PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Michigan Revote "all but dead"


jAZ
03-18-2008, 11:02 AM
Per MSNBC.

plbrdude
03-18-2008, 11:03 AM
then hillary can claim a big victory over uncommitted

HonestChieffan
03-18-2008, 11:04 AM
The party is moving to no revote and will seat delegates. A very well done move to give Hillary the nomination after this dust up with Obama.

StcChief
03-18-2008, 11:25 AM
never count Clinton's out.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 11:31 AM
The party is moving to no revote and will seat delegates. A very well done move to give Hillary the nomination after this dust up with Obama.

The DNC has already stated they will not be reseated so either they split the delegates 50-50 or they won't be reseated.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 11:44 AM
LMAO. I guess caring about disenfranchised voters and caring that the people's voices are heard only matters if you can make the case the republicans are doing it.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

|Zach|
03-18-2008, 11:47 AM
The party is moving to no revote and will seat delegates. A very well done move to give Hillary the nomination after this dust up with Obama.

You are the Mecca of the political forum.

Pretty much never right.

jAZ
03-18-2008, 11:49 AM
LMAO. I guess caring about disenfranchised voters and caring that the people's voices are heard only matters if you can make the case the republicans are doing it.

The hypocrisy is stunning.
Your ignorance is stunning.

The Michigan legislature is the hold-up. They aren't supporting the plan that was being put forward and looked to have the support of both candidates.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2008, 11:50 AM
I believe what has been said is that it is up to the credentials committee. They have not met, and the membership is still being set. So regardless of your feelings about the situation, you can see wheree HC and her folks will move to seat the delegates.

Bootlegged
03-18-2008, 12:05 PM
This confirms my thesis that Jaz sits and watches MSNBC 24x7. How's that Olberman tatoo workin' out?

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 12:13 PM
Your ignorance is stunning.

The Michigan legislature is the hold-up. They aren't supporting the plan that was being put forward and looked to have the support of both candidates.

LOL, the DNC disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida with their original ruling moron.

jAZ
03-18-2008, 12:15 PM
LOL, the DNC disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida with their original ruling moron.

FL and MI did it to themselves after being warned about moving their primaries.

So you are wrong on all counts.

Hydrae
03-18-2008, 12:26 PM
FL and MI did it to themselves after being warned about moving their primaries.

So you are wrong on all counts.

Yep, I have no sympathy. They were told the consequences of their actions and have been trying to find a way around that decision. As far as I am concerned, they made their bed and hope they enjoy lying in it.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 12:34 PM
FL and MI did it to themselves after being warned about moving their primaries.

So you are wrong on all counts.

1) How many of the millions of primary and caucus goers in those states actually had a say in when they would choose their nominiee?

2) Who actually had the final say in disenfranchising them by not counting their votes? (hint: DNC)

The SC stepped in and ended the FL election in 2000 and dems squeeled because voter's rights were stepped on.

Now the DNC itself had the power to determine if voter's rights matter and they actually do the same thing.

Hypocritical and hysterical. Two hy* words in one sentence. Beat that.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 12:41 PM
I believe what has been said is that it is up to the credentials committee. They have not met, and the membership is still being set. So regardless of your feelings about the situation, you can see wheree HC and her folks will move to seat the delegates.

They could go there or they could sue but from what I understand of the committee is that it is 50% Obama supporters and 50% Hillary supporters so people don't think they will do anything to resolve the issue.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 12:45 PM
1) How many of the millions of primary and caucus goers in those states actually had a say in when they would choose their nominiee?

2) Who actually had the final say in disenfranchising them by not counting their votes? (hint: DNC)

The SC stepped in and ended the FL election in 2000 and dems squeeled because voter's rights were stepped on.

Now the DNC itself had the power to determine if voter's rights matter and they actually do the same thing.

Hypocritical and hysterical. Two hy* words in one sentence. Beat that.

I can't speak for Jaz but the Florida Democrats are the ones that screwed the Florida voters not the DNC. They voted almost unanimously for the bill that would move the date up while ignoring the DNC's statement that if they did they would not be seated.

But the DNC should have followed what the RNC did and just cut their delegates in half and let them count.

