Top Michigan Democrats Ask DNC To Seat Full Delegation, Note Hypocrisy on New Hampshire Dels

[BobbyVan]

Sen. Levin, Rep. Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Gettelfinger and DNC Member Dingell send letter to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee ahead of Saturday’s meeting calling for all 157 delegates to count.

Group argues the party has “selectively” enforced its calendar rule: “When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation.”

Suggests a compromise of splitting the elected delegates 69/59 in favor of Clinton.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/29/top-michigan-democrats-ask-dnc-to-seat-full-delegation/

[MadBadger]

1. I dont have an issue with that delegate split, but I do hav a problem with their argument

NH moved their primary as a repsonse to Michigan.

[BobbyVan]

2. So what?

[MadBadger]

7. They moved their primary to make sure their status of 1st primary in the nation remained

The DNC sanctioned NH to be in that spot. They had every right to move their primary.

[BobbyVan]

9. But why move the primary if Michigan wasn't going to count?

[thoughtcrime1984]

12. Ask the MI and FL state legislatures and Governors why

It's because they thought they could break the rules and get away with it.

[BobbyVan]

13. Oh that's right, only the NH legislature can break the rules and get away with it

:shrug:

[thoughtcrime1984]

19. They have a LAW in place, open you eyes and friggin read #4. The law would have to be repealed

at the behest of the Party. Not sure how that'd work. I'm sorry your candidate will not win.

[BobbyVan]

22. If there was a law in place, why did NH need a waiver?

[thoughtcrime1984]

25. They've been first since the early 1900's- tradition

Why hasn't this been such a problem until Hillary needed the delegates to even be within remote shouting range? Would you be banging pans if Obama stood to gain more from this? HE wouldn't be.

[BobbyVan]

27. Oh, it's just tradition, not a law. I guess NH's "tradition" is more important than MI's votes???

[thoughtcrime1984]

31. It IS a LAW. Research is your friend. Quit being typical. Hillary LOST. Bye.

[bunnies]

32. Its a frigging law. Its in our state constitution.

NH is to have the first primary. Doesnt matter if MI counted or not.

[BobbyVan]

34. And Michigan passed a LAW moving its primary date up also.

Why is NH's law more important than Michigan's?

[bunnies]

36. NH's law states that it will be the first primary.

No date involved. What about that dont you understand?

[BobbyVan]

38. Here's the problem. Both NH and MI passed laws that violated DNC rules, but only NH got a waiver.

That's rank hypocrisy.

[bunnies]

40. NH's law is not new.

Its been on the books way longer than these DNC rules. That is the reason we got a waiver. Get it yet?

[BobbyVan]

41. NH needed a waiver because it broke the DNC's rules - get it yet?

[bunnies]

47. Youre obviously not grasping the situation.

Either that or you're just playing dumb to try and prove a point. The DNC wanted to preserve NH's first primary status. Accept it or dont accept it. It doesnt change the facts.

[Romulox]

57. "The DNC wanted to preserve NH's first primary status." Well that's not fair.

Unearned privilege is completely against American ideals (though it is the bedrock of American reality, unfortunately...)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. No. It's not...

The intent of the rules is to maintain Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the first primary/caucus states in the process. All four of these states moved up their primaries and caucuses in response to the rules violations by Michigan and Florida. The DNC allowed the early states to do this because their actions were consistent with the intent of the rules; Florida and Michigan's actions were a clear violation of that intent.

You can argue all you want as to whether these states deserve to be first in line (what are we in Wisconsin, chopped liver?) but that doesn't change the rules why they were adopted in the first place.

[bunnies]

48. Thank you.

Its like talking to a wall! :banghead:

[Romulox]

58. I have a real problem with a person who wants to argue the letter of the law, but not the fairness

To analogize to the law (since so many are parsing "the rules"): there are a number of equitable defenses to contract for instance--courts won't necessarily enforce a morally repugnant contract simply because it is unambiguous in its moral repugnancy...

Unearned privilege and "some are more equal than others" are not Democratic principles.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. As I said...

You can argue whether the early states deserve their favored status, but those are the rules of record and all parties agreed to them. Unless we're willing to have a national primary where all states vote on the same day, somebody is going to go first and somebody is going to go last.

[spoony]

52. And what authority does a NH state law have over other states?

That'd be none.

[gal]

37. Maybe to cover their ass?

[Me.]

