Why aren't Florida and Michigan Democrats going after the real villains in this mess?

[kaygore]

The real villains are the state legislators who voted in this mess, especially those in Florida who saw this again as a tool for Florida to throw the election. Go after them for goodness sake. Revile them; threaten them with political disgrace and defeat, including the Democrats who went along with them and didn't speak out.

Howard Dean is not a villain. He resurrected the Party. When he suffered an undeserved defeat, he picked himself up and gave more to the Democratic Party than we had the right to expect or demand from someone who was abused so badly by the political process. He did not put a gun to the candidate's heads when they agreed to the rules.

One reason the Democrats keep losing (other than stolen elections) is lack of discipline. Why not ditch the rules and next time Florida and Michigan and any other state can have their primaries on the same day as the general election...or before. It then becomes a game of who is first.

I love the irony that those states who were last are now first in their impact on the primary--kind of Biblical.

And it says a lot about the real value of trying to be first. Had Florida and Michigan voted when they were told to do so, then their votes would have had some real meaning, far beyond that of the earlier voting states.

The Florida Republican politicians that helped their Democratic colleagues move the primary date got what they intended: Fracturing the Party.

I do not see why some Democrats are letting them get away with this by going along. Rules are rules, especially when the candidates agreed to them.

Let's stop this madness and call it for what it is: An attempt to split the Party, a successful one at that.

Those Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain if the votes in these states are not given (and given, not earned, it is) are playing right into the hands of the enemy.

Congratulations!

The Republicans are our enemies, not other Democrats who just happen to support another candidate.

If we are to win in November, we need to put this rancor aside and focus on the real threat to our country and that threat is NOT another Democrat and we all know that.

[still_one]

1. Because most people will not accept responsibility for their actions /nt

[kaygore]

7. See, this isn't helpful

There is a lot of pain from Democrats, especially in Florida where they have seen election after election stolen. Making the Democratic voters the villains there does not help heal their pain. Let's focus on the real villains and they are not Florida or Michigan voters or Clinton supporters but the Republican Party and their puppets in the legislatures of Florida and Michigan.

By focusing anger elsewhere, we play into their hands.

It is all so very Rovian. Why can't we see the larger picture?

[still_one]

15. I mostly agree with you about the voters, but NOT the Democratic politicians

in those respective states, i.e. Michigan and Florida

THEY KNEW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WERE, and they continued to pursue it with glee


http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/files/geller_amendment_fullh.264%20300Kbps.mov

[kaygore]

22. But the pay off was verified voting which is critical in Florida

I volunteered there in 2004 and saw the election stolen right before my very eyes. But since there was no verified voting, there was no way to really prove it.

This latest tactic which is tearing our Party apart may be even more successful than stealing votes outright.

You gotta hand it to the Republicans!

[still_one]

30. and what has the Democrats in Congress done since 2000 and 2004

to insure that every vote is counted correctly?

Except for a handful, very little

8 years have gone by, and nothing

A similar example is the American public and car companies crying because either they own huge SUVs, or they can't sell them. In 2000, hybrids from Japan were introduced here. bush and the republicans made fun of hybrids, and energy efficient vehicles. They campaigned on the fact that Americans have the right to drive big cars. Many Americans and car companies made choices back then. The American car companies said they couldn't meet the CAFE standards, so they extended the time required for them to meet it. Funny how Toyota and Honda have exceeded those standards, and we are still struggling.

Perhaps my auto example isn't appropriate. However,

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

[KSinTX]

44. Pls explain how voting against the bill would have derailed verification

If the Dems had voted against the bill, sincerely not tauntingly as this:

"I don’t want to get in a game of chicken with the national Democratic Party, but candidly, I don’t represent Howard Dean. I represent a lot of people who would like to be the primary journey as more than just potential contributors." --Dan Gelber, St. Pete Times, 02/09/07

"Would we rather have a say in who the party's nominee is or send a few more people to party?" --Jeremy Ring, Tampa Trib, 2/16/07

"I'd love to see him enforce that" --Steve Geller, Orlando Sentinel, 4/28/07


how would the state vote not be verified? This was not about political security, it was about sending "a few more people to party." They weren't interested about being seated at the convention then, what has changed now?

