Florida did it to be "relevant". The Huff Post article is wrong.

[madfloridian]

Barrett speaks of Jeremy Ring, but he makes it sound like he started it because he was for Obama at the time. See what Barrett was trying to do....the Obama people started it.

I refer to this article that actually blames Howard Dean via his old Yale roommate.

So let's talk a bit about Jeremy Ring. He is the one who introduced the original bill to move up the primary. He voted yes for the final version, and the vote was 115 to 1.



Jeremy Ring (D-FL) said "relevance is more important than "partying" in Denver.

This is a truly amazing statement from Florida Senator Jeremy Ring, the Democrat who introduced the early primary bill and sponsored it. He seems to think there is going to be a big party in Denver, but he seems clueless as to its importance.

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."

Did you see what he said? He did not care about going to that party in Denver. He said being relevant was more important.

Let's see what else he said. Perhaps Mr. Barrett might be interested.

Ring said that even with the boycott, Florida Democrats are no worse off than in past primaries.

"Back then, the nominees were already decided by the time our primary came around, so the candidates would come here to raise money but not to campaign for our votes," he said.

"So what are they doing now? The same thing. We're no worse - if anything, we're better.

"My hope is we've blown up the whole primary system," Ring said. "It would be the biggest legacy we'll get from this legislation."

Now Jeremy even went so far as to play the tough guy. He said nobody duped him. He knew what he was doing all along.

“If you turn on the left wing liberal radio down in Broward, I am public enemy number one,” said Ring, who actually campaigned in 2006 on the need for an early primary and makes no apologies for his leading the effort. “I hear that a lot, that I was duped by the Republicans. No one duped me.”

Karen Thurman distanced herself from him at a Broward County event.

...It would be inconvenient to acknowledge Ring’s role in a process where the Florida Democratic Party has morphed into the Defiant Victim — victimized by the Republican-dominated legislature, victimized by its own national party and victimized by the prez candidates, yet standing up on its hind legs and saying “Go to hell” to its victimizers. The reminder that Ring ran on the notion of moving up the primary date, was elected on it and followed through on his campaign promise is an inconvenient truth that the FlaDems simply must ignore.

Jeremy made that early primary a campaign promise. And he carried through. Now Mr. Barrett says he was a victim.

Ain't it amazing what Mr. Barrett left out in his article at Huff Post? And just think. It was the investigative arm of The Nation that funded his research.

Wonder if they agree or regret that now?

[madfloridian]

1. And let's not forget the "bramble bush" video on the senate floor

The video the DNC had when FL pleaded before them. Very damning.

And if the Quicktime one doesn't work...try this.

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

[mrdmk]

2. "Relevant", my foot; he did for the money the campaigns bring to the State

:patriot:

[madfloridian]

3. Yep, money played a role.

That's one reason the media played along so well. They missed the attention and the money it brings.

[Nine]

4. Oh for God's sake, let go of the roommate thing!

He was an advisor to Dean's '04 campaign! Why do you keep insinuating that they were no more than college roommates? And why are you focusing on one small part of a very informative and well-researched article anyway? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

Besides that, the article hardly blames this all on Dean, as evidenced by the title, "Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan."

[yewberry]

7. It's a good idea to deconstruct this article. The article has inaccuracies.

It asserts that FL Dems "couldn't" fight against FL republicans over the primary because the Dems were in the minority; the reality is that FL Dems didn't want to, and that has been made clear in the video of their "good faith" legislation to remedy the FL primary move.

It asserts that MI moved its primary as a response to NH moving its primary. NH moved its primary months after MI did.

It asserts that Levin was against the MI move until after NH moved, when Levin has been agitating for a MI move for years.

The article should be challenged because it perpetuates lies and inaccuracies.

[madfloridian]

12. Yes Levin and MI moved first....NH moved in response.

[madfloridian]

10. But the GOP did not "rig" it. The Dems were complicit.

.

[joshcryer]

11. The article debunks that myth.

[yewberry]

26. The article is wrong.

There are at least a few factual inaccuracies in the article.


For one: go ahead and look up the dates that the MDP started demanding that the DNC sanction NH for moving its primary...and then look up the date that NH actually moved its primary (November 21, if you need a hint).

[madfloridian]

5. The meeting of the DNC rules committee August 2007, and what they knew about Florida

and their role in voting to move up the primary. And what they did about it. Florida knew they had 30 days to make an alternate arrangement with the party. They did not do so.

Florida knew all they would lose all their delegates. It was all out in the open and aboveboard.

Here is a video and article from CBS about that meeting on August 25, 2007.

DNC Panel: Florida's Primary Is Too Soon

But many members of the committee said Florida Democrats had not proven they did all they could to prevent the date change and, regardless, the DNC had to enforce the rules to preserve some sense of order to a process that has become increasingly front-loaded.

James Roosevelt Jr., the committee's co-chair, said the legislative record demonstrates their point. "It makes it clear that the Republicans were the moving force behind the selection of a date that violated both the Democratic and Republican rules, but the efforts to oppose that were form over substance," he said.

Donna Brazile, who sits on the committee and is most known for managing Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she sympathized with Florida, but couldn't back them.

"I understand how states crave to be first. I understand that they are envious of the role Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played," she said. "But the truth is that we have a process and, whether some of us are mum or some of us shout it, we uphold it."

Others on the committee noted that other, larger states resisted the urge to move up their primaries in violation of party rules. "Rules are rules, and California abided by them and I believe Florida should as well," said Garry Shay, a committee member from California who noted that his state decided against trying to hold a primary in early January.

Here is some of the information the rules committee had in front of them when the delegation from Florida presented their case.

The rules committee knew that FL had not tried to fight the GOP

If Florida had acted in good faith, tried to fight the GOP on the vote....the delegates would have counted.

Here is the letter from Geller, the "bramble bush" guy...to Dean.

The Democratic Leadership in the Florida Senate and House of Representatives attempted to adhere to the rules of the DNC by offering amendments to keep the presidential preference primary on February 5, 2008. A copy of the amendment offered by myself and the Senate Democratic Leader Pro Tempore is included with this letter. An identical amendment was filed by the House Democratic Leader and the House Democratic Leader Pro Tempore. But as we are still the minority party in a Republican controlled Legislature, our amendments were overwhelmingly defeated. Simply put—we were outvoted, a scenario which - I’d like to caution - will be difficult to change should you move forward with any sanctions because of the primary date change.

No, Steve, voting 115 to 1 is not being outvoted. It is being complicit.

More the committee had:

The DNC members had handouts that included quotes by House Minority leader Dan Gelber brushing off Howard Dean, and the following transcript of Steve Geller making the motion to move the primary to Feb. 5:

Geller: "...So the Democratic leader and the Democratic leader pro tem are jointly making this motion, which we will duly show them later, that we tried not to have the election on, um, before (Feb. 5).

President: "And so Sen. Geller are you urging a negative vote or would you like us to pass this vote?"

Geller: "Oh no sir. We really, really want this. Don't we senator? (sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber).

Florida did not act in good faith. They went before the committee and pretended they had. The committee had done their homework.

[joshcryer]

16. The 'offer' of firehouse caucuses was turned down...

...went on deaf ears, because 1/10th participation is a joke. I'd tell them to fuck off too if they told me that my primaries were irrelevant even though they have 10x the turnout of the caucuses that the party officials opposed.

[Nine]

6. Besides - why should FL voters be punished for what Obama's FL campaign manager did?

If this is all about Ring, and Ring was the big Obama guy, why is it so wrong for anyone to point that out?

"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."

Whether or not he did it to help Obama or for some other reason, don't you think it's wrong to punish FL voters for it? And to harm the entire party in the GE? And for Obama to benefit from all this?

[madfloridian]

9. You believe Barrett over me. I posted Jeremy's own words.

If you read Jeremy's own words, how can you not believe he wanted to be important?

[Nine]

14. You're missing the point.

Fine, let's say this all happened because Ring wanted to be important. Why should FL voters be punished? For that matter, why should Hillary lose out because Obama's guy did a baddie? Some people say Dean "giving in" to FL and MI would set a bad precedent. What the hell kind of precedent is it for one candidate to be screwed in a state because someone working for the other team pulled a fast one? It doesn't matter whether he was directly in cahoots with Obama every step of the way. Can't you see how dangerous that is?

[madfloridian]

22. No, I see lies as far more dangerous. They will work out a deal

so the delegates can go...after the nominee is chosen.

The people have a responsibility to know what their leaders are doing.

Florida Democrats screwed the people, they should be held accountable.

[Nine]

24. meaning the delegates are completely irrelevant

So you are completely OK with millions of FL Dems becoming disenfranchised because Obama's FL campaign manager wanted to "feel important" as you yourself put it? Wow.

Now answer me this. Suppose the situation were reversed and Ring had been Hillary's campaign manager and Obama was probably going to lose the nomination because of what Ring had done. And again millions of Dem voters would have no delegate representation at all. Are you honestly telling me you would think that was fair?