Hopefully they will just seat them and split the delegates that is really the only fair thing left to do.

orange
03-18-2008, 02:08 PM
Your ignorance is stunning.

The Michigan legislature is the hold-up. They aren't supporting the plan that was being put forward and looked to have the support of both candidates.

Are you willfully ignorant ... or just stunningly?

State lawmakers looking at a Democratic presidential primary redo in Michigan appear to be locked in a standoff heading into a crucial week: Legislative leaders say the U.S. Sen. Barack Obama camp needs to agree to the repeat election before legislation is written, and Obama supporters say they must see the bill before signing off on the plan.

Whether Michigan has a do-over primary in June depends on resolving that issue.

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said Sunday that allies of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are bent on a do-over primary to enable their candidate to try to pull up to Obama in the presidential race. Hunter said he won't sign off on a repeat election unless he sees detailed legislation answering his concerns.

"Clinton folks will do anything to open Michigan back up," said Hunter, who is co-chairman of the Obama campaign in Michigan.

"She is in a hunt for delegates. Why this sudden pull out all the stops to give Hillary Clinton every opportunity to try to catch up? Guess what? It's not going to happen. This legislator is not going to facilitate it."


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080317/POLITICS01/803170373

State Senator Tupac Hunter is the head of Senator Barack Obama’s Michigan campaign.

And this:

The campaigns of Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama received copies of the primary election bill Monday. Clinton has said she would go along with another primary, but Obama's campaign has raised some concerns.

"A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver' at the party's national convention this summer, Clinton campaign aide Harold Ickes said Monday. "If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee's ability to carry the state in the general election.''

Joel Ferguson, one of Clinton's Michigan co-chairs, noted that "neither campaign should have veto power'' over a second Democratic primary.


http://www.wwj.com/Democratic-Re-do-Likely-Won-t-Happen/1844462


I added the bold-face.
"neither campaign should have veto power"

Where have I heard the rejection of one campaign having a veto over a Michigan revote? Oh, yeah, it was YOU (don't make me post the link, you know better).

HonestChieffan
03-18-2008, 02:18 PM
Change?

patteeu
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
It looks like Hillary's popular vote numbers from both Florida and Michigan are going to stand now. Obummer.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Are you willfully ignorant ... or just stunningly?


Where have I heard the rejection of one campaign having a veto over a Michigan revote? Oh, yeah, it was YOU (don't make me post the link, you know better).

From what I understand the DNC, the states, and the 2 campaigns all have to agree.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 02:30 PM
It looks like Hillary's popular vote numbers from both Florida and Michigan are going to stand now. Obummer.

No they won't if the delegates won't be seated.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 02:44 PM
No they won't if the delegates won't be seated.

Popular votes were cast whether delegates are seated or not. Hillary raked the popular votes in in those two contests.

NewChief
03-18-2008, 02:46 PM
Popular votes were cast whether delegates are seated or not. Hillary raked the popular votes in in those two contests.

She ran one helluva campaign against Undecided, I tell ya.

I thought he was a real dark horse, but I was really hoping Undecided's principled stand on so many issues would carry the day for him. Alas, it just wasn't to be.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 02:57 PM
Popular votes were cast whether delegates are seated or not. Hillary raked the popular votes in in those two contests.

If there are no re-votes they will not count just watch and see. They will be wiped clean.

jAZ
03-18-2008, 03:03 PM
If there are no re-votes they will not count just watch and see. They will be wiped clean.
I don't think there is an offiical record of that stat, unless I'm mistaken. And as such, the debate over the popular vote is all about spin. It's about what Clinton can get the media to talk about. And then what she can get the SD's to accept.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 03:09 PM
I don't think there is an offiical record of that stat, unless I'm mistaken. And as such, the debate over the popular vote is all about spin. It's about what Clinton can get the media to talk about. And then what she can get the SD's to accept.

If they don't seat the delegates then they in fact don't count and any place that shows popular vote counts will not include them in the final tally. RCP is already doing this but they have added columns for both the Michigan and the Florida votes.