Floridians should impeach these doofases and be plenty damn angry at them. None of these quoted are Republicans and Gov. Crist asked them if they wanted a re-vote - they said no.

[PassingFair]

64. There was no "pay-off" here in Michigan.

Just a bandwagon effort to FRONTLOAD the
perceived invincibility of Clinton's campaign.

FAIL.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. verified voting is only as good as the machines that count the votes. which is owned by a Republican

[dsc]

2. I am sick of Florida Democrats being thrown under the bus

I don't know how I would have voted on that bill. The price of getting a paper trail was moving that primary. I still think that is a close call. Dems never said before that vote was taken that the penalty would be the entire delegation (it was supposed to be half).

[kaygore]

5. Look at the larger picture: That this is having the effect that it was intended

to get another Republican candidate elected president.

I feel terrible for the Florida voters and those in Michigan, but at least put the blame where it belongs and not on Dean or our winning in November.

I volunteered in Florida for the 2004 election. I saw the vote stolen then. I know how important verified voting is there, so the Republicans needed another means of insuring a win in November and, clever and devious and downright evil as they are, they found it: Defy the Party rules.

My point is the best revenge is to not split the party over this and for Florida and Michigan voters to focus there anger where it belongs, on the legislators.

[dsc]

13. at the very least those legislators were owed an honest depiction of what the penalty would be

they weren't given that.

[still_one]

16. They were given that. In fact this is the first time Michagan has pulled this stunt

they did it under Terry Macalough(sic) also

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/files/geller_amendment_fullh.264%20300Kbps.mov

[dsc]

19. sanction doesn't mean full removal of delegates

the stated penalty was half.

[still_one]

21. No, the stated penalty is a least half. Here is another thread

which discusses how the Florida Democrats actually worked with the republicans for this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6122987&mesg_id=6122987


Personally, I don't have as much problem with Florida, because ALL the candidates were on the ballot, but Michigan, they either have to rerun the primary, or find another solution

[dsc]

26. sorry at least half isn't good enough

If total disenfranchisment was being considered it should have been stated in clear, unambiguious terms to both the legislators and the voters. It wasn't.

[still_one]

33. Perhaps they should not have violated the rules in the first place, especially Michigan /nt

[mkultra]

82. the fact that they would be penalized was crystal clear.

[mkultra]

84. heres a video of Geller openly mocking the DNC threat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

[KSinTX]

47. Set our way back machine to May 2007

DNC Chairman Howard Dean warned Florida last month that if states ignore the DNC, "our rules are so strict that not only will those states not collect any delegates, but anybody that campaigns in that state will be ineligible for any delegates from that state. We will reapportion their delegates to all the other candidates if they show up in a state that jumps ahead of Feb. 5."


http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=11151

[dsc]

57. that presumes delegates

there can't be delegates to assign to other candidates without there being delegates.

[KSinTX]

62. At the state level

State parties run their own conventions/selection processes. This means if they send state-level delegates to the national-level convention on behalf of anyone who campaigned there in protest, those sanctioned state delegates would then be certified to the national convention but not in the candidate configuration they intended.

[mkultra]

81. the actually rules state the penalty

it was clear before they did it and MI decided to do it because Florida was doing it. Just imagine what would happen next cycle if there was no penalty. We are already 3 months ahead of 1992.

[SanchoPanza]

77. Red Herring cooked in Crocodile Tears

It doesn't matter if the underlying bill was to declare everyday the first day of Spring. The Democrats pushed the primary amendment foward in committee. They backed it in the general legislature. They had ample opportunity to raise a stink over it, but instead tossed up a last minute protest amendment that they didn't even support. This is not acting in good faith.

[Iceburg]

3. If the real villains are the state legislatures, why did Obama/Dean punish the voters?/nt

[DogPoundPup]

4. Please, please, please...

Do a search on 'Early Florida Primary Voting' and get informed before throwing out this accusation.