[madfloridian]

25. I tried. Now it is time to say

good by to you. I answered your questions honestly. I showed you the Barrett post was off base in many ways. I gave you links to read, but you keep saying the same thing over over and over.

Bye.

[Nine]

27. The Barrett post is irrelevant. YOU posted about Ring.

This isn't about a disagreement of fact. YOU blamed the FL fiasco on his need to feel important. You do not deny that he was Obama's campaign manager when this was occurring. Are you just afraid to state your beliefs so directly?:

Do you think it is right for millions of FL Dems to be disenfranchised because of Ring? Yes or no?

Would you feel the same way if Obama and Clinton's positions were reversed? Yes or no?

[joshcryer]

8. DNC would only count FL and MI if they had caucuses that were 1/10th the turnout of their primaries.

Talk about fair.

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.

[joshcryer]

13. They did it because they thought the DNC would be fair.

The vote was moved up under the assumption they'd lose half their delegates, but the DNC stripped them of their delegates completely, and then told them that if they didn't have caucuses with turnouts 1/10th of what their primaries would bring, they wouldn't count! Amazing!

[yewberry]

23. Wrong.

The FDP refused to allow a non-binding primary with a party nomination later.

The FDP refused a caucus.

The FDP refused a revote.


Now, tell me what would the FDP accept as a compromise?

[dailykoff]

15. Convergance of the twain --

Camp Clinton and the RNC. Gee, who coulda seen that one coming!

[joshcryer]

If you look at the article that the OP is "debunking" you'll see Obama's people had a hand in it too

So you might want to pay attention. The OP is trying to smear one actor in the article without addressing the more important points that it makes.

[ShaneGR]

17. Blowing up the primary system IS more important... as a Florida resident I agree totally

Screw the primary system, it was all based on the nominee being selected in the first few weeks. This whole process has been broken for some time.

[ecstatic]

21. me too nt

[madfloridian]

31. Tough guys....break the rules and gloat about it. .

:shrug:

That is how FL Democratic leaders and those who still back their actions are acting.

[grantcart]

18. you should think about writing an article for a major magazine about this

I wonder if Rolling Stone or the Atlantic Monthly would be interested.

You really have enough for a book.

[joshcryer]

19. Most of it is lies, insinuations, or innuendo.

Indeed, they're responding to a 5 page article on the issue, and the *only* thing they can say is that the guy in question wanted FL to "be relevant."

The same guy who happens to be an Obama supporter.

[grantcart]

20. lol right lol

[Debi]

35. You hold that article out as some gold standard of reporting

yet simple research (which madfloridian has done WHILE this debacle unfolded) proves the many inaccuracies of the article.

History will prove what madfloridian is writing is correct, while the article you hold so dear is full of fluff.

[LulaMay]

28. That makes no sense at all.

[Scurrilous]

29. Kick

:kick:

[madfloridian]

30. In their own words.....gets em every time.

[madfloridian]

32. A Hillary campaign co-chair fought the revote here....they blamed Obama

Wow. Not fair.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/confused-about-florida-blame.php

[madfloridian]

33. Kick for truth....because lies are overwhelming here at DU now.

.

[Debi]

34. How long will it take to unravel all the lies spun about this AFTER

the National Convention? :crazy:


On edit:

I really like the suggestions of offering to write for a major magazine - I also hope you'll really consider writing a book on all the garbage that occurred starting in July of 2004. The manipulations orchestrated by a few on the many is something we ALL can learn from! :hi:

[madfloridian]

36. As long as DU allows untruths to be on the greatest page....it won't happen.

All FL had to do was act in good faith.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1935

[Debi]

37. Remember, mad, I was there starting in July of 2004

(of course, my focus was Iowa's place in the calendar) I read your posts regularly, I know you know what you're writing about.

Keep up the good work! :hi:

[madfloridian]

39. FL and MI, Nelson and Levin...set out to bring down IA and NH

They have gone overboard. Both states should do something about their leaders.

Trouble is that the matter is complicated, and it is so easy to twist the facts.

People make stuff up at DU now, post it, and pow it makes greatest page.

Meanwhile I hold the record for being on the most ignore lists.

:shrug:

[Debi]

41. People don't want to read the truth

:shrug:

Certainly not about this issue.

[BlooInBloo]

40. Hah - DUers interested in the truth - good one.

[BlooInBloo]

38. The knew the rules. They broke the rules. Complain to the state party, and no one else.

[redqueen]

42. Ugh... thanks for the heads up on that guy.

I wonder how do-able a licensing system for journalists would be... so we can yank them when they pull stunts like this.