias in one particular direction.
May 27, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would have been happy to add any reasonably question you wanted to.
There was NO REASON TO BE AN ASSHOLE WITH YOUR FINAL REMARKS.
GOD... You people are FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to get along with. You sit behind your computers with this vitriol. If you can't answer my polite questions politely, then LEAVE ME ALONE.
May 27, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, my. shakes head slowly, sighs, marvels at the patience of those who actually attempted to answer your questions
Now here's my question for you:
Where do we sign up to apologize for paying attention?
You seem like the right person to ask.
May 27, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that in Sept. '07, Clinton blamed an aide for not removing her name in time.
May 27, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
May 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like a link on that!
May 27, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rabbitsmorgasbard" seems to me to have posted some quite important and relevant information without any "vitriol" at all. You should do some research on your own if you are questioning this person's comments about McAuliffe, etc. and find out if they are telling the truth. With your last tirade you promoted yourself to the top of the list of those were rude, right past the feuding commenters.
May 27, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meet left. He has a history of making lazy commentary and then flying off the handle at anyone who disagrees with him, doing it all under the guise of righteous indignation with those jerks online who like Obama.
May 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Didn't FL and MI know they would disenfranchise their voters by breaking the rules?
2. The candidates agreed to "not participate" in the MI an FL primaries. Doesn't removing their names from the ballot strike you as a particularly good way of not participating?
3. Nothing made it "okay", they simply couldn't. The alternate explanations I heard (both could be true) were that there was no time to do that, since Florida made the decision to move up the primary fairly late, or that they couldn't run in November had they removed their names.
5.,6. The rule breaking was done by the states, not the candidates. The candidates - all of them - ended up in a difficult situation not of their making.
7. Is it possible that nearly all of the people who voted "uncommitted" actually had a preference? You basically just explained why the MI primary is completely FUBAR and shouldn't count at all.
8. There are no rules. Which doesn't mean some arbitrary method won't be chosen.
May 27, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your answer to 8 is false; there are rules as outlined in Sections 11 and 12 of the DNC Delegate Selection rules. Long story short, uncommitted votes are turned into delegates exactly the way committed votes are converted into delegates.
May 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction.
May 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Questions 1-6, 8 can be found on the DNC website and probably in MI and FL news sources. However, I have to address the RIDICULOUSNESS of question 7.
So far, over 50 contests have been run (including Guam, USVI, etc.) In any other contest, has uncommitted received more than a few percentage points (7.3% or less)? Do you really believe that almost HALF the voters in such a populous state had no preference, especially when major candidates like Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot?
Now, put down the Crown Royal and step away from the computer.....
May 27, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
2) Unlike you, the guy at fivethirtyeight.com actually answered my question, citing percentages from an exit poll. He also pointed out that some people who voted Clinton preferred Obama, according to the exit polls, and showed that the race would have been very close, as more recent polls indicate as well.
3) Stop harassing people with asshole comments like your last sentence. You aren't accomplishing anything.
May 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hows this. Hope it helps:
:"PLEDGE 1: (received by Florida Democratic Party from a presidential campaign)Four State Pledge Letter 2008Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South CarolinaAugust 28, 2007WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge...The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle back in October 2007. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC"s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
May 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
Were they allowed NOT to sign the pledge yet still be candidates? Were there any benefits or sanctions for signing or not signing?
May 27, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait until my full posts pop up.
May 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey why haven't my full and complete answers been posted?
May 27, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't mine (which never appeared) but just as good
from CQ Today
CQ TODAY
Dec. 5, 2007 – 8:45 p.m.
Top 7 Questions on Florida and Michigan Primaries
By Rachel Kapochunas, CQ Staff
1. What are Florida and Michigan’s 2008 presidential primary dates and how and when were those dates finalized?
On May 21, Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist signed legislation into law designating Jan. 29 as the state’s presidential primary date. The primary had been previously scheduled for March.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm signed legislation into law Sept. 4 establishing Jan. 15 as the state’s presidential primary date. But, lower courts in Michigan ruled that the primary process was unconstitutional because Michigan political parties would obtain information regarding voters’ political affiliation through the primary process and that information would not be made public. Voters do not register by party in Michigan. But the State Supreme Court decided Nov. 21 to overturn those rulings and allow the Jan. 15 date to stand.