[kaygore]

11. I can see why the voters may feel this way

But their anger needs to be directed at the real villains. Given that some campaigns followed the rules, why should they be punished for not putting time and effort in those states and making it a fair contest.

Please look at the larger picture: Michigan and Florida are critical states for the election. By defying the Party rules and making the Democratic Party, specifically the DNC, the villain, the Republicans have a better chance of winning Michigan and Florida in the general election. That this also has split the Party nationally is pure gravy.

We have to focus our anger where it belongs. To do otherwise is to continue to play into the very hands of those who engineered this mess.

[KSinTX]

48. They punished the state party. The voters voted these people in

to express their will, to be their 'voice.' This is what was done with that voice and should be impeached by their voters.

[Tippy]

75. And who elected these Democrats? You got it the Florida voters.....

[SanchoPanza]

78. For electing inept party leaders?

I know it's not the official reason, but it works for me.

[hulka38]

6. The GOP is patting the Florida Republicans on the back for that gambit no doubt.

But they must be surprised and amused that so many Democrats still don't understand what happened - K&R.

[Swamp Rat]

9. yep

:thumbsup:

[still_one]

17. They Florida Democrats do understand what happened

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/files/geller_amendment_fullh.264%20300Kbps.mov

and they accepted it without an argument

[Sancho]

43. That is correct.

The GOP is laughing all the way on the confusion that they have created...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

73. indeed

[mkultra]

85. and the FL dems as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

[Swamp Rat]

8. We need a remedy - FL and MI must be seated.

I hope the Rules Committee can find an equitable solution.

[kaygore]

12. I agree--my heart goes out to our fellow Democrats in those states

[PassingFair]

66. Don't cry for me, Florida!

My state officials SCREWED UP.

There was no "confusion" involved.

Anyone watching knew what was going on.

I couldn't CARE LESS if a couple of
Michiganders take a trip to Colorado.

The election was INVALID and they
will NOT be representative of the
populace, whether they wave banners
around in Denver or not.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. They will.

Likely 50/50 or 60/40 @ 50%.

[KSinTX]

49. Both states will be seated no doubts there. nt

[Tippy]

76. I disagree....by changing the rules in order for them to be seated

The DNC knows what will happen when election time rolls around again...Now the only way around that would be to have a drawing to chose which state goes in January, Feb,...so forth and so on.

[CTLawGuy]

10. well said

throw them out of office for playing political games with people's votes.

[Skink]

14. I bet now that Obama has the same recognition as Clinton Florida and

Michigan may be happy to vote for him in the November election. This is my only rational for letting the small states vote early.

[still_one]

18. and here is another view of the situation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6122987&mesg_id=6122987

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Because they can't fix the problem

the DNC can. The DNC imposed the arbitrary and draconian penalty, and they can change it.

[still_one]

24. This isn't the first time it happened. Michigan tried to play this game before

and terry macallough(sic) told them the same thing Dean did

Here is another thread which seems to argue that the Florida Democrats actually worked with the republicans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6122987&mesg_id=6122987

[MonkeyFunk]

29. How does that change anything I wrote?

the state legislatures can't resolve this issue. The DNC can.

[still_one]

31. It doesn't, and they will /nt

[elocs]

32. So many seem to want to conveniently forget about that..

Let the entire nominating process degenerate into states doing whatever they want whenever they want will mean chaos. In Florida especially, blame the smug Democratic legislators. Life is about choices and consequences and sometimes innocent people have to suffer the consequences for the poor choices made by others.

[still_one]

36. It can be argued that there are times when civil disobedience is necessary

However, this isn't one of those times

[mkultra]

86. but they shouldnt

[Auntie Bush]

23. So who helped fracture the party?

"The Republicans are our enemies, not other Democrats who just happen to support another candidate."

Hillarites have been treated and vilified as the enemy for months now. Just take a look at this board! They treated us like crap, lied and distorted everything, put their words and paranoid thoughts in her mouth and then attacked her for saying something she didn't say...all group assassination. Then they tried to push her out of the primary and accused her of not being a Democrat. They treated her (in spite of many warnings that they were dividing the party) with more VILE and HOSTILITY than any candidate in my lifetime...worse than the Rethugs treated Bill Clinton... AND THAT WAS DEMOCRATIC AGAINST DEMOCRATIC...sickening! :puke:

NOW.... THEY THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH US IF WE ARE TURNED OFF FROM VOTING FOR YOUR PRECIOUS CANDIDATE THAT CAN DO NO WRONG. What the HELL did they think they were doing to the party unity when they attacked one of our own candidates so viciously? Obama supporters have done it to themselves and our party (karma hurts) if we lose this election as planned by Rove and played out perfectly by O S. CONGRATULATIONS ON A JOB WELL DONE. Now they can pat themselves on the back and say...WE WON! Too bad they may have lost the GE...so don't come crying to me. Obama Supporters and their hatefulness and trumped up anger DIVIDED THIS ARTY!

[kaygore]

28. Both sides have been needlessly ugly to each other--just was the Republicans wanted

What I am saying is that we need to look at the larger picture. I know Obama supporters who have said that they would never vote for Clinton and Clinton supports who have said that they will never vote for Obama.

My preferred candidates either didn't run or dropped out, but the real goal is defeating McCain and the Republicans.

This is much like a divorce where things have been done and said that never should have been done or said and once done or said can not be easily taken back or forgotten.

But good parents put the children first and set aside their differences for their sakes.

There is a lot of pain on both sides. Both sides have said and done things they probably should not have done and said, but for the sake of defeating the Republicans, we need to stop the rancor and look at the bigger picture: Our country can not last through another four years of Republican rule and the Congress has been spineless since 2006 when they have had some power, at least impeachment power.

Clinton supporters have been as passionate as Obama supporters. This passion should be channeled positively and not used against each other. This is all I am saying. We ALL lose if McCain wins!

[nichomachus]

25. The "real villains"

as I suggested in another thread yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6121573&mesg_id=6121573

are the people who suckered the DNC into this untenable position. No matter what the DNC does at this point is self-destructive.

If they don't seat the delegates, Hillary will shriek "disenfranchisement" until your eardrums rupture.

If they do seat the delegates, the DNC will lose credibility for caving in on its own rules.

And the Clinton team helped lead them into the trap.

The idea is to weaken the DNC and make the Clinton-led DLC the dominant force in the party.

This was a DLC coup against the DNC. It was calculated. Even if she had the nomination wrapped up at this point, she could still make the "Benevolent Mama" move of demanding the states be seated, again showing her power over the DNC.

She helped set the trap. The DNC walked into it. There is no good way out.

[Johnny__Motown]

27. The real villains are Hillary's people who tried to front load the process, Some in MI and FL went

along with it. Yes they are also at fault but it is Hillary and friends who are truly to blame.

[Carolina]

37. exactly, she had 15 (out of 30) people on the RULES committee

and they agreed to the RULES because they were sooooo confident that it would all be over by February 5th!


Check this out

http://www.alternet.org/election08/86359/?page=entire

[progressoid]

39. So, there it is

Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary's chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied, "What has changed is that now we are behind." So, there it is -- there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position. When they thought they were ahead in the presidential race, they supported the rule, but now that they are behind, they don't like it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the rest of us could act like the Clintons and support rules when they favor us and ignore them when they don't?


Great article! :thumbsup:

[Johnny__Motown]

40. I agree... conclusive evidence.. One set of rules when winning, another when losing

[Sancho]

41. That is completely wrong...

I'm not supporting anyone except for the Democratic candidate. If Obama or Hillary or anyone else won't fight tooth and nail for every advantage, they will be hopeless against the GOP. None of the candidates manufactured this mess or planned it.

The primary problem is something the candidates are trying to deal with just like the DNC.

