No re-vote, apparently.
I feel bad for Florida voters, but they really need to do something about the people who caused this problem. The Democratic leadership in Florida. This is not on Hillary, Obama, or Howard Dean.
Reader Interactions
240Comments
Comments are closed.
JGabriel
John Cole:
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that this problem was caused by the Republican leadership in the State Congress.
.
Joe Max
It seems that Dean keeps leaving them a loophole. I’ve heard him say more than once that the Florida party can petition the rules committee at the convention, but Dean quickly moves on after he mentions it. Does anyone else remember this?
Joe Max
I found this:
CQPolitics.com reports Dean “outlined only two possible options for Florida and Michigan: either the states appeal to the credentials committee in July to have their delegations seated or they hold new contests that comply with national party rules.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080307.htm
This sounds like a loophole to me. Why does this seem to be overlooked as a possible way to seat those delgations?
JGabriel
Yep, just looked it up. One could blame it on the Dems and the Pugs, since the bill passed unanimously. But the Pugs have a 2 to 1 majority, and it was the only way to get election reforms through that the Dems wanted after the 2000 and 2004 debacles.
.
Dennis - SGMM
The bill to move up the Florida primary was sponsored by a Democrat in the Florida House and a Republican in the Florida Senate. It was a bipartisan cluster with very partisan consequences. Florida Dems were actually stupid enough to get suckered in by Florida Republicans.
jake
Maybe if we strap speakers to their ears, crank it to 11 and play “Won’t get fooled again,” until their noses bleed.
Andrew
I have no problem disenfranchising the retardathon that is Florida until they can run an election competently.
Face
I really, really couldn’t care less. I’m with Drew…until FL can demonstrate they can get their shit together, I dont trust a thing coming out of there.
TR
Between this nonsense, the 2000 butterfly ballots and Reps. Wasserman-Schultz and Meek refusing to campaign against the Republican friends in the region, I think we might just want to kick the Florida Democrats out of the fucking party altogether.
mark
Mother pussbucket …
Pb
Eh. Stupid MI and FL thought that Dean would blink, and they were wrong. You know what else would have been stupid? If they had tried it back in 2004:
AkaDad
Q. How do you spot a douchebag?
A. They say their voting for McCain because Obama’s pastor said something they didn’t like.
Laertes
There’s no possible good outcome. The blame properly belongs to the Florida legislature, but the Clinton campaign is going to spend the next month (at least) persuading people that it’s all the fault of the Democratic Party.
Once again, putting self ahead of party. Thanks, Clinton.
zzyzx
Does anyone know when Obama’s speech is going to be?
myiq2xu
I keep asking this, and have yet to receive an answer:
What overriding moral, legal and/or political principle is served by disenfranchising the voters of two states?
The Grand Panjandrum
The Florida Democratic Party was complicit in moving up the primary date, and from what I have read from fair observers they basically gave Howard Dean the finger. Here’s a little background on what happened in Florida:
Yea, I feel a little sorry for Florida Democrats, but they elected these pigfuckers, so my sympathy is somewhat mitigated by that fact. The Florida Democratic Party is a disaster that has come back to haunt the rest of the country.
(I recommend you Google Jon M. Ausman and/or Karen Thurman and read some of the other hits. Ausman (Florida representative to the Democratic National Committee) was a Kucinich supporter but is now uncommitted, and Thurman is the State Party Chair.
I spent an entire day reading up on this and it is stunning the arrogance and general disregard the Florida Democrats have shown everyone from Howard Dean to the rank file Democrats. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if the candidates work out some kind of deal to seat the pledged delegates, but super delegates from Florida should get the bastinado. They really have given the rest of the Democrats the finger.
bwaage
Harold Ickes, one of Clinton’s campaign managers, in August:
Voted to strip Florida of its delegates for moving their primary up.
Harold Ickes in February:
Ickes acknowledged today on the call even while trying to convince members of the media that Florida’s and Michigan’s delegations should not only be seated at the convention, but should also have full voting rights and that delegates should be allocated based on voting that took place in those states — even though in Michigan, Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot and uncommitted got 41% of the vote to Clinton’s 55%.[…]Ickes repeated earlier contentions that there was no reason to “re do” the votes in Florida and Michigan and didn’t directly answer if they would participate in a re-vote in Michigan.
Harold Ickes today:
“The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. If Barack Obama’s campaign stands in the way of a new vote, he will be putting his own political interests ahead of the people of Michigan. They deserve to have a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver. If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee’s ability to carry the state in the general election.”
Why is is that nobody in the media seems to be able to call them on their bullshit? I wouldn’t even mind it as much if it weren’t for the fact that they go into full on self-righteousness for blatantly retarded arguments.
Temple Stark
I told John S. (or John D.) a while back that i’d research what had happened in Florida regarding the bill that passed moving up the primary. It passed 218-1 (or something like that).
His contention was different from others i have read who believed the Democrats went along because a paper trail for votes was added to the bill. John S. said that the change of date bill passed first. (If I”m wrong and John S remembers, I’m more than happy to be corrected; that’s my memory of it)
I did look briefly but not extensively and found that the Florida Senate passed the bill first and then the House but that they never passed a change of date bill first. Both were always linked together.
Naturally, it appears to me, that having every count was more of a priority at the time. They weren’t to know that the race would be so close since it so rarely happens. They DID however, essentially agree that their delegates wouldn’t matter, even if they were seated at the convention at a later date.
Did anyone else find something different?
– Temple
akadad, I’ve read much more about people – on blogs only – voting for McCain because they don’t like Hillary Clinton. That makes much more sense, how?
zzyzx
None. They just can’t get together to organize a vote. It’s frustrating but everyone waited until the last second until trying to deal with this.
Laertes
Yeah, disenfranchising themselves was a pretty stupid move. Sure wish they hadn’t done that. I bet they’re feeling pretty stupid right about now.
Temple Stark
The Grand Pan, you’re “analysis” does not include the very relevant point that whatever the Democrats voted, the Republicans in the leg. had the votes to carry the day. The Rs had only been threatened with the loss of half their delegates so they knew they’d come out ahead.
Pb makes a solid point. This is politics and situations change, but a very solid point indeed.
I think the Florida Dems. thought they were getting as very solid something in return for sacrificing in the event of a very remote maybe. Now,iIt sucks to be Dem.
Temple
Temple Stark
The Grand Pan, your “analysis” does not include the very relevant point that whatever the Democrats voted, the Republicans in the leg. had the votes to carry the day. The Rs had only been threatened with the loss of half their delegates so they knew they’d come out ahead.
Pb makes a solid point. This is politics and situations change, but a very solid point indeed.
I think the Florida Dems. thought they were getting as very solid something in return for sacrificing in the event of a very remote maybe. Now, it sucks to be Dem.
Temple
AkaDad
Not voting for a candidate because you don’t like them is understandable. Not voting for a candidate because you don’t like their pastor doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Laertes
And to take your question far more seriously than you do:
The moral principle is very simple. All involved parties agreed to the rules ahead of time. To change the rules, arbitrarily, in mid-game, at the behest of and to the benefit of one party is transparently unfair.
The political principle is similarly clear. What’s at stake is the authority of the parties to make the rules governing their nomination process. The national GOP, ironically, took a softer line against their renegade states. They played this much smarter. Cutting the delegations is a pretty heavy sanction, and in particular will sting the sort of state party elites who are most directly responsible for the decision. But they stopped short of shutting the state out entirely, and so they don’t have to deal with this “disenfranchisement” fiasco.
In hindsight, that’s obviously what the Democrats should have done too. Thanks to the superdelegate system, the DNC had an extra stick to use: stripping Florida of all superdelegates. That would be an especially effective sanction, aimed narrowly at the people who were most directly responsible for the fuckup.
myiq2xu
From what I have read, the popular sentiment in Florida is “We had a primary and the results should count.”
That is a misstatement of the facts. The Democratic voters of Florida didn’t disenfranchise themselves. That was done by national party officials.
GSD
Can we sell Florida back to the French for some beer money or something?
-GSD
myiq2xu
The Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan did not agree. And the votes belong to them, not the party or the candidates.
Andrei
Will you shut the fuck up already? You’re making me wish we hadn’t run off Darrell. You’re making him look like some intellectual genius.
myiq2xu
We “liberated” it from Spain.
Dennis - SGMM
That was done by State party officials who were told in advance what the consequences would be if they moved up their primary. C’mon, you can do better than that.
Laertes
Wrong.
The people of Florida’s elected representatives in their state legislature disenfranchised their state.
The responsibility lies squarely on the Democrats of Florida and Michigan. They knew what the consequences would be. They did it anyway. It was a bottomlessly stupid move, but they did it. There’s no saving a fool from himself.