Also Obama really doesn't have to worry about the popular vote anyway IIRC there are 5-6 states that haven't put their totals for the caucus's which will dramatically add to his totals.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 03:11 PM
LOL, the DNC disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida with their original ruling moron.

You mean the plan that the Republican legislature put through to move the primaries up, like in Florida?

Yup. Those goddamned liberals.

jettio
03-18-2008, 03:31 PM
I think Florida and Michigan voters will vote in November based on their belief as to who is the best choice then.

I doubt that there will be many that vote GOP because they only halved the delegate count as punishment instead of full reprimand.

McCain may get some disappointed Hillary-ites, but if Obama locks it up in spite of this Reverend Wright brouhaha, I think the staunchest pro-Hillary-ite Dems will be impressed and vote for Obama in November.

Michigan would be no problem for either Democrat candidate. Florida is a place McCain could win, but I doubt it would because of the primaries.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 03:37 PM
LMAO Hillary tried to get George Soros to fund this. She will do and try anything to win.

Top Hillary supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell privately appealed to billionaire George Soros for cash to help fund a new primary in Michigan -- a request that Soros is declining, a source familiar with their conversation tells Election Central.
A Soros spokesperson confirmed the account.
The private appeal by one of Hillary's most important national supporters to one of the wealthiest men in the country is yet another indication of just how hard the Hillary camp is working behind the scenes to get a Michigan revote -- and how many backstage angles they're working to make it happen.

orange
03-18-2008, 03:57 PM
I'm sure you MEANT to post the whole thing, your finger just slipped:

Top Hillary supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell privately appealed to billionaire George Soros for cash to help fund a new primary in Michigan -- a request that Soros is declining, a source familiar with their conversation tells Election Central.

A Soros spokesperson confirmed the account.

The private appeal by one of Hillary's most important national supporters to one of the wealthiest men in the country is yet another indication of just how hard the Hillary camp is working behind the scenes to get a Michigan revote -- and how many backstage angles they're working to make it happen.

According to the source, Rendell told Soros that they were looking for around 15 or 16 people to come up with the needed funds. "He said that the total figure they needed was $10 to $12 million," the source says.

Contacted for comment, Soros spokesperson Michael Vachon confirmed that the conversation had taken place and that the governor had indeed called Soros to request his financial support for a Michigan revote. But Vachon said Soros was declining the request.

"George Soros does not support holding another primary in Michigan because he believes doing so will further delay the selection of a Democratic candidate in November," Vachon said.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/exclusive_top_hillary_supporte.php

patteeu
03-18-2008, 05:38 PM
If there are no re-votes they will not count just watch and see. They will be wiped clean.

Each super delegate gets to determine for him- or herself whether or not they are persuaded by the argument. There's no one who can wipe them clean.

I don't think there is an offiical record of that stat, unless I'm mistaken. And as such, the debate over the popular vote is all about spin. It's about what Clinton can get the media to talk about. And then what she can get the SD's to accept.

Exactly.

mikey23545
03-18-2008, 05:40 PM
FL and MI did it to themselves after being warned about moving their primaries.

So you are wrong on all counts.

Yeah, imagine individual states having the gall to decide what dates to have their own primary...

Let the Party of All-Powerful Centralized Government display their pique!

pikesome
03-18-2008, 06:01 PM
Yeah, imagine individual states having the gall to decide what dates to have their own primary...

Let the Party of All-Powerful Centralized Government display their pique!

The DNC isn't, exactly, the government (thank God). Like any group they can set their rules how they want. I'd recommend they adjust them based on this year's happenings, however.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 06:16 PM
The DNC isn't, exactly, the government (thank God). Like any group they can set their rules how they want. I'd recommend they adjust them based on this year's happenings, however.

LMAO Might be a good idea.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:23 PM
You mean the plan that the Republican legislature put through to move the primaries up, like in Florida?

Yup. Those goddamned liberals.

LOL, if that were the case why would the DNC punish democratic primary goers?

I know it's hard for some on the board to accept. The DNC decided to disenfranchise their own voters. Maybe that's ok. But in the long run it's no different than their argument the SC did it in 2000.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 06:31 PM
Each super delegate gets to determine for him- or herself whether or not they are persuaded by the argument. There's no one who can wipe them clean.