50. They Didn't Break Anything, They Were Accredited

which means their move was sanctioned. Michigan's was not and they was told over and over before they did it, not to. What part of don't do it or there will be consequences were they incapable of understanding?

[MadBadger]

20. When they settled on their earlier primary date, Michigan hadnt lost their delegates yet.

[sandnsea]

8. I am shocked at these people

This NH argument really takes the cake. I just can't believe people like Levin and Dingell are doing this.

[Irishonly]

18. That's right

All of the outrage that Iowa and New Hampshire not being punished is bs. Every time Florida and Michigan moved their primaries, IA &NH went to the committee and asked permission to move theirs. Florida and Michigan could have listened and followed the rules but chose not to.

[cali]

3. The DNC should not do that. And what part of they granted a waiver

don't they get? If they granted a waiver to NH, that isn't breaking the rules. States cannot behave like MI and FL did without impunity. And Levin and Dingell are guilty as shit.

[BobbyVan]

6. Right, the DNC granted NH a waiver, meaning they said the rules don't apply to NH

So that means that the DNC enforces the rules selectively, leaving them without a leg to stand on.

[onenote]

17. wrong. they granted them a waiver to ensure that they retained the position they were accorded

in the calendar.

[Ravy]

54. Weren't they supposed to be third, behind the Nevada caucus?

I thought they leapfrogged a state.

[spoony]

21. It beautifully illustrates the arbitrary way they run the party like a country club

It has always been a good old boys club, and two states had the nerve to challenge them. I guess Dean showed them, though. No one without a fancy little crest on their breast will try that again!

[thoughtcrime1984]

4. It'll be 1/2 of whatever they decide on for the split

That's the rules that were set by the DNC looooong before the primaries began. New Hampshire actually has a 30+ year old law that states it WILL be the first primary each cycle. Not sure how that works...

[LisaM]

5. The DNC enforced their rules selectively

Iowa held its caucus well before January 14th also.

[grantcart]

11. the also got a waiver

[thoughtcrime1984]

15. Which means they ASKED for permission, they didn't just do it and expect it to be counted

Procedures, rules- both are important.

[LisaM]

28. Well, I stated well before the primaries that I thought Michigan should have been moved up

Florida too, for that matter. Why did the DNC selectively decide to grant a waiver to one state and not another?

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. Did those states ASK for a waiver? I don't think so.

If things are to be changed, weeks before the primary isn't the time to be changing them. Work towards 2012, starting NOW, and maybe you'll get the change you seek.

[gal]

39. There were reasons and they are out there for you to look up if you really want to know.

Why do you feel Michigan should be moved up above other states? Just curious, I would like my state to be moved up to but think there are better ways to go there.

[ieoeja]

44. Because the plan was decided on two years earlier.

Two years ago the DNC, including the FL/MI members, decided:

- Any state can hold their primary/caucus as early as February 5th.
- One state from each of four regions could hold theirs earlier.
- The early midwestern primary/caucus would be Iowa.
- The early northeastern primary/caucus would be New Hampshire.
- The early western primary/caucus would be Nevada.
- The early southern primary/caucus would be South Carolina.

The actual dates for each of those early primaries was relatively unimportant. The important thing was ensuring one primary in each region to ensure a balanced influence for all regions on the party's selection.

This wasn't about Iowa and New Hampshire. It was about the Midwest, Northeast, West and South. Everybody agreed this was fair.

Of course, it isn't about Florida and Michigan even now to you. You just want Hillary to win and have some weird idea giving FL/MI 100% of their vote will make a difference.

Do you even realize that with FL/MI getting 100% of their vote as though they had not cheated in the first place, Hillary would still need to win all the remaining primaries? Given that she will lose two of the three by wide margins....


I feel for Michigan somewhat. They seemed to get caught up in Florida's foolishness. Early on the Democratic Leadership in Michigan even admitted it was their fault. Apparently they are singing a different tune now. But that just might be a negotiating strategy: ask for 100%+100% hoping to get 50%+0%.

I doubt Michigan even realized Florida's motivation for this was to replace Howard Dean and put the DLC back in control of the party.

[Scout]

10. thank you ... I was wondering why CAN'T Michigan go early once in a while?

why only certain states?

why DIDN'T the DNC grant Michigan a waiver??

[grantcart]

14. Ask Terry MacAuliffe he sanctioned them 4 years before

The reasons are obvious.

But if you want Michigan to go first I say fuck it have California go first - the most progressive and important state in the union.