Chuck Butcher
After the DNC made it clear that FL was denied delegate selection on the basis of an illegitimate election, the State Party Chair told DNC (essentially) we’re too important for you to do that. Oddly enough, DNC figured having some measure of control over the Primary season was a bit more important.
Charlie Christ naturally is standing up for all Floridians…
Meanwhile Clinton is saying they should be seated, all the time they could have been working it out, “I will do everything in my power to see that Florida is seated,” the problem being no power to do squat about it. It is all Dean’s fault…
zsa
I currently live and vote in Florida. I’m not disenfranchised. I will vote in the election. My vote will count as much as any other Floridians (which is to say, possibly not at all, but still).
Point being that your use of the term “disenfranchised” is, well, disingenuous. My primary vote may or may not count because the Florida Democratic leadership are blithering idiots. But I’m not disenfranchised.
As a political principal, a national party does need to have rules and the constituent state parties must follow them. Simply put, if FL and MI get away with breaking the rules, the 2012 primary schedule is going to be a free-for-all that will harm the party significantly more than a couple of states having diminished representation this time around.
It’s not like this was a surprise to anyone … they deliberately cut in front of the line and they got called on it.
As for allowing their delegations to be seated, I don’t have a real problem with it … just tell them they can start voting on the second ballot. That’s fair, right?
The Grand Panjandrum
The analysis I provided was from a Florida Democrat. Did you read the relevant material in the link? The fact that the Dems were willing participants and voted with the Republicans all along the way (FIVE votes) is indeed germane to my argument. They NEVER raised a meaningful objection or even attempted to slow the legislation down. The Florida Republicans may having been sticking up the bank, but the Florida Democrats were driving the get away car.
With that said, the DNC negotiated with the FDP for months to come up with a solution. The Florida Dems gave them the finger. They would not negotiate. They wanted that January 29 date.
The Presidential preference vote could have been set for a different date and run by the Florida Democratic Party. It was their choice to NOT do so. Florida Democrats have been bad faith players all along and I have little sympathy for them or the Michigan delegation.
Temple Stark
But do you have little sympathy because it benefits your candidate? As i said, i know my support for Hillary completely clouds me on this issue. And I won’t repeat myself too much but the trade-off seemed decent at the time, it is arguable, because a close nominating race is pretty damn rare.
Can I at least get some people willing to argue / discuss honestly here? Without misplaced sarcasm preferably.
-Temple
Ninerdave
A few thoughts that have been rattling around my admittedly, otherwise empty head.
1) Are the same wingnuts who are pushing the Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a secret muslim the same that are up in arms about the stupid comments from his Christian minister? Probably, but, I dunno, the only exposure I get to the idiots from the right fringe are from John and Sadly, No!
2) When did politics become black and white? Life isn’t. Pat Buchanan for example: I do agree with him sometimes. Most times no. I have good friends that are total wingnuts, however outside of politics they are good people. Many more examples could follow. (e.g. Sometimes, I agree with Tweety and disagree with K.O.) Why can’t Obama look up to someone who he also disagrees with?
3)Kos today with whom I normally agree with:
How do you reconcile that? Given Kos has been on a years long mission to expand the Dem brand.
Rick Taylor
There’s the question of whether it’s right to count the delegates of Florida, and then there’s the question of whether it’s wise. Our people from Florida and Michigan going to vote for the Democratic nominee if they were denied a roll in choosing that nominee? I’d hope so, but I don’t feel confident of it.
TR
Close, but his mantra is “more and better Democrats,” I believe.
The Clinton campaign works against both adjectives there. It’s a narrow, self-serving campaign which writes off 2/3 of the country and has no hope for coattails for downticket candidates. And she’s a prime example of the old school DLC types that have watered the party down to spinelessness.
She’d be better than McCain, but she wouldn’t expand the party’s congressional or gubernatorial ranks, and she would only revive the old school ways of the last Clinton admin.
p.lukasiak
Why does Barack Obama want to disenfranchise 320,000 african american, and 202,000 hispanic, Florida voter?
I know…rules are rules… except when it comes to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, who broke the rules without penalty.
(I mean, I can see Iowa and New Hampshire, but not penalizing a heavily GOP state like SC, while lowering the boom on swing states like Michigan and Florida doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.)
Laertes
This is a promising line of argument:
– The Democrats threatened harsher sanctions against rogue states than the Republicans did.
– This created an incentive for the Republicans in Florida to bring the sanctions down on their state, because the Democrats would suffer more than they do, and in a zero-sum game that’s a win.
– The Florida Republicans had sufficient majorities to bring this calamity upon their state with or without the acquiescence of the Florida Democrats.
And therefore:
Florida Democrats shouldn’t be punished for something that the Florida Republicans did.
Now, if all that is true and there’s nothing else to the story, I’m sympathetic.
There are some problems, however:
– Whatever majority the Florida Republicans may have had, the Florida Democrats voted with them. If they wanted to advance the argument that it wasn’t their fault, they shouldn’t have voted for it.
– They tried to pull a fast one on the DNC. They engaged in some sham procedures to try and fake a trail of documentation proving that they’d made good-faith efforts to prevent the move, when in fact they were all having a good chuckle about it at the time and were clearly on board with the Republicans. They got busted on this.
– Since the entire argument above depends on the Democrats being victims of the Republicans instead of their co-conspirators, these facts are enough to demolish the case.
And so I’m left to conclude that the Florida Dems planned to play chicken with the DNC, and expected the DNC to flinch. The DNC hasn’t done so, and now they’re throwing a tantrum.
Well, tantrums ain’t pretty in any event, and I’ve got no patience at all when it ain’t my fuckin’ kid.
Laertes
“I know…rules are rules… except when it comes to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, who broke the rules without penalty.”
That’s interesting. I haven’t heard this line of argument before. What rule did Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina break?
zsa
The average Floridians on the street? They honestly don’t give a fuck if they’re represented at the convention or not.
It’s such an inside-baseball thing. The people who don’t follow politics are just totally not going to give a rat’s ass about a nominating process that happened a half a year prior. And the people who do follow politics have already got their minds made up.
TR
It’s a party nominating process, not an election. The state party officials can do almost whatever they want — hold a caucus or a primary or both, open it to all voters or just registered party members, have a mail-in vote, weight the delegate allocations by past district performance, etc. etc. And then the national party can determine how much to weight the delegates from any given state or, if they damn well like, to ignore them altogether.
You’re acting like this is a voting rights case. It isn’t.
demimondian
Look, folks, Florida KNEW what would happen. The bill passed after the DNC had stripped Michigan of its delegates — Florida decided it was the deciderator…and it was wrong.
Sorry, but the legal and moral principle is “You agreed with this in 2004. You set the rules. Now you live by them.”
Laertes
This is Calvinball. I’ve had seven years of a President who thinks that the rules exist at his whim and will change any time it suits him.
If Hillary thinks that we’re all looking for George Bush in a dress, she’s very much mistaken.
Dennis - SGMM
One of the major criticisms of the democratic party has been its failure to come up with a coherent strategy for winning elections and then to exercise the self-discipline to stick with it. Like it or not, Dean outlined a strategy that necessitated holding the primaries in a particular order. He also, with the backing of the DNC, clearly outlined the penalties that would ensue for violating that order. The legislators of Michigan and Florida chose to fly in the face of a clear directive. Either you have a strategy or you let the Republicans win another election.
AkaDad
If Florida doesn’t abide by the rules, then what kind of message does that send to the children?
Ninerdave
Agreed, but I don’t see how Hillary winning would do either is my point I guess. Just because they have a D after their name doesn’t mean much.
and Paul:
Oh fucking stop. The only “disenfranchisement” here is via the local party idiots who, against party rules, against DNC, threats moved their votes up. This has nothing to do with Obama. This have everything to do with a political gamble that was lost.
They knew what would happen.
So. Stop.
Randolph Fritz
The rule in question involved rescheduling the primary or caucus. The only problem is that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all broke the rule and were not penalized. Specifics here. (Via Avedon’s Sideshow.)
Billy K
POTD
IOTD
(Idiocy of the Day)
zsa
That nails it right there. Floridians will vote in November. Please stop using the term “disenfranchisement” to describe the situation. It’s totally inaccurate. Describing this as “disenfranchisement” demonstrates either ignorance or willful dishonesty.
‘Nuff said.
myiq2xu
From Corrente:
Rules is rules, except when they aren’t.
p.lukasiak
oh, I get it. when people vote, and their votes don’t count, that’s not disenfranchisement, right?