Exactly.

From what I understand if those states don't get seated then the super delegates don't get a vote. That is why Hillary wants them seated because alot those SD's support her.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:33 PM
From what I understand if those states don't get seated then the super delegates don't get a vote. That is why Hillary wants them seated because alot those SD's support her.

Why wouldn't they be seated? Unless of course somebody wants them to STFU.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 06:35 PM
Why wouldn't they be seated? Unless of course somebody wants them to STFU.

It's the rule. :shrug:

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:37 PM
It's the rule. :shrug:

As in 2000?

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 06:38 PM
As in 2000?

DNC's rule

Combined, Michigan and Florida have 54 superdelegates, all of whom were stripped of their status when their states were stripped of their pledged delegates

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:45 PM
DNC's rule

I should clarify here. I'm not saying the DNC doesn't have the right to disenfranchise their own voters by changing the rules.

I'm just saying there are several board members here that cried the 2000 election was stolen, based on the idea voter's intentions were violated, even though the rules were followed and the SC had to make a call based on the rules.

In any case, Mildred Bigbutt from Ocala, FL, a life long democrat, didn't get to pick here party's nominee in 2008, even though she had contributed to the party for 59 years.

Too funny.

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 06:49 PM
I should clarify here. I'm not saying the DNC doesn't have the right to disenfranchise their own voters by changing the rules.

I'm just saying there are several board members here that cried the 2000 election was stolen, based on the idea voter's intentions were violated, even though the rules were followed and the SC had to make a call based on the rules.

In any case, Mildred Bigbutt from Ocala, FL, a life long democrat, didn't get to pick here party's nominee in 2008, even though she had contributed to the party for 59 years.

Too funny.

To be honest I have no idea what if any rule they changed. From what I understand they told both Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries up to interfere with Iowa and NH that they would be stripped. They went ahead and did it anyway so IMO they only have themselves to blame.

But the DNC should have not been so strict and should have followed what the RNC did.

jettio
03-18-2008, 06:53 PM
I should clarify here. I'm not saying the DNC doesn't have the right to disenfranchise their own voters by changing the rules.

I'm just saying there are several board members here that cried the 2000 election was stolen, based on the idea voter's intentions were violated, even though the rules were followed and the SC had to make a call based on the rules.

In any case, Mildred Bigbutt from Ocala, FL, a life long democrat, didn't get to pick here party's nominee in 2008, even though she had contributed to the party for 59 years.

Too funny.

The Supreme Court halted the recount that the Florida Supreme Court had found to be in accord with Florida election law.

The Supreme Court's ruling was not based on interpreting rules, it was based on a one time only concept of equal protection as applied to voting rights for ballots already cast but whose tally had not yet been verified in accordance with the state law that allowed for recount under certain conditions.

mlyonsd
03-18-2008, 06:55 PM
To be honest I have no idea what if any rule they changed. From what I understand they told both Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries up to interfere with Iowa and NH that they would be stripped. They went ahead and did it anyway so IMO they only have themselves to blame.

So "They" punished Mildred Bigbutt, not the DNC? I don't think "They" could have taken Mildred's vote away, just the DNC.

But the DNC should have not been so strict and should have followed what the RNC did.

Absolutely agree.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 07:49 PM
From what I understand if those states don't get seated then the super delegates don't get a vote. That is why Hillary wants them seated because alot those SD's support her.

That may be true. I'll be surprised if there isn't some accomodation worked out for Michigan, but even if there isn't, those Michigan popular votes are still in play for Hillary's camps' argument to the super delegates of all 49 other states.

StcChief
03-18-2008, 07:58 PM
That may be true. I'll be surprised if there isn't some accomodation worked out for Michigan, but even if there isn't, those Michigan popular votes are still in play for Hillary's camps' argument to the super delegates of all 49 other states.
Dems are stupid. Superdelgates decide anyway. the popular vote is farce

dirk digler
03-18-2008, 08:23 PM
That may be true. I'll be surprised if there isn't some accomodation worked out for Michigan, but even if there isn't, those Michigan popular votes are still in play for Hillary's camps' argument to the super delegates of all 49 other states.