2. Why did these states and others schedule earlier delegate selection contests?
There is no heir-apparent for either party’s nomination and states are eager to exert influence over the nominating process. In past elections, the opportunities provided by early contests for candidates to gain momentum has resulted in more attention being paid to those states. Other candidates have stumbled in early contests and had to drop out. By the time other states held their primaries, the nominee was already apparent.
The desire to play a role in the nominating process has been so strong that more than 20 states have scheduled one or more party contests on Feb. 5, the earliest date permitted by both parties on which states may hold a contest without penalty.
3. What rules have Florida and Michigan broken by setting these primary dates?
The dates chosen by Florida and Michigan violate both national party rules because they fall before Feb. 5.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules stipulate that all but a select handful of states (Iowa- Jan.3 caucus, New Hampshire -Jan. 8 primary, Nevada- Jan. 19 caucus and South Carolina- Jan. 26 primary) are permitted to hold nominating contests earlier than Feb. 5, 2008.
Republican National Committee (RNC) rules state that all states holding binding delegate selection contests prior to Feb. 5 will be penalized, including New Hampshire and South Carolina. Wyoming Republicans also broke RNC rules by scheduling caucuses Jan. 5. The RNC has said it will not penalize Iowa Republicans for holding caucuses Jan. 3 or Nevada Republicans for holding caucuses Jan. 19 because they deem those to be non-binding contests.
New Hampshire traditionally holds the first-in-the-nation primary and Iowa traditionally holds the first caucus in the nation.
4. What penalties do violators face for scheduling primaries before Feb. 5?
Democrats in Florida originally faced the loss of half of their delegates to the party’s 2008 national convention in Denver and candidates who campaigned in the state would then be forced to forfeit any delegates received by Florida. But in late August, the DNC took a harder line against Florida, and threatened to strip them of all 210 delegates if the party did not change their delegate selection plan within 30 days. Florida Democrats did not back down and the DNC is now proceeding as if Florida will have no delegates attending the convention.
Just more than a week after Michigan’s primary was finalized, the rule-making body of the DNC recommended Dec. 1 that like Florida Democrats, Michigan Democrats should be stripped of all 156 delegates. The DNC said penalties would take effect in 30 days if Michigan Democrats chose not to alter their delegate selection plan.
The previous penalties laid out by the DNC for presidential candidates who campaign in these states are now moot since they have no delegates, the DNC confirmed Wednesday. But presidential candidates signed an earlier “four-state” pledge not to campaign in states that violate the DNC scheduling rules. The pledge was offered by the four states permitted by the DNC to hold earlier Democratic nominating contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
In addition, several Democratic candidates withdrew their names from Michigan’s primary ballot, including: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ; former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards , the party’s 2004 vice presidential nominee; Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson .
Republicans who violate RNC scheduling rules face a loss of half of their delegates, which is 57 of Florida’s 114 total delegates and 30 of Michigan’s 60 delegates.
5. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and others sued the DNC over the penalties? Was that resolved?
Nelson and fellow Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee L. Hastings were two plaintiffs in a case brought against the DNC and its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. They argued that the DNC penalties against Florida Democrats were unconstitutional and violated Florida voters’ rights.
But Chief U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida ruled in the DNC’s favor Wednesday, arguing that the national party has the right to set its own rules.
Nelson said he is not planning to appeal the case but will pursue legislation to reform the presidential primary system.
6. What scenarios may occur for Florida and Michigan at next summer’s national conventions?
The possibility remains that full penalties will not be carried out against Florida and Michigan and state parties are likely to appeal to their nominee and committee members to seat their delegates.
At the DNC meeting Saturday, Rules and Bylaws committee member Don Fowler of South Carolina, who opposed the sanctions against Michigan Democrats said: “No one at this table believes that the delegate sections for Michigan and Florida will be absent at the convention in Denver.” He continued, “We all understand that after the nominee is selected, manipulation will be taken to somehow place those delegations in the convention in Denver.”
Florida Democrats are preparing for all of their delegates to be recognized, despite the DNC sanctions. They have said that they will appeal their party nominee to recognize all delegates if the penalties are enforced. Florida Republicans are also operating as if all their delegates will be seated but said that if only 57 delegates are seated, they will be bound to all vote for the statewide winner in order to consolidate their delegate influence.
