Sounds like any solution for FL delegates is going nowhere fast.

[madfloridian]

I keep reading different views about it, and I have been watching for the outcome of an appeal filed by Jon Ausman to the Rules Committee. I don't think that has been really considered by that committee yet, though they have talked about it.

It is confusing and frustrating. I think there have been so many efforts at propaganda to shift the blame that people are getting suspicious of all of it.

Here is something tonight from Adam Smith at the St. Pete Times blog. Not really that encouraging.

Solving Florida delegate dilemma not so simple

There are two major vehicles for resolving the Florida delegate issue: the DNC's credentials committee, which would be made up mainly by appointees of Clinton and Obama and has responsibility for the matter starting June 29, and the DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which has the authority to resolve the issue anytime before June 29.

Dean appears to be suggesting that the credentials committee would make a final decision, which would have to be ratified at the national convention in Denver.

But two pending appeals to the rules committee by Ausman could offer an opportunity to end the controversy well before the convention. Ausman contends in his challenges that the rules committee overstepped its authority in stripping away all of Florida's delegates last year, and many observers think he makes a credible case.

I disagree with him on letting the Florida superdelegates vote. They are responsible for all this trouble.

I doubt that is going over with the rules committee very well. They did not overstep their power no matter what Ausman says.

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes...."

Voting yes 115 to 1 for the early primary is not showing good faith.

Florida knew they could keep their delegates if they acted in good faith. The RBC most definitely had the right to strip ALL of the delegates to keep the primary season from ending up in 2007.

Here is more from Adam C. Smith. It indicates the rules committee is not seriously hurrying on this.

The rules committee has wide authority to resolve the Florida delegate issue, including the power to split the Florida delegates between Obama and Clinton. It would also have the advantage of letting Democrats avoid leaving such a potentially volatile issue unresolved until the convention.

But as with most everything about this primary, there's no consensus.

It's unclear whether the rules committee has the appetite to tackle the issue without agreement by Obama and Clinton. Committee co-chairman Jim Roosevelt wouldn't discuss Ausman's challenges, but he said it could be weeks before the committee considers them, if at all.

But he says there's no effort to stall in hopes that a nominee emerges.

"I'd love it if that happened," Roosevelt said, "but I am not planning to wait around for that to happen."

I have tried to figure why the actions of the Florida Democrats have angered me so from the beginning. It always comes down to the fact that they knowingly and intentionally broke the rules, and then blamed the national party for it. It was deliberate and planned.

There have always been rules in a party. Something odd is going on this time. Very odd. People have tried to break rules before, some have succeeded some have not. But this does not let up. It is like a constant thing, like a dull toothache that is always there.

The newest effort to sue the DNC and Dean for doing what Democrats do, promoting racial diversity....is probably the worst thing of all. They are actually hoping to get a conservative judge to come up with a decision that is anti anti-discrimination. They will sue Dean because NV and SC were included to give more racial diversity. Just let that sink in a minute.

Floridians are suing Dean for trying to promote diversity.

What an interesting turn of the worm. Sometime next week, we may have democrats suing democrats for carrying out a very democratic policy of advancing minorities. Steinberg and DiMaio acknowledge with a grin that their reverse racism accusation will ruffle feathers, but hope the conservative judiciary will be delighted to strike a blow against affirmative action and rule in their favor. Their only objective, they claim, is to see all of Florida's delegates seated based on the January 31st primary election.

And even people who have not taken sides on this were stunned by Bill Nelson's offer to spill some blood on the floor in Denver.

Rules committee, maybe. Agreement between the two candidates...doubtful. Credentials committee later most likely.

[madfloridian]

1. Yet another version.

DNC Gets Advice On Florida Appeal

Democratic National Committee attorneys have completed a recommendation on a challenge filed with the national party by a DNC committeeman from Florida, said James Roosevelt Jr., co-chairman of the DNC Rules and By-laws Committee.

Roosevelt, who would not discuss the findings, said he and Alexis Herman, the committee's co-chairwoman, are reviewing the legal opinion.

The two could call a meeting of the rules committee to decide whether to overturn their action against Florida Democrats last fall, something Roosevelt says would take at least four weeks to arrange.

Through her office, Herman declined to comment on the challenged filed by Jon Ausman of Tallahassee.

Ausman said he does not know what the DNC attorneys have recommended.

[IndianaGreen]

2. How about sending the Florida delegation on a cruise to the Bermuda Triangle?

Let the gods of fate decide!

[madfloridian]

4. I am all for that.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

3. Dean on Tavis Smiley...says losing candidate must decide it is about country...

not about them. That we need the choice made by July 1 to have time to heal.

http://blip.tv/file/814389

It angers me so that this was a year that we could have had it all.

[crankychatter]

5. thank you again

k/r

[BzaDem]

6. You have every right to be angry at your leaders.

I just don't think the remedy was appropriate. The democratic party does not stand for disenfranchisement. It wasn't the voters' fault.

They certainly could have not allowed FL super-delegates to vote, or seated a fraction of their delegates. But not seating all their delegates sends the wrong message about the importance of voting.

[madfloridian]

7. Not really. I disagree.

All the other states were ready to pounce and keep leapfrogging well into 2007. FL made it clear they thought they could live with the 50% stripped, and were willing to proceed. Other states would have followed.