I disagree to the extent that she may try to make the case about Michigan but no one is going to by that. Keeping Florida votes would be a better argument for her since all the candidates were on the ballot. She was the only one on the Michigan ballot.

go bowe
03-18-2008, 08:33 PM
LMAO. I guess caring about disenfranchised voters and caring that the people's voices are heard only matters if you can make the case the republicans are doing it.

The hypocrisy is stunning.i dunno...

does this change the equation?

With Clinton and Obama in a tight race for the nomination, setting up new elections isn’t simple. Clinton won both states’ primaries in January, but all the Democratic candidates had agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.and i'll cite an eminently respected source...

link (http://snipurl.com/222nf)

patteeu
03-19-2008, 07:24 AM
I disagree to the extent that she may try to make the case about Michigan but no one is going to by that. Keeping Florida votes would be a better argument for her since all the candidates were on the ballot. She was the only one on the Michigan ballot.

Super delegates who want an excuse for voting for her (whether because they like her better, they think she's got a better chance to win in the fall, they're afraid of her, or whatever) will buy it. All they need is an argument to hang their hat on. The more plausible and compelling that argument is, the better, but depending on how strong their urge is to vote for her, they may settle for whatever they can get.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 08:36 AM
FL and MI did it to themselves after being warned about moving their primaries.

So you are wrong on all counts.

The legislature here moved it up. But the vote was nearly unaminous by Ds and Rs. Still Rs had the majority so even if the Ds didn't vote with them it's doubtful they would have won. Then again, maybe if they put up a fight about it it may have changed the dynamics.

pikesome
03-19-2008, 09:16 AM
The legislature here moved it up. But the vote was nearly unaminous by Ds and Rs. Still Rs had the majority so even if the Ds didn't vote with them it's doubtful they would have won. Then again, maybe if they put up a fight about it it may have changed the dynamics.

I think it's safe to say the moving was a play for being the belle of the primary ball.

mlyonsd
03-19-2008, 09:35 AM
The legislature here moved it up. But the vote was nearly unaminous by Ds and Rs. Still Rs had the majority so even if the Ds didn't vote with them it's doubtful they would have won. Then again, maybe if they put up a fight about it it may have changed the dynamics.

Right. Again, so why would the DNC punish FL voters if it was outside their control?

I just find it funny it's ok that sort of thing happens when they're in control of the situation.

Sully
03-19-2008, 09:41 AM
Why should the DNC punish those voters who took them at their word that the vote wouldn't count, and decided not to waste their time?

patteeu
03-19-2008, 09:57 AM
The DNC is punishing voters left and... well, far left.

jAZ
03-19-2008, 10:06 AM
Right. Again, so why would the DNC punish FL voters if it was outside their control?
Because...

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/buzz/2006/03/iowa-new-hampshire-and-florida.html

Thursday, March 30, 2006
Iowa, New Hampshire - and Florida?

[...]

Rep. Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, said Thursday he wants the state to move up its 2008 presidential primary so it will be held one week after New Hampshire, which traditionally goes first. That would make Florida "relevant,'' Rubio said in a conference call with reporters.

The idea from Rubio, who has launched a statewide drive for new ideas in politics, has early support from both parties. Gov. Jeb Bush met with Rubio recently and said he supported the plan, said Bush spokeswoman Alia Faraj.

Andy Palmer, executive director for political affairs at the Republican Party of Florida, said the proposal is promising.

"It's appropriate for Florida to be a whole lot earlier in the nominating process,'' Palmer said. "We're going to be the third largest state pretty soon.''

Mark Bubriski, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said ... "Florida Democrats are all for it,'' he said.

jAZ
03-19-2008, 10:18 AM
The reality is that this goes back further than this year...

Here's a little overview. Note, this was written AT THE TIME (when Clinton was a slam dunk and long before the delegate fight we have today).

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1564

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion
Mon Oct 08th 2007, 04:36 PM

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006 Florida Dem spokesman about early primary vote.