Michigan Democrats have 30 days to change their delegate selection plan, but have indicated they will not alter their plan. Michigan Republicans say they are pressing forward with their full 60 delegate plan and did not offer an alternate plan if half of their delegates were seated when faced with the scenario Wednesday.
The DNC said there is no precedent for the situation caused by Florida and Michigan Democrats and that states in recent years have altered their nominating contests when pressed by the committee to adhere to their scheduling rules.
7. Can anything be done to reduce “front-loading” for future presidential primaries?
A reform of the presidential primary scheduling plan could help avoid future front-loading and many lawmakers, party members, and political observers have offered their solutions to solve primary scheduling problems. Among them:
•The Delaware Plan- States are divided into four regions with the least populous holding the first nominating contests. One election day would be designated for each region.
• Rotating Regional Primaries Plan- Nominating contests would be grouped by regions: East, South, Midwest and West. A lottery would determine which region holds the first contest and that region would go last in the next election year. Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their historical status and the first states to hold nominating contests. This plan is supported by the National Association of Secretaries of State.
A rotating regional plan was introduced in the Senate in July by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. It is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 8 senators from both parties. Democratic Rep. Alcee L. Hastings of Florida introduced a companion bill in the House.
•A plan to divide states into six regions which would each contain six sub-regions. One sub-region from each region would hold a nominating contest on one of six designated election dates. No favored status is given to any states. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and co-sponsor Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan offered this plan in Senate legislation this year. Michigan Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell, wife of Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell , and Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saulius “Saul” Anuzis proposed a bi-partisan plan this week patterned after the Nelson-Levin legislation.
What do you think about the current primary calendar and process? Does it do the job the way you think it should in choosing each party’s nominee or does it need fixing? CQ Politics wants your creative solutions. Please post your ideas in the comments section below. We’ll have the highlights of the responses in a separate story next week.
Greg Giroux contributed to this story.
May 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 28, 2008 – 6:54 a.m.
Clinton Had a Long-Term Strategy for Florida and Michigan
By Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist
The debut of the HBO film Recount is a painful reminder of an excruciatingly long month many observers from both parties endured in late 2000. It is an important reminder of what is wrong about an electoral process in which the guarantee that “every vote should count” is fundamentally flawed, not by mere incompetence but by design.
The film is a reminder also of how inexact the analogy is to the cause for which the phrase has been recycled by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton . This coming weekend, the Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party meets to discuss what to do about seating both the Florida and Michigan delegations. The last two weeks have produced an escalation of Clinton rhetoric, comparing her effort to get the votes of the two states counted as comparable to that of suffragettes, civil rights marchers, and freedom fighters.
Clinton’s objections to the Democratic National Committee’s decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations for moving up the dates of their primaries in violation of party rules have been dissected in detail. For many observers, Clinton’s conversion seems to have come very late in the game. After all, the story goes, Clinton initially agreed that she would not campaign in either state and she even declared that neither contest should count.
As often as commentators remind us that Clinton’s new line of argument proceeds without ever acknowledging the inconsistency with her earlier statements and actions, the Clinton team seems not to worry about a revolt among voters who might see this move as rank opportunism. As often as we shake ours heads and marvel at the chutzpah of a campaign that seems unfazed by those who point out those inconsistencies, the Clinton team remains undaunted by any risk of an appearance of unprincipled shift in position. To some, the shift in course seems like a shameless act of cynical manipulation.
However, the real story of the Clinton reversal may be more troubling than the usual account suggests, and our own memories may well have obscured the real nature of how we have gotten to where we are 3 months out from the convention. The drumbeat for counting Florida and Michigan actually began in late January, before it became clear to most observers that the nomination was not going to be locked up easily and early.
Well before Clinton began her series of primary contest losses, she made public her plan to press for delegate votes from the two states that had violated the rules. Four days before the Florida primary on January 29, and just two weeks after her 55 percent share of primary votes cast in the Michigan primary in which neither Edwards nor Obama were on the ballot, Clinton announced that she would ask her “Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.” Perhaps the rest of us did not pay much attention at the time, but Florida Democratic Party officials took immediate notice and extended to her their thanks for her promise of support.