Funny, but I don’t recall any amendments to the constitution guaranteeing the right to vote — but not guaranteeing the right to have that vote counted.
p.lukasiak
the reason you hear crickets chirping is that the Obots are frantically trying to get in touch with MUPpet central to find out what to write now that their “rules are rules” argument has been blown to bits
myiq2xu
I would find their arguments more credible if they were (and had been all along) demanding that the situation be resolved so that the Democratic voters of Florida were not disenfranchised.
Especially since we need that state in November.
myiq2xu
Oops: and Michigan
zsa
Dude, go look up the meaning of the term. I’ll wait.
Oh yeah, and be sure to quote me the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to vote in party primaries …
The only real argument you have here is that FL and MI voters will feel so slighted that they’ll stay home in November. But that’s a political calculation. Please don’t insult us by pretending you have a legal case here.
Andrew
Hillary does, but we don’t. The end.
bwaage
Yeah, I guess thats nothing compared to the “none of the rules I agreed to matter” argument.
Look, the actual dates of the primary are largely insignificant. What is VERY significant, however, is the order in which they take place. MI and FL jumped ahead of the line in an attempt to be much more important and influential, played chicken with the DNC and the neither side swerved. Now they’re left with the consequences of their actions. Acting like what they did is in any way comparable to what Florida and Michigan tried to do is ridiculous.
But hey, the other day I saw a guy get away with jaywalking so that probably means it’d be okay for me to go steal a car.
p.lukasiak
Oh yeah, and be sure to quote me the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to vote in party primaries …
gosh, I guess you never read the 24th Amendment, in which the right to vote in party primaries is specifically mentioned.
I mean, don’t even TRY this kind of crap with me, dude.
myiq2xu
Where is that in the Constitution?
bwaage
Well if Florida wanted its votes to count then it should’ve paid the national party’s poll tax.
Conservatively Liberal
When it comes to Florida, it has proven over and over again that they are incapable of doing something as easy as holding an election without problems of one sort or another. While some may say that the voters of Florida are being disenfranchised, I say that their party leaders disenfranchised them.
All but one Democrat voted for it, and they might have a case if they all had voted against it, but instead they sponsored it in the first place. They knew what they were doing, and they knew the consequences of it. I don’t like seeing voters disenfranchised, but their ‘leaders’ brought this one on themselves. They deserve the blame, not Dean or the DNC.
If they had not pulled this stunt, they would be in a good position to count. Instead, they were shortsighted and wasted it all on a toss of the dice. If the Democratic voters of Florida are pissed, they better take aim at their incompetent leadership.
I prefer the Bugs Bunny solution for Florida; saw it off and push it out in the Atlantic towards Cuba. We will glue it back on when they get their shit together.
p.lukasiak
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!
zsa
PLuk, the reason you hear crickets is because it’s fucking 1 in the morning.
Without bothering to contact the MUP Cube, I’d hazard a guess that the state parties in question applied for and received waivers to the published policy prior to actually scheduling their events.
Couple of things to note: the relative order of the events didn’t change, and the time differences between the regs and the events are not significant.
FL and MI jumped across Super Tuesday! Half the country was poised to vote/caucus on the first Tuesday in February. FL and MI decided to screw half the country.
If FL and Mi delegates are seated, didn’t that “disenfranchise” California and New York? FL and MI cut in line. It’s unfair to all the states that followed them.
Like I said, seat the delegations at the convention and allow them to vote starting with the second ballot. That’s fair.
demimondian
Um, actually, I have. In fact, here’s the text of that amendment, Paul:
[Emphasis mine.]
Nice try, but that wording has nothing to do with the situation in Florida. So, how about you find an accurate example?
bwaage
He’s a moron, that’s for sure, but he has come up with a fun little game to play. Everyone join me in a game of Constitution: The P.Luk Version!
I’ll start:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law.
The Constitution calls for TOTAL ANARCHY!
Randolph Fritz
Folks, question is not who made the mess; this is an intraparty squabble, blown up big. Question is, if we want the radical right gone in 2009, what do we do?
Kumbyya Kumbyya
Kumbyya Kumbyya
p.lukasiak
well, since you obviously have a sense of humor, I’ll deal with you’re previous point more seriously…
You’re right, of course, that the intent of the rules that IA, SC, NH, and NV violated mean that their infraction is not that important– the rules were there to serve a purpose, and insofar as the purpose was served, its not all that bad that the rules were ignored.
By the same token, the purpose of the decision to remove the delegates from Michigan and Florida was to prevent them from reaping the benefits of interfering in the stated order of the early primaries. And that purpose has been served as well — candidates did not campaign in those states, and the media paid practically no attention to them as a result.
In other words, the actual purpose of “punishing” FL and MI has been served, and despite their technical violation of the rules, their delegates should be seated — just as because the actual purpose of the rules concerning dates was served, and IA, NH, SC, and NV should not be penalized for breaking those rules.
myiq2xu
How did they “screw” or disenfranchise anyone? Why should Iowa, New Hamster, Nevada and South Carolina get special treatment? Where does it say in the Constitution what order the primaries and caucuses must be in?
How is it unfair to “cut in line?” Especially considering that the line isn’t fair in the first place?
zsa
Pluk, direct question:
Did NH, IA, and SC request and receive permission from the DNC to deviate from the schedule prior to scheduling their events? I don’t know the answer to that, but you being such a smart guy – and as you are accusing these states of conducting their events in bad faith – you should be able to answer that, right?
Also, have you actually read the 24th Amendment? You might want to, you know, browse through it before you make statements that you can’t deliver on. Dude.
p.lukasiak
Nice try, but that wording has nothing to do with the situation in Florida. So, how about you find an accurate example?
uh, I hate to break it to you, but the 24th amendment recognizes that the right to vote in party primaries exists (and is on an equal level with the right to vote for president) — you said it didn’t exist in the constitution, and were proven wrong.
This is a question of whether Obama and his supporters are working to disenfranchise the voters of Florida. They are, The people of Florida voted. In recofd number. Obama doesn’t want their votes to count. That is disenfranchisement, because it the right to vote isn’t the right to put marks on a piece of paper, its the right that guarantees that those marks have meaning.
bwaage
The problem with that is that the result of that punishment was a set of screwed up election results in two large states. Publicly informing everyone that the vote is not going to count for anything has a way messing things up like that, you can’t simply fix it by deciding it matters afterwards.
p.lukasiak
Did NH, IA, and SC request and receive permission from the DNC to deviate from the schedule prior to scheduling their events?
short answer, no. The rules weren’t changed, and the state legislatures acted in advance of any waiver that was made — and while I don’t know if waivers were given ex poste facto, what is important is that just as in FL and MI, state legislatures acted to schedule elections that violated party rules. Only FL and MI were punished for it.
p.lukasiak
except that people voted in record numbers in Florida, and while I can’t prove it, I believe that the less than average turnout in Michigan (based on turnout in other states — this was Michigan’s first primary election — it used to caucus) was the result of candidates removing their names from the ballot.
And the reason people like Obama and Edwards removed their names was to keep voters in Iowa and NH happy — and Hillary was punished (at least in Iowa) for not taking her name off the MI ballot.
I mean, we’re talking about Florida here — its not like the state exists in a vacuum, and had no media available. There was even a Democratic debate in Florida — the process wasn’t screwed up except for advertising sales reps for local television stations and newspapers.
zsa
You’re kidding, right? How about this: it’s like a footrace. Everyone’s at the starting line (except for the Special Olympic kids who get a head start), and then a couple of runners jump the gun.
Yeah, the argument that FL and MI somehow “disenfranchised” CA and NY is pretty silly. A bit more silly even than the argument that not seating a rogue delegation somehow “disenfranchises” Florida primary voters.
There’s no argument that the rules about primaries are, frankly, fucking odd. But all the Super Tuesday states are lined up there for a reason … and the states that go prior to ST have been just sort of historically grandfathered in. So basically we’ve got this line in the sand that all of the other states respected, and we’ve got 2 states that jumped across.
If FL and MI had gone for Obama, would we be having this discussion? I’m absolutely sure that my opinion on this issue is the same regardless of who it helps. Can you say the same?
Ninerdave
Shorter Iq…rules were cool, until they went against my candidate. Hell!! I even like caucuses!!!!one! Until then.
zsa
Yes. I was wrong. I forgot that the 24th amendment referred to primaries.
Explain how this helps your case in any way?
Laertes
So now you guys are arguing that the rules are unfair? That the party has no right to permit Iowa and New Hampshire to go ahead of Super Tuesday and deny the same to other states?
This is really all you’ve got?
Ninerdave
Shorter p.luk: It’s not disenfranchisement, unless ya’all can ignore the rules that my candidate agreed too.
Ninerdave
yup.