"Florida Democrats are all for it," Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said at the time. (The time was March 2006)

Yet even though it is more and more established that the Florida Democrats were ok with the idea, that they did not fight back....there are articles printed daily without that truth in them, articles that turn the DNC and its chairman into a caricature.

It is getting to so many of us here, and the leadership goes on with the righteous lawsuits. It is turning many away from active participation in the state.

Here is an example from today, talking points just from the Florida party side.

Florida Democrats make federal case out of presidential primary


The lawsuit argues that the Democratic Party's sanctions against Florida violate basic rights protected by the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. In effect, the right to vote supersedes a political party's right to enforce internal rules for a primary election.

The two pols did the right thing. The national party had it coming.

It was a rather obtuse Democratic National Party, led by chairman Howard Dean, that imposed sanctions on the Sunshine State after the Florida Legislature changed the date of the presidential primary to late January. The fact that the primary date change came as part of a larger elections reform package, or that it was a fait accompli in a Republican-controlled legislature didn't matter.

It also apparently didn't mean much to the party that Florida officials tried to work out a compromise that would accommodate both the party and those states yearning for an earlier spot in the process to select a presidential nominee.

Implying the "obtuseness" of the national party. Not presenting both sides. Poor and biased journalism. It works, and it is hurting all of us here.

It was not a "fait accompli" of the Republicans, the Democrats worked with them.

The Democrats here have apparently, it is now coming out, been on board with the Republicans here since at least spring of last year. They were not against the vote to move the primary ahead, and they understood the consequences.

"Florida Democrats are all for it," Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said in March 2006



Rubio already had Democrats on board.

"Florida Democrats are all for it," Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said at the time. (The time was March 2006)

So now there are at least two lawsuits against Howard Dean and the DNC, with no fair coverage here at all.

In fact from the very first the Florida party used the media to put all the blame on the national party.


"We are quite concerned that Florida Democrats are going to lose their right to vote," Nelson said. "And of all states, we have the sensitivity of this because of what we have gone through."

.."The state's congressional delegation also sent a letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean threatening a voting rights investigation in response to sanctions. However, national Democratic officials insist there is no legal basis to force the party to seat delegates in violation of its rules, and Nelson could not say what law the DNC would be violating or where the case could be pursued."

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.

They voted 115 to 1 to move the primary ahead. Fighting back would have allowed them to keep the delegates.

From the link above which quotes Terry McAuliffe's book, "What a party"...he did some fighting over the last primary.


"Expletives were flying. The head of the Democratic National Committee was having it out with Sen. Carl Levin because Michigan wanted to crash the rarefied club of early presidential primary states.

Move your primary too early, Terry McAuliffe warned, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention.

"The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television," McAuliffe vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

Nobody sued McAuliffe, did they? But two lawsuits against Dean and the DNC (Bill Nelson, Alcee Hastings, and a Tampa activist who vows it is only the "first bite of the apple")

It was ok when McAuliffe instilled party discipline. But now it is not ok when Howard Dean is doing it. And he is being sued.

I wonder why that is.

(And to those wondering how long I plan to post about this? The answer is as long as it takes to get people to tell the truth.)

jAZ
03-19-2008, 10:18 AM
The FL Dems were "punished" for not trying to fight the plan at all. Had they tried and failed, it would have been a different punshiment.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 10:52 AM
The FL Dems were "punished" for not trying to fight the plan at all. Had they tried and failed, it would have been a different punshiment.

Well, that's makes sense.

I seems like the Florida GOP and Dems wanted to have more influence on who won the primary.

mlyonsd
03-19-2008, 11:32 AM
The FL Dems were "punished" for not trying to fight the plan at all. Had they tried and failed, it would have been a different punshiment.

Right, maybe the DNC should have figured out a way to punish the decicion makers, not poor old Mildred Bigbutt.

She would have gotten her hair done for the occasion too.

beer bacon
03-19-2008, 11:40 AM
Right, maybe the DNC should have figured out a way to punish the decicion makers, not poor old Mildred Bigbutt.

She would have gotten her hair done for the occasion too.

You don't understand how this whole republic works do you? Those decision makers weren't voted in to office to represent and make decisions like this for the electorate.