Or we can let the small states that have been doing this well for a long time to continue with what continues to be a very effective way to let relatively unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to get heard.

The irony of course is that had they gone towards the middle or now they would have more impact than those that went early on Super Tuesday.

[Scout]

16. thanks for not bothering to read my post

i didn't say Michigan should go first, and i didn't say they should go early every year....

[grantcart]

29. read your post

Michigan wants to impose its will on the party.

It has not put forth a system of rotating primaries it has consistently said, like Florida, that they are uniquely situated to be at the front of the line and have repeatedly taken unilateral action to do so.

I would be fine with the 4 small states starting of and then rotating it - as long as Florida and Michigan are put at the end of the line for the first several rotations.

Both states have acted like spoiled children and harmed the party.

Why not New Jersey go early? Why not North Carolina? Why not Virginia? Why not Wisconsin? Why not 30 other states. Why not California or Massachusettes the two states that support full and legal marriages for all of its citizens?

Both states knew exactly what was going on and are repeat offenders. They wanted to hijack the process for their own political reasons.

[MadBadger]

23. You're right...so argue that for 2012 or 2016.

Start arguing for that in December for the next primary.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Because having small states go first is the one advantage thrown to the candidates without big money

I'll fully admit that Iowa and New Hampshire's privileged status is archaic. But I also do not think that Michigan and Florida should go first. With states that big the candidate with the most money would win every time.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

43. This I can agree with

The system needs to be reworked. It's archaic and unfair to low budget candidates. It needs an overhaul. Period.

The way to do that is not by simply deciding you're going to move your state primary up and be damned the rules. The people behind this are elected officials. They know this isn't how these things are done. They knew full well what the repercussions of their actions would be. They also know how to word arguments to make them appeal to their constituents.

[ieoeja]

46. This is a DLC powerplay. Nothing more. Nothing less.

They lost control of the party in 2005 ... and Democrats swept to victory in 2006. Worse yet, Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel (DLC-Illinois) used competing strategies in 2006 with the latter's failing miserably.

The DLC has been discredited and are doing everything they can to retake the party. Florida is the one state where the DLC effectively rules the party. So they did this hoping to discredit Howard Dean.

Hillary is one of the earliest DLCers in existence, and a featured member of their leadership. Bad enough if Obama wins the nomination. But if he wins the general election, then the DLC is really hurting. That is why they are going ape-shit over this. Were she losing to a fellow DLCer, I doubt we'd see her fighting on like this.

When Obama is president I imagine the DLC will turn to a stealth strategy to try to sneak their way into power. Of course, I am at least 50% convinced the DLC is already a stealth, rightwing organization hoping to either (a) ensure the Democratic Party's defeat at all times and (b) move the Democratic Party as far Right as possible to mitigate the damage when Democrats do win.

[ieoeja]

45. So the Midwest gets TWO early primaries to everyone else's one?

That's what the rule was all about. Each of the four regions would get one pre-February 5th primary so no region would have more influence than another.

[Romulox]

49. "The Midwest" as a term is a historical anomoly

that dates from the time when Michigan was indeed on the Western frontier.

Iowa and Michigan have little or nothing in common (including geographic proximity.)

[Windy]

24. Each of those signatories are Clinton supporters and super-delegates.

I'm from Michigan. Moving up the primary was a tactic used by the Clinton campaign to try and defeat Edwards in this union state because she thought that he was her only competition in the primaries!

I have this from an inside source. Kinda worked against the conspirators!

No, the votes here cannot be counted as they stand. Many sat out the vote as they were told their vote wouldn't count and their respective candidate was not on the ballot! There were no other initiatives, at least in my area, other than the primary.

Michigan is not Florida and the votes here cannot be given disproportionally to Clinton!

[thoughtcrime1984]

26. Well put, thank you! nt

[lojasmo]

35. New Hampshire was exempt

Per the DNC rules. You should do a little reading, as should those in Michigan.

[Romulox]

51. You point doesn't speak to the FAIRNESS of this DNC rules, however. nt

[lojasmo]

53. I'm only concerned with reality.

Fairness is stuff of partisans.

[Romulox]

55. "Fairness is stuff of partisans." ??? Umm, strike that--reverse it.

[lojasmo]

60. Okay...partisans are the stuff of fairness.

No, wait....

I play by the rules, and i respect those who play by the rules.

There you go.

[Romulox]

56. Mi should put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot that mandates that WE have the first primary

What a ridiculous argument: But it's the LAW that they go first!!!