Contrary to the familiar view that her argument for counting Michigan and Florida is a tactic of last-minute desperation, Clinton’s reliance on counting both the delegates and the popular vote from both states was integral to her long-term vision of her possible electoral path to the nomination. It is — and has been for months — her Ace in the Hole. Hers is not a late campaign conversion or a post hoc, unplanned maneuver.
The effort to press for the counting of Florida and Michigan was a premeditated act, a deliberate strategy adopted at a time when it was clear that her opposition was relying on her representations that neither outcome would count. It was, in effect, a classic case of bait and switch.
While the opposition — and more importantly, her opponent’s potential voters — were relying on her assurances to the contrary, she was already signaling to Florida operatives that she planned to press for counting the anticipated favorable Florida outcome and thereby to capitalize on her opposition’s absence from the fight. What is most distasteful about how Clinton has dealt with the issue is not her inconsistency or her self-serving reversal of position. What is disturbing about the timing of her conversion to being the champion of the cause of the disenfranchised is the prospect that the advantage might have been gained by lulling the opposition into thinking that she meant what she said.
The litany of ways in which Recount portrays how Florida voters were disenfranchised in 2000 is most infuriating when it catalogs deliberate and premeditated efforts to make sure that all the votes are not counted or even cast. Lists of felons to be excluded from voting are portrayed as deliberately padded so as to exclude minority voters whose names merely sound like someone else legally barred from voting. Deliberate mischief designed to delay and ultimately prevent the proper recounting of votes strike most of us as vastly worst than mere incompetence or failure to anticipate voting machine problems.
The most troubling analogy between 2000 and 2008 perhaps lies in the possibility that a 2008 strategy was designed in advance to induce in the Florida electorate a false sense of the primary’s unimportance. If that was the plan, as the timing invites us to consider, then it offers a closer parallel to the various intentional forms of voter suppression in 2000 that make watching Recount so painful.
Madison Powers is Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His column appears on Wednesdays in CQ Politics.
May 28, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madfloridian's Journal
Geller and Gelber, Florida House and Senate minority leaders...complicity.
Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion: Primaries
Mon May 26th 2008, 12:45 PM
Dan Gelber is/was the minority leader in the Florida House, Steve Geller is/was the Florida Senate minority leader.
They were major players in moving up Florida's primary because of their positions.
We have seen the video of Steve Geller introducing his amendment. It was all a big joke to him. It was an amendment made to make them look like they had shown "good faith" and made an effort. Here is the video if somehow you missed it.
Steve Geller has filed a lawsuit against Dean, one of two pending.
I will repost something I posted about Dan Gelber, though I am not as critical of him. He is not suing, he apologized to Dean for his rudeness, and he is supporting Obama.
But still he played a role in the beginning.
Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
Gelber publicly on TV here said he did not represent Howard Dean, and a few other words.
Here is a portion of a letter he wrote to Dean. He admits they did not fight the GOP. Remember, they HAD to fight the GOP if they wanted to take advantage of the "good faith" clause in the DNC rules.
Much of the back and forth and criticism of Florida by the DNC has been focused on the conduct of the Democratic legislators who – some argue – did not fight against the early primary bill. Yes, there is gambling in Casablanca. Of course we didn't fight against the bill. When the Republican leadership made it clear that this was their priority, Democrats had two choices: support something their constituents support and that was going to become law anyway; or support the DNC Rules Committee enforcement of a primary system that our constituents revile. For me, this decision was easy.
No "good faith" shown.
The DNC had the following information when they voted to sanction Florida.
. Florida Democratic Legislators sponsored the bill to move the primary to January 29th;
2. Florida House Democratic Legislators voted in committee three times for the bill to move the primary to January 29;
3. All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29; and,
4. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after receiving a call from DNC Chair asking for help in opposing setting the primary date before February 5, “I don’t represent Howard Dean.”
5. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5th, that the only reason he offer it was “to show that there was an attempt to state within the Democratic Party rules.” The amendment failed on a voice vote with no debate being offered.
6. Florida Senate Democratic Legislators voted in committee to move the primary to January;
7. Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.
If I had been on the rules committee that had that information when they met, I would have been prone to believe that absolutely no "good faith" was shown. All Florida had to do was fight them, but they did not do that.
More on the subject here.
May 29, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment