The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged FL and MI

[housewolf]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan

Read the whole article, there is LOTS there -
How it happened in both states,
Dean's plan now for the FL & MI delegates
the Clinton & Obama campaigns re: FL & MI
how the MSM is treating the issue
the DNC's inconsistencys in following its own rules
the role of the GOP in each state
how Iowa & New Hampshire got their earlier-date waivers
how the RNC handled the situation

There's too much there to try to synopsize here. Even if you think you know everything about the FL/MI issue, there's a lot of info there that has not been widely publicized.

[madfloridian]

1. Blaming Dean's Yale roommate?? I just wrote about that. Stooping pretty low.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1954

[SoFlaJet]

4. hey MadF

I was looking for you yesterday (I think) with this pretty interesting theory from a reader's comment on The Politico;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5320254&mesg_id=5320254

[madfloridian]

6. Yes, most voted because of the tax amendment.

I missed that...thanks.

[Nine]

32. Way to misrepresent.

You make it sound like some conspiracy theory. He was also an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign.

"The Democratic national committeeman who introduced the motion on the party's Rules Committee to deprive Florida of all its delegates -- a precursor to the Michigan decision a few months later -- was Ralph Dawson, a New York lawyer who was Howard Dean's Yale roommate and an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign. Dawson's role was seen as a signal of Dean's appetite for a kick-ass rebuke.

As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida."

But really that's only a small part of the entire article.

[OzarkDem]

2. Obama supporters are trying to blame it all on Hillary

Twisted people.

[SoFlaJet]

5. there you go again

with that projectionism crap

[OzarkDem]

8. Yep, standing up for truth and logic

Shame on me.:sarcasm:

[gal]

I don't see how..

but Hillary did sign a statement acknowledging those delegates would not count nor be seated as did Obama. She is on camera stating they will not mean anything so explain why it is only AFTER she needs those votes she changes her mind? If she believe every vote counted she should not and would not have signed that document.

Now if Michigan and Florida get revotes so does every other state that has been hood winked by either campaign. I know the people of Ohio would like one.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. No

she didn't sign a statement that they wouldn't count. She signed a pledge not to campaign there. She kept that pledge, even though Obama didn't.

[gal]

14. Wrong

No she signed a statement saying they would not count as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Got a link to that assertion?

Here's the text of the four-state pledge:

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
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.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.
___________________________ __________
John/Jane Doe, Doe for President DATE

[gal]

17. Participate means what?

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Do you have a link

to the supposed agreement she signed saying the delegates wouldn't count?

Don't change the subject.

[gal]

19. yes i do but yours is a link i was going to post as well

who is changing the subject, what does participate mean? Do you want audio of her saying they dont count as well? There are links for that to.

Why did she sign a pledge not to participate there?

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Nothing in the text I posted

mentions delegates.

Not participating means they didn't campaign in those states, didn't hire people in those states, open offices, etc. etc.

[gal]

22. It says participate...meaning that the voting held at that time does not count!

Clinton nor her campaign had made any public protest when Florida's punishment had first been announced in August 2007;<[1> that Clinton, along with other candidates, had signed the pledge not to campaign or participate in Florida;<1> and that at the time the pledge was signed, Clinton's then campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle had proclaimed that

“ We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.... 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.

Ickes also voted for them to be disallowed from being counted.
If im not mistaken I believe Clinton did as well. I'll check on that on.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. You're seeing things

[gal]

25. Am I?

Ickes didn't vote on it?

Ironically, Ickes is one of the 30 members on the Democratic National Committee?s Rules Committee that voted last summer to strip Florida of the delegates that he now says should be counted.

Ickes today stood by the DNC decision to strip Florida of the delegates. He said the motivation was to stop the stampede of states moving up their primaries and conflicting with early states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080318/BLOG01/228510926/-1/RSS1001

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/tag/DNC+pledge+signed
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Hillary Clinton had a press release on Sept. 1 stating:

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.
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1719

[stevenleser]

56. Gal, good luck, Whoever you are arguing with is on my ignore list, that means they likely

have no intention of giving your points real consideration.

[redqueen]

24. Unless there's some corraboration, I don't know which version is correct.

There are three versions floating around out there.

[madfloridian]

30. Do you believe Dean and his Yale roommate planned it?

Because that is the substance of this version.

[Nine]

34. That roomate was also an 04 campaign advisor to Dean.

Why are you cherry-picking and misrepresenting one small part of the article? There's plenty there for you to address.

[madfloridian]

36. Oh, trust me I have been addressing it. That post is ridiculous.

It starts from the premise that FL and MI are effing victims. They were not victims, they were complicit from early 2006. They worked with Rubio. I can not believe the sloppy writing there....I see quite a few mistakes. I also see the very angry comments at Huff Post.

The article refers to this moment in time. Watch the video. Closely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHuQi17EaE

That was the Dem senate minority leader making a joke about his amendment.

Here is what was said by the little fellow who introduced the bill.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com:80/madfloridian/1836

"And Jeremy Ring, a Democratic state senator from Broward County and co-sponsor of the legislation, defended it.

"If the choice is Florida is relevant and has no delegates versus being irrelevant and having delegates, I'd choose being relevant with no delegates," Ring said. "We did this so 18 million Floridians could take part in the presidential primaries, not so a few hundred people can go to a party in Denver."

He effing thought there was just a party? Read the rest of it. They did it to be important.

I know you don't care, but here is more.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1906

[joshcryer]

39. They *are* victims. 150k people would've voted under their "fair" plan.

Fuck that.

---

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.

---

This article is brilliant.

[yewberry]

45. Tell us, please, what compromise would be fair.

FL refused a non-binding primary with a later nominating convention.

FL refused a caucus.

FL refused a revote.

What, then, could the DNC have offered that the almighty FL Dem party would have deigned to consider?

[joshcryer]

52. Count their fucking vote.

[yewberry]

54. No compromise, then, right?

Allow Fl to bulldoze and blackmail their way into what they want, regardless of the rest of the voters in the rest of the country?

Count the FL votes, even though the FL Dem voters were told that their votes wouldn't count in the primary, and allow the FDP to tell every voter in every other state in the country that they're less important than bullies?

Sure, count their fucking vote, and poison everyone else in the country against FL, MI, the DNC, and whoever benefits from counting those votes. Super idea.

[stevenleser]

57. And people's votes were counted. We know how many voted.

It just wont translate into delegates.

[yewberry]

58. So what solution are you proposing?

Honestly, what compromise will the FDP accept?

I have no issue with FL Dem voters. Shit, I want your votes to count, but I don't know how to do that without bowing to your insane extortionist FDP.

I'm really, really sorry for the position you're in.

[stevenleser]

60. Thank you for asking...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080208_democratic_catastrop.htm

[Nine]

41. Then why no investigation as mandated under DNC rules?

The rules also demand that the DNC's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct "an investigation, including hearings if necessary" into these matters. The purpose of such a probe is to figure out if Democratic leaders in a state that did move up "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith" to either "achieve legislative changes" to bring a state into compliance or to "prevent legislative changes" that took a state out of compliance.

Why should we have to take your word for it?

[yewberry]

44. Can you actually expect that the DNC

would need to conduct hearings re: "good faith" remedies on the part of Florida?

FL Dems attacked Dean and the DNC. They flouted the rules, and they did so publicly. The "good faith" attempt to introduce legislation to move the FL primary date was (unfortunately for the FL Dem party) videotaped. FL Dems wore pins at events depicting IA and NH with the motto, "Size counts." The FL party was betting that they could force the DNC and the Dem voters in every other state in the Union to do exactly what they wanted just because FL believes it's more important than the rest of us.

After they voted to move their primary and with full knowledge of the consequences, FL Dems refused a non-binding primary with a nominating convention. They refused a caucus. They refused a revote. What, exactly, do you think is a fair solution? Should the DNC have allowed FL to bully its way into the front of the primary calendar, inviting further primary chaos, threatening the status of less-funded candidates, and allowing FL to tell the rest of the country to take a back seat?

What, exactly, should the DNC have done? There has been NO compromise that FL has been willing to accept.

[Nine]

46. So an investigation isn't necessary because their "guilt" is obvious... to you.

My how progressive of you. Hope you're never accused of anything.

[yewberry]

48. That's just silly.

If I were ever accused of something that warranted investigation, be assured that I wouldn't claim innocence with mountains of witnesses and videotaped evidence against me, and after I'd been caught trying to shoot the DA in the back.

Feel free to think whatever you want of me. Many of us have been following this issue since last summer, long before it became an issue between the candidates. You can't be expected to know that history.

[Nine]

49. Again, you're saying there's so much evidence that an investigation isn't necessary.

Then why not just go ahead and have one as per DNC rules just to humor people like me -- you know, those of us who don't just want to take the word of anonymous Internet poster that it's an open-and-shut case.

[yewberry]

50. You do know that there were hearings, right?

I said that I don't know that I'd feel the need, but there were hearings. You knew that, right? Regardless of the spin of the article in the OP, there were hearings.


http://wizbangpolitics.com/2007/12/05/judge-rules-in-favor-of-dnc-over-florida-primary-date.php

[Nine]

51. Nope, that's not a DNC investigation into whether FL acted in good faith.

That's a legal judgment that parties have the power to decide how their candidates are chosen. The question here is whether the DNC followed its own rules and conducted a real investigation into the good faith issue. The OP article also claims that the good faith standard was applied much more generously elsewhere, such as NH (i.e. there is strong evidence that NH did not act in good faith).

[madfloridian]

53. Yes, there was.

You really don't want the truth.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1957

[madfloridian]

47. There was a hearing....Thurman and Ausman were there.

I wrote about it..I guess I will have to find it for you.

They tried to pretend innocence and play the victim, but the DNC had the transcripts from the house and senate here. They knew they did not try.

Yes, there was a hearing. No, you do not have to believe me at all.

I never said you did.

[redqueen]

62. Hahahahaha...

No... no, I don't. Was good for a laugh though! :D

[gal]

3. Baloney...

The governor of Michigan is a democrat so there goes that theory.

[Ronnie]

10. Wow! Seven minutes.

Fast reader. After I read it, I'm going to figure out your WPM.

[gal]

13. do you think that is a new link?

This is not the first time I've seen that link or been familar with the situation on Michigan or Florida.
And I am a speed reader so now what...

[Ronnie]

26. Ten words a second

Impressive. How would you rate your comprehension?

[housewolf]

27. The link was just posted this morning

n/t

[Thepricebreaker]

7. Yes they rigged elections that DONT COUNT.

[riskpeace]

9. Thank you for the link.

As far as Florida, we see the Republican Party of Florida and the RNC completely outfoxing the DNC for another election. Those folks in Tallahassee seem to have the fancy DC types all figured out.

People are persuaded by their emotions. Whoever is to "blame" for the FL and MI disasters, the emotion of the voter who has been disenfranchised is a powerful motivator. This strategy to disenfranchise your base in two key swing states is not very well thought out.

If someone can point out how the Democratic nominee wins in November without FL and MI, then I would be a bit less concerned about our nation.

[suston96]

11. Is it being suggested that Republicans planned all this to bitterly divide the Democrats? nt

[UALRBSofL]

16. OP this is a very thorough article by Barrett

It gives Clinton more options and credibility when she proceeds with the argument for the MI/FL votes to be counted at the convention.

[JayFredMuggs]

20. I don't think she'll even be at the convention

She'll be out of money and her credit cards will be maxed out by then, she won't be able to buy a plane ticket there.

JMO

[Nine]

28. No way should this thread sink!

I haven't even finished reading it but I've learned so much already. Back to finish it...

[chimpymustgo]

29. This is the REAL story. So much for a new kind of politics.

:shrug:

[yewberry]

31. Let me see if I have this.

In FL, the Dem party and Dem legislators supported the move, though they were warned that it could cost them all of their delegates. Some FL lawmakers introduce a measure to move the primary which still won't comply with DNC rules, and FL Dem lawmakers laugh (on tape) at the "good faith" measure they introduce to move the primary to meet DNC rules. State leaders opt not to accept a non-binding primary with a nominating convention afterward. They later refused the option of a caucus, and still later, refused a revote. This is somehow the doing of Barack Obama. Or Howard Dean.

In MI, where such a move had far less Dem support, the legislation was signed by the governor in September. The state party issued demands that the DNC sanction NH for moving its primary, and began claiming that they wouldn't have moved if NH hadn't done so first. NH subsequently moved its primary (in November, months later than MI claims) to be ahead of MI's leapfrog date. Many candidates removed their names from the MI ballot, rendering it meaningless. As late as last week, MI was still trying to find a way to conform to the DNC rules. This somehow Barack Obama's doing. Or Howard Dean's. Or NH's.


Yes, there are problems with the DNC ruling and with how this is playing out. There are good people on all sides who want a solution, though ideas about what that means are different.

Lying and spinning the way this article does is no way to find common ground or a solution.

[Nine]

33. AMAZING!

Some key quotes from the article, which, I must mention, was researched by seven people:

***
The DNC is charged, under its rules, to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a "good faith" effort to abide by the party's electoral calendar, and to impose the full weight of its available penalties, namely a 100 percent takedown of a state's delegation, only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved....The rules also demand that the DNC's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct "an investigation, including hearings if necessary" into these matters. The purpose of such a probe is to figure out if Democratic leaders in a state that did move up "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith" to either "achieve legislative changes" to bring a state into compliance or to "prevent legislative changes" that took a state out of compliance. A DNC spokesman could not point to any real "investigation" the party conducted of the actions of "relevant Democratic party leaders or elected officials," as the rules put it.

(snip)

Another factor attracting Democratic votes in the legislature for the bill was one the DNC should certainly appreciate. Governor Crist threw a reform long sought by Florida Democrats into the bill: a mandatory paper trail for all votes cast in future elections. "The Democrats have been fighting for a paper trail bill since 2000," said State Senator Nan Rich, "and Governor Bush never would support it. So finally we got a governor who was willing to support it and it ended up connected to the early primary bill. That was unfortunate. If the paper trail hadn't been there, I believe we Democrats would've all voted no. Still, if all the Republicans had voted one way and all the Democrats had voted another way, the bill would've passed." (This Christmas tree bill -- whose title alone was 154 lines long -- had something special for everyone. It would even enable Crist to run as John McCain's vice presidential candidate, revoking a ban against state officials running for federal office.)

(snip)

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.

(snip)

The DNC critique of Florida's noncompliance included a reference to the fact that a Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. Obama even named Ring's 2006 campaign manager to run his statewide Florida effort. Ring was such a champion of the early primary that when Obama, like all the other candidates, supported the sanctions and agreed not to campaign in the state, Ring withdrew his endorsement....Similarly, all three of the House Democrats who endorsed Obama -- Coleman Young II, Bert Johnson, and Aldo Vagnozzi -- voted in favor of the bill to push the Michigan date forward. When Obama later took his name off the Michigan ballot, Young and Johnson became sponsors of the bill to cancel the election they had just voted to authorize.
***

Damn this 4-paragraph limit! Please just read the entire article. And K&R.

I think it's interesting that the DNC was effectively pushing limited-participation caucuses on FL and MI. It's well known that Hillary does better in primaries while Obama does better in caucuses. Hmmmm...

[joshcryer]

35. You'll note the most outspoken opponent of democracy is quite silent in this thread.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

37. "But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites."

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said.

---

I completely agree. The DNC is saying 150k voters would be acknowledged but a million wouldn't?

Proposterous! Fucking proposterous!

[cuadrangular]

38. I don't get it

I don't see how Republican involvement could be claimed here.

[joshcryer]

40. Because they're the ones who changed the date, and the DNC's "solutions" were unfair.

You can't tell people that their state primaries are illegitimate and to vote in caucuses which would have a tenth of the fucking turnout! It's ridiculous!

[yewberry]

42. I think it's a valid argument in the case of MI.

My opinion is that they shot themselves in the foot when they started attacking other states.

FL, on the other hand, can't really make the claim that republicans were behind the situation.

[madfloridian]

43. The untold story of Jeremy Ring. The Huff Post article is off base.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5336655

[madfloridian]

55. And the hearing of the rules committee with video.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1957

[Oilwellian]

59. Glad to see you're keeping it real

They know not who they're tangling with. :D

[Nine]

61. kick for the morning crowd (nt)