Adam
In response to myiq2xu, Temple Stark, and the others who are making this argument in this thread — not the original poster — the answer is NO. THIS IS WRONG. PERIOD. GO READ THE ACTUAL DNC RULES. They say, point blank, that in the event that the state voting rules frustrate the DNC rules, all the state party has to do is submit an alternate plan ahead of time in order to use a different selection process.
The notion that the Florida Republicans somehow tricked the Florida Democrats or hold them over a barrel here is WRONG. Point blank, full stop, hold the presses WRONG. The original DNC rules from August 2006 specifically anticipated this situation and provided the Florida Democrats a safe harbor that was designed for them, and they refused it. And they paid the price for it.
This argument has nothing to do with the fact that the bill to move up the primary passed unanimously in the Florida legislature or that they were warned 6 months ahead of time what the consequences would be and went ahead anyway and only started whining after it became clear that Clinton wouldn’t put the primary away on Super Tuesday. None of that even rises to the level of relevancy, because the argument is based on the fundamentally false premise that the Florida Dems were boxed in by the DNC and the Florida Republicans when the exact opposite is in fact the case.
It’s right there, in the DNC delegate selection rules, in plain English, in Rule 21. Now can we stop having this stupid fucking argument?
Ninerdave
…and holy shit! Imagine that the DNC said don’t hold your primary early or we won’t seat your delegates.
they did, and their delegates ain’t gettin’ seated! Wowozowie! How the fuck did that happen! Musta been Obama/McCain/Demon-of -the-day/’s fault!!!!
Pb
Ok, I’ll bite.
Popular vote, bitches!
P.S. Here’s a flashback of the primary calendar jockeying, for anyone who’s still interested in what was actually happening six months ago or whatever. And yes, regarding Carl Levin, it’s the same thing that was going on four years before, in my previous post.
myiq2xu
You do realize that the states aren’t competing with each other? At least they’re not supposed to be.
Yes I can. I was saying they should revote. Obama might have won if they did (still might in MI) and I would not complain about the result.
Why is Obama so reluctant to get out front in reaching a fair solution? (giving him half the votes isn’t fair)
zsa
As a DFH, do I have the right to vote in the Republican primary, then?
If you tell me “no”, I’m going to be screaming “disenfranchisement”.
myiq2xu
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.” – FDR
Adam
To address some other specific arguments:
myiq2xu:
Not having state primaries in goddamn 2007, which is what New Hampshire would have done if Michigan and Florida had moved their primaries up. If the DNC didn’t draw the line in the sand, we’d have primaries on the Christmas after the midterms.
There are also “legal and moral” problems with (1) disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters who would have voted for Edwards, Obama, etc., had their candidates been on the ballot, and (2) changing the rules post ex facto to reward a candidate — any candidate — for violating pledges to the party.
Laertes:
(NB: Sorry for lumping you in with lukasiak and myiq2xu, but this is a legit question and deserves answering.) The argument is that they broke Rule 11, but it’s not true. What’s not being mentioned there is:
(1) Those dates weren’t contested, so, in fact, no rules were broken at all. Delegate sanctions are discretionary, just like the DNC’s ability to provide for alternate selection methods if a hostile legislature gets in the way. Florida and Michigan were warned and the other states weren’t — if Florida or Michigan had raised a challenge on this point, there might be an argument here, but they didn’t, which is why this argument is a lie or at least a gross distortion.
(2) The rules specifically exempt IA, NV, NH, and SC anyway, so moving up those primaries a few days didn’t make a lick of difference and everyone knows it. The rules assume that those states will vote early just like they always have (like that or not — personally, I don’t, but that’s not the point) which is why no one cared until a few weeks ago. The rules even freaking order those states the same way that they actually voted.
myiq2xu:
Show me where Hillary was complaining about this before Iowa. Go on. Show me where she was standing up for the rights of those poor disenfranchised Floridians before it became clear she might actually need their votes. Explain why Howard Ickes was for the sanctions before he was against them. Try.
Dipshit.
p.lukasiak
OK, seriously, you guys are fucking retarded. The 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax in elections, including primaries. It doesn’t prescribe rules for the state fucking primaries of the political parties who aren’t, in fact, Constitutionally recognized agents. This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
Good night.
Adam
myiq2xu:
SERIOUSLY. YOU CAN SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW.
myiq2xu
Somebody at another site asked what Obama should say in his speech tommorrow to resolve the controversy over Rev. Wright.
My answer:
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
SASQ
myiq2xu
Maybe they could have punished New Hamster instead of two large battleground states?
myiq2xu
“How bullies win arguments”
IOW – You got nothing.
myiq2xu
I was pointing out your complete and total lack of credibility.
Dipshit
zsa
Well, why hasn’t Hillary worked to reach a fair solution? The point could be argued that the Clinton campaign’s insistence on seating the rogue delegations is what has delayed things to the point that FL can’t even do a mail-ballot.
But really, it’s between the states and the DNC. I expect the candidates to fight for whatever advantage they can get. I wouldn’t expect Obama to acquiesce to the rogue delegations being seated, and wouldn’t expect Hillary to just walk away from them. Two go in, one comes out. Sausage gets made.
Gonna hold you to that. It’s beginning to look like MI will be able to field a legitimate delegation, whereas FL is fucking hopeless. But it’s not hopeless because mean old Obama is a bad man who’s keeping the poor Florida Democrats down. It’s hopeless because the Democratic leadership here are a bunch of fucking boobs.
Venality and incompetence are not partisan qualities here in the Sunshine State.
Laertes
You guys would be a lot more persuasive if you’d pick a narrative and stick with it, rather than flailing around like you’re having some kind of seizure.
I know it’s confusing dealing with a couple people at once. It’s even more confusing when you’re using that as an excuse to not seriously address the issue that you pretend to care about.
Adam
Yes. Way to point out my lack of credibility before I’d commented on the thread. Very impressively original riposte as well. It’s almost like you knew you were going to say something stupid before you even wrote it.
So, I have a question: are the rules not the rules unless they’re the rules that are not quite sacred principles, and how do you tell the difference? And which are the DNC Rules, or have you read those? Which rule reflects the 24th Amendment principle which you’re so intimately familiar with? How does that rule interact with the mandated safe harbor? Answer quickly or someone might start wanking about crickets!
Adam
— Again, none of my negativity was intended to be directed at Laertes, despite the fact that his comments keep popping up in the crossfire. ;) …Another needless casualty in the endless fight again teh moronic.
Adam
Uh oh, six minutes have passed! According to this comment this is when we’re supposed to start mocking the the Clintonistas (is that what they’re called? didn’y lukasiak say Obabots or something?) for not knowing the DNC Rules.
Does anyone else here crickets? Must mean it’s bedtime.
Adam
— crickets crickets — the sound of “My IQ is Twice As High As You” frantically flipping through a dictionary to decipher the actual DNC rules he’s been arguing about, oh, all thread. Well, it’s a pleasant noise. And at least he might have gotten around to reading them. So everyone got a little something out of tonight.
::checks watch:: Well, bedtime for me. Done waiting. I’ll be back tomorrow and see how he did.
Rick Taylor
I had some sympathy for the Florida Democrats, because I’d heard they’d tried to push the primaries back to comply with the DNC rules, and the Republicans wouldn’t let them. Then I saw this video. God damn.
Laertes
Great Link, Taylor. The “oh those poor Florida legislators” crowd has some soul-searching to do. That slob in the video, that’s your hero.
TenguPhule
Second major US bank now in the rumor mill for potential collapse.
If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of a millions of 401ks screaming in agony.
wingnuts to iraq
Untrue things said by myiq2xu:
“The Democratic voters of Florida didn’t disenfranchise themselves. That was done by national party officials.”
No, it was done by Florida Democrats TO Florida Democrats.
Martin
Not only was the DNC receptive to an alternate plan, they offered roughly a million dollars to help pay for it. The state party was too busy trying to prove to Dean that they didn’t need to listen to him if they didn’t want to.
Seriously, Florida voters got fucked by their state party. Floridians are encouraged to remind their representatives that not only are primary elections democratic, but so are recall elections for the pigfuckers that denied them that right.
Randolph Fritz
Why should she work for a solution that throws votes out? (Votes for her, to be sure, but still.) Seems to me that resolving this is the job of the people who made the mess. And for heaven’s sake, folks, it doesn’t matter who fucked up–if the Dems want to win Florida–and I assume they do–they’re going to have to fix this.
Wilfred
If Clinton is the nominee, forget Florida. McCain will have a popular governor backing him, Lieberman for Likud cover and 90% of black and once-inspired voters staying home after Obama gets screwed.