No one was disenfranchised. The only vote that doesn't count is the one for delegates.

[BzaDem]

8. Right. But when Obama supporters keep saying this entire election comes down to pledged delegates,

and FL's pledged delegates aren't getting seated, that is disenfranchisement by definition. The voters of FL will have no say as to who the nominee will be. That's the point; the leaders tried to game the system. Then the voters get punished, while the leaders get hailed by many as fighting for the right to vote. The consequence needs to be a) aimed at the leaders, and b) not at the voters.

Even if I agree with your premise that there was no other way to get the FL leaders to push their primary past Feb 5th, there are some bad situations that you just can't remedy. If the death penalty were the punishment for every crime, crime would go way down. But our society (thankfully) does not tolerate that policy. Likewise, if all voters in states that violate the rules have no say, the primary season would be on a reasonable schedule. But I don't think our society should tolerate that policy either. The right to vote took hundreds of years in our history alone to obtain for all, and I don't think it should be a pawn on the table to be messed with.

[madfloridian]

9. No, the use of the word "disenfranchisement" is spin being used by FL

They are acting like children who don't get their way. They are proud of "blowing up the primary system."

If FL voters don't like it, they need to fire their state leaders who are such bullies.

[UALRBSofL]

10. What will we do in 2012 when the next election cycle comes around

I was reading on the Florida chapter of the Republican Party's web site and they are pretty much set on keeping the primary in January? Does the democratic party in Florida lose it's votes/delegates again?

[Changenow]

13. Since it is clear that this won't help

Clinton get the nomination, those who perpetuate this must have other motives.

Here's how I see it:

The DNC reacted to Florida Democrats brazen refusal to act in good faith regarding the primary date with the severe reprisal. The Florida Democrats who pushed for, and cooperated with, the Florida Republicans to set the early date were, by all accounts, Clinton's strongest supporters in the state. The reason these Clinton supporters, in presumed cooperation with the Clinton campaign, wanted the early primary was to fuel the inevitability bandwagon. The also despise Dean, so defiance of the Party was icing.

The Florida Clinton supporters were certain that the outcome of their defiance would benefit Clinton. With a Florida "win" she'd have the momentum to become the nominee quickly. At some point, under this plan, the Florida delegates would be seated. Clinton would see to it that they were rewarded for their "loyalty." Even in the off chance that they weren't, the tactic will still have succeeded because Clinton was the nominee and Dean had his comeuppance. It was a flawless plan, except that it failed. In their wildest dreams, they did not anticipate Obama's success.

Fast forward to today: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is far to smart to believe that Clinton will be the nominee, regardless of what happens to the Florida delegation. Her game there now is the same as Clinton's is nationally, to do as much harm as possible to the Party structure, and by extension Obama, to stop this from happening in four years.

Bill Nelson may actually be stupid enough to believe Hillary has a chance, but even that's a stretch.

[madfloridian]

17. Agree.

A couple of "upstarts" ruining chances of being inevitable. Also agree the purpose is to hurt the party structure, its chairman, and stain Obama for the general.

I did not think that at first, but now I do.

Dean is daily repeating the July 1 date for closure. I think something is up then if not before.

[Changenow]

18. Is there a point when this

gets mainstreamed.

The Hillay claim that Obama had disenfranchized the voters in those states generally goes unchallgenged in the MSM. Is it time for some public education from the Obama camp or the DNC?

[madfloridian]

11. Excuse me...it is NOT Obama who says it is delegates that count.

I am not sure just how you mean that...but it is party rules. Delegates decide the nominee, NOT the popular vote...not the electoral vote...Hillary is making that up.

It is truly amazing. She said once that the DNC rules did not apply to her. She meant it.

[Changenow]

15. Every year late states are disenfranchised

No one minded.

I guarantee Hillary wouldn't mind if she had locked it up Super Duper Tuesday.

[4themind]

12. Seems like we have to play the waiting game

At the end of the primaries, if Obama, is ahead inpopular vote (with florida and michigan) and in pledged delegates (with florida and michigan). I think he'll just make a push to seat the delegates as is. There would be no point in having a credentials fight then, hillary would already have what she wanted Then the supers come in, and end it. So ,personally, hope is not over for a good chance at ending this thing before the convention, and uniting for McCain, if this scenario come to pass. We'll see.

[Changenow]

14. Hillary will not then have what

she wanted. She is not out to seat those delegates because of some conviction toward democracy, it's purely a strategic move. She wants to cause chaos and destruction, and she will.

[4themind]

16. Well at least she'll be on record then

because she said that she wanted them seated, regardless of her actual reason. She can't use that strategic move, if it's eliminated before she gets the chance to.

The bottom line is, it only further eliminates any rationale for pushing this thing till denver (only thing left would be the pledged delegate switching, and I highly doubt,that alone will fly with her supporters) . There are two ways to end this thing if obama is in that superior position come june, either for her to concede, or for her supporters to leave (staff resignations, former supporters etc.), either way will bring us closer to unity then we otherwise would have been.

[tomreedtoon]

19. How will Bill Nelson spill blood?

I may be repeating this joke, and if so, excuse me. But I think the only way he'll spill blood is if he grips his bottle of Chivas Regal a little too tight and it shatters. Or if he forgets it's in the hip pocket of his Armani suit, and he sits on it.