Much more to FL and MI debacles than meet the eye.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-28-08 10:30 PM
Original message

Much more to FL and MI debacles than meet the eye.

I have always felt that the Florida and Michigan fiascos were just too much of a blend of coincidence, misrepresentation, shocked outrage that things happened when rules were broken. It has never felt right, it has always had the feel of more to it than meets the eye.

There are too many players with too much in common, too many of the same talking points used by all those involved. Too many prominent Democrats from both states going on TV shows and selling out their credibility to justify the way these two states broke the rules.

I can not prove there was more to it. Never could. But think about this. I hear that 13 of the 30 on the rules committee are Hillary people who voted to strip the states of all of their delegates last August. Why? Now a couple of them, Tina Flourney and Harold Ickes only recently said they would only settle for 100% seated. So hey, why did they vote to strip them all. It does not make sense unless you assume bigger things are in play.

I don't write much about Michigan, but I do wonder about all the lawsuits filed in Florida against Dean and the DNC. The first one filed by Bill Nelson and dismissed by Judge Hinkle, really should have been enough to make their point. But there have been 3 others by DiMaio or two and a half if you assume one was the same. They laughed about their last one accusing Dean of bigotry against whites in Florida. It was dismissed today. There was another by Jon Ausman against the state of Florida...it was dismissed as well.

But they don't give up? Why? Are they harassing the party chairman?

The day the delegates were stripped, we started getting emails from the party leaders here....making it clear we were to take the money we were giving the DNC and give it to the state party.

Then there were the threats and intimidation by the big donors of Hillary Clinton toward Howard Dean and the DNC.

"He's got to exercise some leadership, and the sooner, the better," Patricof continued. "This is a party issue. We cannot afford to alienate this large a voting population in two very important states."

....."Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

�If you�re not going to count my vote, I�m not going to give you my money,� said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

There has been so much ridiculous stuff that just makes no sense. Florida leaders have said some very stupid things...and the media never covers them. I had to dig through Florida newspaper blogs to find anything at all. One of the most inane claims was made by the Florida Democrat who introduced the bill. He said being first was more important than "partying" in Denver.

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."

Partying in Denver

Howard Dean was popular here in Florida during the last primaries. The way this primary debacle has played out has made him the scapegoat for the party leaders who support Hillary. He is constantly ridiculed in the Florida media, using the talking points from the Florida Democratic Party.

I have seen congresspeople who support her turn from rational people to people who will go on TV and look foolish using the current spin.

I remember this take from an AOL blogger about the role Dean was playing in letting this primary play out. He is referring to a meeting in which a Clinton donor, Hassan Nemazee, accused Dean to his face of "kicking the can down the road."

Dean's response: "Dean then responded, heatedly, that in his experience, those who sought the intervention of party leadership were motivated by their own particular agendas. And that was not the sort of leadership he intended to provide."

Here is the blogger's take on that exchange:

Dean above the fray

That to me sounds like a level of desperation that we have not seen the Hillary Clinton admit to. What Nemazee's action here says is that he does not believe that time is on Hillary Clinton's side. The position of the Hillary camp, or at least this member of it, is that their only chance is for Dean to intervene, to intervene now, and force all the superdelegates to go on record.

And the reason they want it to happen now is that the superdelegates seem to be slipping away the longer this goes on. Dean is indeed playing it safe, but neither is he being unfair to either side. He is simply letting the process unfold the way it was designed to. That the process as it stands now will cost Hillary the nomination, well, that's not his fault.

That Hillary is losing is not a good enough reason to change the process mid campaign. Unless you are on Hillary's staff of course.

I notice the talking points in the media today are along these lines....party hopes Dean will find a peaceful solution. I have no news item expecting Hillary to do her part. A few bloggers, perhaps, but that is all.

It is about time for Dean's chairmanship to end. I think he has risen above the fray, never stooped to the level of the screamers and shouters. Kudos to him.

Dean says DNC becomes a political arm of the WH when a Democrat is president.

Sounds like he would not be too interested in it.

This is a very different job when you are working for a Democratic president, you basically become the political operation of the White House and I don't want to do that."

Carlson: "But you might stay on?"

Dean: "I don't know what I'll do, but it's important that we win-- that's what I'm focused on."

Yes, I am convinced that Florida at least (I don't say much about Michigan)...was used as a tool to build up anger and force a solution to the delegate problem that would benefit the candidate who is not winning right now by any legal measure of choosing a nominee.

I can't prove it, but I know too many of the loudest players to believe otherwise. A campaign was willing to scapegoat a person who really did stand for real change. That is just plain shameful.