Rarely Posts
This isn’t true. When it became clear that the Reps wouldn’t split the two bills apart (paper trail, early primary) the Dems submitted an amendment to make the primary on February 5, a date which met with the DNC’s approval. Every Dem voted for this amendment. Every Rep voted against it.
scrutinizer
Why? Do you seriously think Democratic voters in FL will refuse to vote in the general or vote for McCain because of this mess? Talk about voting against interest! Most of the anecdotal eveidence I’ve heard tells me that voters in FL are pissed at the state party, but plan to vote in the GE, and that this will not affect their vote.
Rarely Posts
The irony here is that the reason states like FL and MI and a few others wanted earlier primaries than NH, etc. is because they wanted to let minorities have an equal say in the process.
scrutinizer
Got a link for that, Rarely? It goes against everything I’ve read about the situation.
Rarely Posts
You forget that Florida is a swing state and many Dems are DINOs in Florida. And yes, many of them will be pissed if this isn’t resolved and either not vote, or vote for McCain as many Dems see him as a moderate.
Rarely Posts
I’ll look for it, but I’ve got to go to work. I was reading about it on Andrew Tobias’s website and got the information there.
dslak
If Obama is the nominee, the Dems simply aren’t going to win the Florida. Whether by design or accident, Hillary has poisoned the well against him there.
If the argument is that voters there have been disenfranchised, who benefits by their re-enfranchisement is irrelevant.
Xenos
These states were always supposed to vote a few weeks early. When FL and MI improperly moved up the dates of their primaries these three states, with very little time to arrange things, moved up their dates to restore the proper order of things. They then went to the DNC for approval, and since these states had acted in compliance with the spirit of the the rules (to correctly apply the principle here) the DNC did not penalize them.
Remember, too, that this result was known for months before the FL Democratic officials thought to do anything about it. Given the difficulty of getting the FL Republicans to go along with fair elections, I would consider the loss of a primary delegation to be a worthwhile sacrifice. There was no problem here until the Hilbots, realizing that they would lose an advantage here, decided to rewrite history and to stir up resentment as a way of reversing a serious losing trend on her part.
TR
The 24th amendment forbids the use of the poll tax for primary and general elections when they are held. It doesn’t say anything about how those state primary votes must be handled by the national parties.
Christ, you’re embarrassing yourself here. This is pathetic.
Rarely Posts
scutinizer, here you go:
http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q5
over_educated
Thank you for my morning amusement…. myiq and p.luk have successfully made themselves look like complete idiots in this thread, jumping on the “Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada broke teh rulez” meme. They lorded this over the board for the several hours in the middle of the night when folks weren’t coherent enough to use the great Gazoogle to point out that, indeed, none of these states broke any rules. At which point they retreated into the “principles are more importnat argument.” Thank you gentleman for ilustrating so succinctly everything that is vile and ridiculuous about the Clinton campaign. Bravo gentlemen. Bravo.
p.lukasiak
do you know how to read for context?
The discussion was about how Obama is disenfranchising voters in Florida. Someone tried to claim that the right to vote in primary elections was not in the Constitution. I shot him down, citing the 24th Amendment.
p.lukasiak
really? when were the rules changed?
demimondian
Oh. So that means that the 24th gives 18 year olds the right to vote for President? Umm…no. Why, no, the base qualifications are specified elsewhere. What about women? Nope, that too. Felons? Nope.
What that amendment does is state that a certain class of artificial barriers is not legal. Period. It says nothing about a voting rights argument to recognize an election as a whole.
Nikki
Question…if Florida Dems had not voted with the Republicans to hold the early primary, could they have appealed to the DNC to pay for a separate Democratic primary? Would it have been granted?
over_educated
P. Lukasik –
Please refer to the actual DNC Rules.
“Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
Notice the blockquote. The covered in the blockquote do not include Iowa, Nevad New, Hampshire and South Caroline. Thus, they MAY if they so choose, move the date of their primaries, because, by the rule itself, those states MAY move out of compliance with the rule.
Reading comprehension FTW.
dslak
No one has any rights to vote in a primary. The only complaint anyone could make likely to stand up in court would be some kind of violation of the Civil Rights Act, or something similar.
Whether that would work in the case of Florida is an open question, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
over_educated
Ack Grammar FTW:
The states covered in the blockquote do not include Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Caroline. Thus, they MAY if they so choose, move the date of their primaries The rule implies that those states MAY move out of compliance with the dates outlined above.
Scrutinizer
Thank you. I’m interested in trying to square this account with something that was quoted earlier:
Obviously two very different portrayals. Your quote offers a good faith effort by FL dems to remedy the problem, the quote I just gave was from John Ausman, a FL representative to the DNC, writing about the same amendment. He offers a POV that argues that the FL Dem legislators were not acting in good faith at all.
Rarely Posts
I kind of doubt it. IMO, the DNC would still say it was Florida’s fault for allowing a Rep majority in the state Congress.
Nikki
I see, though, that the DNC offered to pay for a caucus in Florida. Why didn’t the Florida Dems accept it?
Rarely Posts
Scrutinizer – it is a bit confusing. Ausman didn’t provide any links to back himself up so I don’t know how accurate he is being. Also, as a representative of the DNC he’s going to spin it his way. Though of course so will the Florida Dem Party, as they don’t want the blame either. All I know is the amendment exists and wasn’t allowed by the Republicans. I do know that the Florida Dem Party urged Democrats to vote regardless and they were none too pleased with the legislature.
Shygetz
They weren’t; the DNC chose not to sanction these states for moving their primary dates but not changing their order (which is their privelege under rule). They made this choice before voting, when everyone thought Clinton was going to walk away with the thing. FL and MI were warned of sanctions if they jumped the order, but they did it anyway, again back when everyone thought that Clinton was going to walk with the thing. So, the DNC made its decisions within the rule and without prejudice against Clinton.
But you’ll use any post hoc rationalization you think you can get away with to seat disqualified delegates in an uncontested state. Nice.
Rarely Posts
I don’t remember them offering to pay. A caucus would also create another entire set of bad feelings. There’s really no way to resolve this issue that will make everyone happy that I’ve heard of.
Nikki
True, but it would ultimately serve the purpose of ensuring a fair delegate selection and seating at the convention. Right now, it all strikes me as a bit childish…stating you want one thing, but doing everything possible to ensure it won’t happen.
Scrutinizer
That’s silly. It’s not to the DNC’s advantage to unseat the FL delegation, and you know it. If the FL dems had shown any sign of voting against the bill, the DNC probably would have made an exception. It was the perception that the FL dem state legislators were flouting the party rules that led to draconian penalities—draconian penalties that Clinton advisor Ickes voted for.
Jen
My son said this last night in reference to one of the books in the Narnia series, which his dad is reading him:
“The White Witch is SO evil that she even breaks her OWN rules.”
It just seemed apropos.
I mean, hearing her on NPR last week, it was Obama’s choice to remove his name from the ballot. Chutzpah doesn’t begin to cover it.
myiq2xu
OMG – The bitch! She told the truth?
Scrutinizer
Ausman does refer to the DNC RBC report, but I don’t have time to go Googling right now. I assume that the RBC report finds as a matter of fact that the FL Dems didn’t make a good faith effort to oppose the rescheduling. My hazy recollection of the rhetoric coming from FL dems at the time supports that, but I don’t want to rely on my recollection. I get burned when I do that!
Jamey
People who couldn’t figure out a paper ballot in 2000 not getting to vote in this year’s primary? Not exactly a bad idea in my book.
Scrutinizer
Jen, IIRC it was Obama’s choice to remove his name from th MI ballot. All the other major candidates except for Clinton made the same choice, to show solidarity with the DNC’s sanction of the MI delegation. Clinton, on the other hand, was not interested in supporting the Party’s decision, even though one of her campaign advisors voted for the toughest sanctions possible against MI and FL.
Rarely Posts
No, it isn’t in the DNC’s advantage to unseat Florida. Which is why it is their own best interests to come up with a plan that will solve the issue. Like I posted earlier on the thread, the states that wanted to have early elections wanted the primaries to be more inclusive. Good motives, bad result.
And the FL Dems did make a sign of voting against the bill–the amendment, remember?
You’re trying to make this issue Clinton’s fault and I guess that’s fair. But in reality it isn’t Clinton’s fault and it doesn’t matter what she or Obama say, at the end of the day it’s the voters in Florida that get screwed.
Rarely Posts
So you favor an intelligence test before allowing people to vote? How democratic of you.
chopper
by that logic closed primaries are unconstitutional.
sorry, you fail constitutional law. the primary “clause” of the 24th amendment merely states that the US government does not have the right to mess around in a private primary using a poll tax. that’s all.
the rules for whether or not a private party wants to seat delegates are up to that private party.
Pug
Why does Barack Obama want to disenfranchise 320,000 african american, and 202,000 hispanic, Florida voter?
God, the Clintonian spin. It makes you dizzy after a while.
Xenos
Insulting is what it is. It is insulting that they think we (the public) lack the intelligence to notice that they are being dishonest and shameless. I am not inclined to vote for people who insult me.
As for p.luk, the stunt with the 24th Amendment puts him on skis flying over the proverbial Megachasma pelagios.
GSD
Sen. Clinton is going to have a tough time getting elected without the African-American vote.
Talk about biting off ones nose.
-GSD
myiq2xu
I have a copy of an leaked reaction to Obama’s speech today:
“It was his best speech EVAH! Barack Obama was uplifting and inspiring, while addressing the controvery with honesty, humility and specificity.
Obama masterfully showed how Rev. Wright was falsely smeared while simultaneously denouncing Wright’s controversial statements that Obama obviously never heard.
Barack Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
The speech will be at 10:15 a.m. EST.
dslak
How did you hack Andrew Sullivan’s blog account?
Xenos
No, she did not. She made a truthful statement of fact while omitting a more pertinent fact: that after committing to the DNC that she would have her name removed from the ballot, she failed to do so.
So if you think ‘telling the truth’ can contain a deliberate attempt to mislead the people you are talking to, that does not say much for your trustworthiness, myiq2xu. Typical Clintonian double-speak, that. I am ashamed that I have tolerated and at times defended that sort of thing from the Clintons in the past. Fits right in with the professional liars of the modern GOP, though.
Bob In Pacifica
myiq2xu, I don’t get to vote in Congress. My elected representatives do. The people of Florida were screwed by their state party leaders. They changed their primary dates in defiance of the DNC even though they were told what would happen. All candidates, including Clinton, agreed not to “campaign” or “participate” in the two primaries. Demanding delegates from the results of an unauthorized primary is kinda like participating. In fact, getting the delegates is the most important part of participating.
No matter how much hand-wringing or whining Clinton supporters now do over the loss of democracy in Florida, her candidate was willing to sell them down the river before she “won” the non-contest.
Plus, ever since the non-primary happened the state party officials, the Florida Congressional delegation and Clinton campaign have all been playing chicken with the DNC, presuming that somehow the DNC would bend the rules and that the faux primary would be recognized after-the-fact. By not trying to negotiate a redo they all played to “run out the clock,” and they did, for themselves.
The irony is that Michigan, by negotiating a redo, will make Florida irrelevant in this argument. Obama will gain at least close to a split, maybe an outright win there, thus once again proving that Obama, in a real election that allows campaigning and people on the ground, has the awesome ability to close any gap. By whatever way the Florida delegation is calculated and seated, it will be after Obama has secured the nomination, thus making Florida more irrelevant than if the state had never moved the date of its primary. That will be the punishment.
Jamey
Wow, nice leap to conclusion there. Would that your name were NeverPosts.
Since you missed the point, I’ll make it again: I’m just not bemoaning the fact that Florida’s Dems, knowing the rules, still managed to run afoul of the established rules for their party’s primary. Florida’s past record of participation in the great franchise is a bit spotty. Which means nothing so much as a hook on which to hang a reasonable argument.
Wilfred
The wanking of this bore has reached Darrel status. Instead of a pie filter is there any way to reduce his posts to: “Look at me! Look at me!? Discerning readers can fill in the necessary lameness.
myiq2xu
No, she never agreed to take her name off the ballot.
bootlegger
How can someone who claims to have such a high “iq” defend a person who is clearly, clearly, prevaricating on her position regarding Michigan and Florida. She had one position at Time 1 and another at Time 2, and in between she was challenged for the nomination. It doesn’t take a barrista to follow the evidence.
Maybe Michigan and Florida should be seated, maybe they should re-vote, but to claim that an election with only one name on the ballot was somehow democratic is the very height of ignorance.
bootlegger
Anyone know what time BHO is speaking today? On-line broadcast?
myiq2xu
My position is “Fix the problem, not the blame.”
BTW – Do you know that you have no Constitutional right to vote for President?
Your state (mine too) sends “electors” to the Electoral College. The Constitution determines how many electors each state gets (one for each member of Congress) but leaves it up to the states to determine how they are selected.
Although all states select the electors by popular vote, there is no Constitutional requirement that they do so. Your state legislature could decide who your state is voting for.
Even worse, the electors are not legally required to cast their votes for any particular candidate! They could act like “superdelegates” and vote for anyone they want.
The Other Steve
Why didn’t she?
Zifnab
I can do you one better than that.
“Why does Barack Obama want to disenfranchise all those white people?”
myiq2xu
There were three of four Democrats on the MI ballot and both Hillary and Obama were on the Florida ballot.
The Other Steve
I think you mean automatic delegates.
Jen
Let’s say she never agreed to take her name off the ballot in MI. Did she, or did she not, agree that the results would not count, before she decided they should. Did Harold Ickes, working for her campaign, vote to sanction MI and FL, or did he not. There is simply no remotely honest way to argue that those votes should count as is, and everybody and their grandma knows it.
I think Bob is right, FL isn’t going to matter in the end. I have heard a proposal that that FL seat half of its delegates as is — a la the Republican punishment — and that MI do a re-do primary. Although it chafes me to seat any variation of the current FL delegation, it is clear that they are not going to come up with any reasonably competent manner of a do-over and they probably don’t have the money anyway, and it isn’t going to change the outcome regardless, so I guess that may be the most workable outcome.
myiq2xu
Bacause she didn’t have to?
chopper
which is another reason why all this talk about the 24th amendment is idiotic. the constitution doesn’t guarantee that a person’s vote for president counts for anything. if you assume that it does in fact treat a private party primary vote as being on the same level (it doesn’t, and p.luk is a retard for even trying that line of argument) as a citizen’s vote for president, it wouldn’t mean much of anything anyways.
Xenos
woops. Need to eat crow here:
This would have Clinton staying in MI as an insurance policy. I still have not been able to find Clinton or her people standing up for having the MI and FL delegates seated until after it appeared she was losing.
Original Lee
Just because I’m curious, is there any reason why the DNC doesn’t disenfranchise the Florida superdelegates and seat half of the Florida elected delegates (a quasi-Republican solution)? Nobody would get exactly what they want, but at least it would be a decision that would let us concentrate on other stuff.
Zifnab
That’s what really bothers me. Hillary didn’t seem to give a damn about the Michigan / Florida situation until AFTER the primary. She should have been running a full court press on the issue back in December or January. After the Iowa caucus would have been an idle moment, when it became clear that Obama had a fighting chance. Florida and Michigan were polling big for her for a long time. If she’d made a bigger stink back before the results were in, people could have had an easier time with her concern. But if this was all under-the-table cloack-and-dagger bullshit, she’s triangulated herself into a hole on the issue.
bootlegger
Edwards was not on the Michigan ballot. It was Hillary and Gravel.
Florida is a different matter in that the ballot was fair, but again both sides agreed not to campaign and agreed not to accept the results. She changed her mind later and you know it.
myiq2xu
Aw shit, I was only being sarcastic. It seems like GOS put out a memo. From Corrente:
bootlegger
Sorry, it was Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel on the ballot in Michigan. That is not, as your high “iq” would have it, “three of four”.
myiq2xu
That was a typo – it was supposed to be “three or four.”
I was right – it was four.
Blue Neponset
Thanks over_educated. I have been hearing many of the Hilbots make the same crazy argument about NH, SC, NV & IA breaking the rules as myiq2xu and p.lukasiak did upthread. I was stupid enough to think there was a shred of truth in their argument. Thanks for showing us all they were either lying or misinformed or both.
p.lukasiak
Oh. So that means that the 24th gives 18 year olds the right to vote for President? Umm…no. Why, no, the base qualifications are specified elsewhere. What about women? Nope, that too. Felons? Nope.
wow, this is seriously irrelevant, for you demi, singularly dumb.
Wording of the 24th makes it clear that the “right to vote” for Federal office-hoders includes both primary and general elections. Its not about who has the right to vote — it covers everyone who has that right, and forbids the use of poll taxes to interfere that right for those who have it.
Zifnab
Totally O/T but rather important in the global scope of things:
So I’ll be boycotting the Olympics this summer. If this is how China treat their citizens while demanding international respect, fuck’m. If the show is on, I’ll change the channel or leave the room. Companies that want to turn a buck on advertising will not have me as a willing participant viewer. Its Tiananmen Square all over again and I’m getting sick of these disgusting displays of oppression and brutality. I won’t tolerate this shit from my government. I sure as hell won’t tolerate it from a bunch of psuedo-Communist totalitarians.
The Other Steve
And the DNC doesn’t have to seat the delegates.
There ya go.
p.lukasiak
nice try, but the provision is not permission to break the rules setting the dates; rather it is designd to prevent the circumstances under which IA, NH, NV, and SC would break the rules.
The rules are the rules, and had not IA, NH, NV, and SC broken the rules and moved their primaries in response to the rule-breaking of FL and MI, you would have a much better case for continued sanctions.
TR
And to honor the pledge they all signed to the DNC.
Clinton signed it too, but decided to ignore it.
myiq2xu
Your logic is breathtaking.
p.lukasiak
They weren’t; the DNC chose not to sanction these states for moving their primary dates but not changing their order (which is their privelege under rule).
really? Where is that privilege spelled out in the rules? There is nothing in the rules that say “if another state violates the rules, you are allowed to violate them too.”
what the rules do is attempt to prevent the circumstances under which other states would break the rules.
bootlegger
I was right, 4 of 9 i hardly democratic.
bootlegger
I was right, 4 of 9 is hardly democratic.
myiq2xu
False – There was no such pledge.
Wilfred
This from one of the leading Israel supporters on the site who, when hundreds of Palestinians are murdered by the Israeli occupiers, can’t think of anything negative to say about them or the government. Fucking cunt.
The deafening silence about Chinese aggression in Tibet is actually a sign of decency from a government that pays for the murder of Palestinians every fucking day. Fair paly’s a jewel.
myiq2xu
Considering all of them were eligible to be on the ballot, and 5 of them voluntarily withdrew their names, how is that undemocratic?
p.lukasiak
the purpose of the “punishment” was to prevent MI and FL from getting the attention that the DNC had decided should go to IA, NH, NV, and SC. Had Clinton made an issue of it prior to the primaries in MI and FL, that would have violated the spirit of the punishment.
The underlying assumption behind the extreme nature of the punishment (i.e. rather than do what the GOP did, and strip only half the delegates) was that the nomination would be decided during the primary process — that’s why the number of pledged delegates need to win the nomination was lowered to 2025. Once the assumed event had occured, both delegations would have seated because it would not have affected the outcome.
But, of course, it turned out that the assumption was false, and now its time to deal with the reality that a decision was made under assumptions that proved to be false.
The Obama position is basically “well, we went to war in Iraq, and even though it turned out that our assumptions were false, we have to stay there.”
chopper
of course. the 24th amendment says nothing about who has the right to vote or if their votes mean anything at all.
all it says is that the federal government cannot put a poll tax on people voting in a public election or a private primary.
it does not in any way equate the two types of votes or guarantee that a primary vote in a private political party counts for anything at all, nor does it prescribe any rules by which a private political party must weigh votes or delegates in a primary.
your citing of the 24th amendment in an argument to seat democratic delegates is worse than idiotic. it shows a complete lack of understanding of constitutional law.
Jake
No shit. Meanwhile, pResident Cowboy’s faithful horse CondiRice whinnies:
Worst. Administration. Ever.
Xenos
You can’t have democracy without a fair process. Counting MI would be an unfair process. QED.
Now you could take the Politico quote I put up earlier, and use it to support the claim that MI would have been fair, but that Obama took his name off the ballot in order to pander to Iowa voters, thus creating this dilemma he claims to be disadvantaged by. Still, there is the small matter of Clinton not supporting any particular state, or denouncing all of hte ‘rule-breaking’ states, until after the elections.
It is all a lot of post-hoc rationalization, and is not persuasive to any critical thinker. If Michigan ought to count, but can’t, why does she not give back her delegates from New Hampshire? Why does she not demand that Iowa not count? Is it because she would be laughed out of the building?
Hillary has lost already, even with the Michigan delegates and the Florida delegates. Deal with it.
The Other Steve
I just read Obama’s speech
WOW
zsa
Wow, the HRC fanbois are still at it, huh? These guys are getting paid by the word …
Look … in the general, no one in Florida or anywhere else is going to change their vote based on a procedural problem during the nomination process. We may take Florida, we may not. Tremendous number of dumbasses in Florida. But whether a rogue delegation is seated or no, by the time we get to the general, everyone but a handful of politics-obsessed blog-junkies will have totally forgotten about it.
So fuck all that talk about how we have to seat Florida or it’ll work against us in the general. It’s bullshit. Look out the fucking window … Bear Stearns just sold for pennies on the dollar pennies. And there’s more to come.
By November, we can run a cartoon rabbit for President as long as the economy is firmly affixed around McCain’s neck.
4tehlulz
Obligatory posts:
Not enough, race card, empty suit, didn’t quit, etc.
p.lukasiak
all it says is that the federal government cannot put a poll tax on people voting in a public election or a private primary.
it does not in any way equate the two types of votes
really?
either you believe that the right to vote doesn’t exist, or you recognize that it exists for “primary or other” elections.
myiq2xu
You obviously got the GOS memo.
cleek
Wow indeed. damn, that man’s got a gift.
not that it will matter to the cynical cocksuckers who will shrug, scrunch their noses, and smugly proclaim “meh. he’s probably lying.”
Wilfred
Tianamen Square is it? One guy? Here’s a Palestinian kid – there are hundreds more px like this if you want them. What’s the matter, wrong color, wrong religion?
dslak
What p.luk is citing is not a positive right to vote, but a right against of certain forms of interference (i.e. poll taxes) in such votes, when they occur. States still have a prerogative not to have such matters subject to a vote at all.
The Other Steve
I received no memos. I read the transcript over at wsj.com
p.lukasiak
me too. Way too much spin in the first part of the speech — much of it clearly deceptive.
The rest of it was pretty good, but I don’t think it solves his “Wright” problem at all.
The Other Steve
You do not understand Tianamen.
cleek
like i said
Jake
One guy?
Why does Wilfred continue to flaunt his bigotry against the Chinese?
The Other Steve
When is Hillary Clinton planning on giving a similar speech to discuss race in America?
p.lukasiak
quite true. But irrelevant within the context of the discussion of Obama and his allies in the DNC’s efforts to disenfranchise florida voters.
The state chose an “election” – once that choice is made, the right to vote in that primary election exists.
As long as Obama opposes seating the Florida delegation, he is disenfranchising the voters of Florida — the right to vote isn’t the right to mark a piece of paper, but the right to have that mark possess meaning. And the Obama forces are insisting that the mark be stripped of any meaning.
Wilfred
I understand when the national aspirations of a people are routinely crushed and hundreds of its people murdered in the name of Jewish nationalism that’s ok, and American citizens pay for it.
So home come Tibetans are better than Palestinians? Must be the worthlessness of sand nigger blood.
p.lukasiak
Just as soon as she has spent 20 years as a member of a church lead by a white supremacist.
4tehlulz
You’d think he’d hate on China more, since they’re one of Israel’s weapons customers.
John Cole
Hugh Hewitt? Is that you?
Yep. It is.
Wilfred
My reference was to the iconic photo. The photo of the Palestinian kid is equally iconic – to people who oppose oppression and tyranny whatever the source. When the US condemns Jewish Nationalist murder of Palestinians, then that will be fair play.
cleek
i wonder what you can tell of a candidate by the quality of her supporters ?
chopper
yes, really.
there’s nothing in there that equates the two types of votes. if there were, as i noted above, closed primaries would be unconstitutional as a requirement to be a member of a party would be an abridgement on a regular joe’s right to vote just as it would be for a presidential contest or an election for a senate seat.
you’re an idiot. as i said, the 24th amendment says nothing about who has the right to vote or if their votes mean anything at all. it’s about abolishing the poll tax, nothing more.
Jake
Shorter Wilfred: {Mumble, mumble}
Garrigus Carraig
Yes, but is this why? Has U.S. policy w/r/t Tibet changed since relations with China were re-established? What should the policy be toward states which oppress their minorities?
I think US policy on human rights in other countries has been pretty consistently inconsistent since it became an issue at all. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The Other Steve
Lame.
myiq2xu
I actually watched the whole speech. The audio sucked, he was breating on the mic, and he kept pausing for applause that I could barely hear.
Content was underwhelming. This is the greatest speaker of our generation?
Grade: C+
chopper
who does that right then exist for? everyone in the state?
Garrigus Carraig
Welcome to the United States of America. We hope you enjoy your stay. No doubt you’ll get used to unfamiliar elements of our customs and folkways during the course of your visit.
Wilfred
Sorry, kid, but I don’t do junior high pussy speak. Stand up against all oppression or shut the fuck up. You think it’s ok for Jews to kill sand niggers but wrong for Chinese to kill Tibetans, then be a man and say so.
p.lukasiak
As someone who was reading Soul on Ice when you were still in diapers, as someone who is a lifetime Democrat — and a far left one at that, I’m a little sick and tired of this kind of crap coming from a life-long Republican who has only embraced the Democratic party because your own party reached extreme depths of venality and incompetence.
Go back and read your crap from a couple of years ago, Cole, then find stuff that I was writing back then — then dare to compare to Hugh Hewitt.
chopper
i totally lost the office pool. i was predicting that wilfred would try to steer the thread towards jews and israel way earlier.
shit, i’m out 5 bucks.
chopper
he’s right, john – you’re up against a bona fide constitutional scholar here. give up while you can.
p.lukasiak
that right exists equally for all qualified voters. States can limit the definition of ‘qualified’ to some extent (with regard to primaries, they can restrict it to members of the party whose nominee is being chosen, for example).
Wilfred
Jews kill niggers in Palestine. You could phrase it differently if you want but it’s the same thing. You can’t deal with the impossible cognitive dissonance of lamenting Cinezse transgression against Tibetans while ignoring Jew murder of Palestinian niggers, so you get to play pussy tag in the hallway and snicker like the little Heather you are. So?
The Other Steve
The problem is. John Cole is right about you. You do sound like Hugh Hewitt.
over_educated
The comparison to Hewitt has nothing to do with your political stance and everything to do with your rhetorical and logical contortions you use to support your position. (Which if you haven’t picked up on, is the reason that Cole left the Republicans).
As for the diapers comment: Did you also where an onion on your belt, because it was the style at the time?
p.lukasiak
You keep missing the words “primary or other”
As I note above, the state can set ‘qualifications’ for voters in primaries without running afoul of the Constitution. Of course, if you knew anything about constitutional law, I wouldn’t have to explain any of this to you.
John Cole
It appears that you have read what I wrote too closely, because you have caught the wingnut. I may have been crazy then, but you have caught teh crazy now. And for someone who claims to oppose venality and incompetence, you have latched yourself on to an odd campaign.
p.lukasiak
where exactly is the logical contortion in saying that Obama and his supporters don’t want the votes of Floridians to count?
Because ‘rules are rules’, except when some states get to break the rules without any penalties?
I’m not the one performing logical contortions here.
Jake
Shorter Wilfred: [Maybe if I yap a little louder no one will notice my hatred of the Chinese and complete silence on the continued ill-treatment of Native Americans.]
p.lukasiak
hey, I’m not the one riding the Magical Unity Pony.
I don’t “support” Clinton in the sense that I think she’s a great choice. I started out as ‘anybody but Hillary’ — and the only reason I favor Clinton is because after it came down to two candidates I looked at Obama and thought that Clinton was a better choice than him.
You’re the one in the thrall of irrationality — I’m a cynic and a realist, and the only reason my arguments may seem absurd is because they are rebuttals to absurd premises.
Scrutinizer
No, I’m really not trying to make it Clinton’s fault. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Ickes in particular, when he called for maximum punishment for FL and MI, but now he says “Those votes should count.” But that isn’t Clinton’s fault.
I agree that the voters in FL are getting screwed. But this whole primary kerfuffle screwed not only the voters, but also marginal candidates like Edwards, who may have been encouraged to stay past Super Tuesday if they had reached 15% or more of the vote in a “state that counted.” There’s no way that a revote could remedy that.
The vote in FL was tainted: tainted by no campaigning and tainted by voters who stayed home because they were told their primary vote didn’t count, when otherwise they would have voted. That vote shouldn’t count. It wasn’t fair to all the voters, and it wasn’t fair to the candidates. If FL wanted to to a revote fine, but they don’t. So who’s disenfranchising voters? Not the DNC, who would be happy with a revote. Not either of the campaigns, who have stated that they would support a revote. The people who are disenfranchising FL voters are the same ones who disenfranchised them the first time: the FL legislature.
John D.
Jesus Christ.
I reinstalled my OS and lost the pie filter, and among the first things I see is myiq flat out lying again.
From Clinton’s website.
Here is the text of the pledge the candidates signed.
chopper
and you keep missing the words “by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax”
just because the amendment lists two types of votes that may not be limited with a poll tax does not in any way mean that the two votes are equivilated in any way.
which is exactly my point. a primary vote has never been considered on the same level as a vote for president. states can set up whatever type of primary they want, a firehouse primary, caucus, whatever. a state party can flip a coin as long as the DNC is okay with it.
there is no constitutional guarantee of a private political party primary vote counting for anything. period. you haven’t shown any such guarantee at all. you keep pointing to the poll tax amendment which means nothing.
if you knew anything about constitutional law you’d use actual reasoning to defend your assertion rather than pointing to the word “other” and waving your hands around.
if you got a degree in law, i’d ask for your money back.
Scrutinizer
myiqis0 keeps saying that Clinton signed no pledge.
I guess the Gray Lady made this up:
p.lukasiak
that would explain the record turnout in Florida….
(I think you can make this claim about MI, but not Florida)
4tehlulz
I’m curious. Does CAMERA pay you well to post this drivel? I’m looking for a little pocket change and could probably do a better job at feeding their EVRY1 HAET J00Z worldview than you are lately.
p.lukasiak
Oh, I agree. The issue isn’t whether Obama’s supporters on the DNC have the right to disenfranchise Florida’s voters. They can do so unless the disenfranchisement is discriminatory in Constitutional terms.
And absent evidence of unconstitutionally discriminatory intent, Obama and his supporters are perfectly within their rights to disenfranchise Florida voters like they are doing.
Which is the really the point Obama and supporters are disenfranchising Florida’s voters. They were enfranchised by the State of Florida, were disenfranchised by the DNC, and Obama and his friends at the DNC want to make sure that they stay disenfranchised.
I pointed out the 24th amendment only because someone said that the right to vote in a primary is not in the Constitution. It is.
And I pointed out the Connecticut case to demonstrate how stupid your argument was concerning closed primaries being unconstitutional if there is a right to vote in primaries.
And you can try and twist the facts all you want, but the truth remains — Obama and his supporters want the voters of Florida disenfranchised.
p.lukasiak
no, myiq said that Clinton signed no pledge to the DNC. read your own quote. The pledge made wasn’t to the DNC.
chopper
i didn’t know harold ickes is an obama supporter. wow, that’s really interesting.
exactly. and refusing to seat delegates at a convention for violating party rules is not discriminitory in constitutional terms. not at all.
i find it entertaining that you’re trying to paint this as some kind of obama conspiracy. its all the more entertaining when you factor in the fact that harold ickes on the DNC voted to strip the two states of delegates. but it’s obama and his iron-fisted grip on the DNC that’s causing all this.
i never said that a closed primary would be unconstitutional if there is a right to vote in primaries, nimrod. i said that a closed primary would be unconstitutional in your crazy made-up world where the right to vote for president was equivilent to the right to vote in a party primary. the connecticut case even supports my point. they’re not equivilent at all. party rules govern the process in many ways and allow different standards from state to state regarding how delegates are chosen and how they are seated.
but please, continue with this whole obama conspiracy. it does wonders for your credibility.
p.lukasiak
lets see now. I said the DNC disenfranchised the voters of Florida. That would have included Ickes at the time.
And I said that Obama and his supporters are the ones who want to keep them disenfranchised right now— and all you can do is bring up Ickes vote months ago (which, of course, I already tacitly acknowledged.)
As to your other argument, the right to vote in primaries is the same as the right to vote in general elections. The only difference is that everyone who has the right to vote can vote in a general election.
Wilfred
that’s a start, What drivel – the fact that sand nigger is the preferred term used by the IDF in the occupied territories? The hebrew term is Araboushim, I just translated into English.
You can’t cry for dead Tibetans and leave out Palestinian children – makes you a hypocrite. Oh, and BTW, shove your anti-semite shit up your lame ass. Israelis murder Palestinian civilians = Jews murder niggers. You support either expression – so go fuck yourself.
chopper
this is the stupidest shit ever. the DNC enforces the rules. obama doesn’t own or control the DNC.
so it’s the same, only it’s different. nice one, p.luk.
the right to vote in a political primary is not the same as the right to vote in a general election. if i’m an 18-year old independent, i can vote in the general. i can’t vote in a closed primary. that right there shows that the rights to vote in both elections aren’t the fuckin same. if it were i’d be able to vote in both.
chopper
seriously, i lost money on you dogg. when you’re going to hijack a thread with the whole ‘israel and the jooz’ shit could you at least let me know so i can try to win some of it back?
4tehlulz
So you’re saying CAMERA is paying you. After all, you didn’t deny it.
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts wrote:
For anyone who thinks the Florida Democrats made a good faith effort to comply with DNC guidelines, check out this video I linked to earlier. I was fooled myself; I took them at their word. I feel angry now, they made a fool of me; they’re just bald faced liars.