[kwenu]

34. Because the Clinton folks are pushing it and going after the responsible people won't help her win.

[Sancho]

38. Let's at least be accurate: this is from the Florida Democratic Party in 2007 FAQ's

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q1 :

The Rules say you had to try to stop the primary move, but Democrats voted for the law. What gives?
Initially, before a specific date had been decided upon by the Republicans, some Democrats did actively support the idea of moving earlier in the calendar year. That changed when Speaker Rubio announced he wanted to break the Rules of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Following this announcement, DNC and Florida Democratic Party staff talked about the possibility that our primary date would move up in violation of Rule 11.A.

Party leaders, Chairwoman Thurman and members of Congress then lobbied Democratic members of the Legislature through a variety of means to prevent the primary from moving earlier than February 5th. Party leadership and staff spent countless hours discussing our opposition to and the ramifications of a pre-February 5th primary with legislators, former and current Congressional members, DNC members, DNC staff, donors, activists, county leaders, media, legislative staff, Congressional staff, municipal elected officials, constituency leaders, labor leaders and counterparts in other state parties. In response to the Party’s efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.

The primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority’s throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles.

[KSinTX]

50. Geller? You mean THIS Geller? THIS amendment?

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).
President: "I understand. Please don't throw me under the bramble bush."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

[Sancho]

53. I'm pasting directly from the FL Democratic website

"In response to the Party’s efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house."

It appears that in May (about a week after the video that we've all seen and after discussions between Thurman and Dean), someone introduced amendments to change the vote back to an approvable date. Both houses amendments failed. I am not defending Geller nor advocating for an particular candidate. I am saying that to me, it looks like a successful GOP move that caused confusion for the primary.

I have no way to determine what went on between that April video and the amendments that were offered. If the Fl Democratic Party is lying about offering their amendments, then they should be tossed by the DNC and Floridians. My local representatives have confirmed to me that they would have changed the date to super Tuesday, but didn't have the power to do so.

[KSinTX]

59. I'm not advocating either

I'm simply saying that the Republicans in this case are getting falsely blamed. They were told a similar thing by their party and were similarly reprimanded. I don't hear Republicans, who were in the bag for Guilliani btw, griping that they were disenfranchised. They got a half-vote each.

As for the Democrats, they were told well in advance that they, on the other hand, would lose all not half. They mockingly all the way drove their own car over the cliff and about halfway down said, "We've changed our minds." Personally, I would be livid at my party legislators if they had done that to me here in Texas - dagum Texans would be scared as cats in a dogpound.

I would be so pissed at them, I'd be leading the charge for either sanction or impeachment, not the candidates who had nothing to do with it. I also wouldn't be swayed by the lure of someone tempting me with the possibility of an after-the-fact game-changer. Is all I'm sayin'.

[Sancho]

61. They got what they wanted...

the GOP campaigned in Florida, raised money, and had a debate in St. Petersburg. They registered lots of new voters. They got half the delegates in a meaningless convention. They excluded the Democrats from campaigning and registering new supporters in Florida.

The typical GOP voters think the strategy worked well down here.

Yes, any Fl leaders who allowed this to happen or promoted it should be out the door. I don't think the voters had a choice, and many Democratic state legislators were also trapped.

[KSinTX]

63. They could not have known at that time it was meaningless. nt

[Sancho]

68. They knew ahead of time that they could campaign. and they knew that they

had a debate scheduled in Florida. And they likely knew the penalty was half the delegates. The contributions and registrations were part of what they were after. The disruption of local amendments on taxes, etc. was also part of what they were after. They also knew ahead of time that the DNC would prevent campaigning in FL.

All in all, a big victory for the GOP in a swing state. Also, as majority control, they could easily change the date or whatever if the penalties were too harsh. Something that the FL Democratic Party could not do.

[OzarkDem]

42. Let them have their votes counted

and stop making excuses. We govern our party on fairness, honesty and democratic principles, not on what benefits Obama.

Have any Obama supporters considered the idea of starting their own political party? It might be a good fit for you.

[progressoid]

46. "fairness, honesty and democratic principles"

That's good advice to give to FL and MI too. Sure wish they had considered that before they tried to bully around the other 48 states, the DNC and their own DEMOCRATIC party.

And "Let them have their votes counted"??? Hey - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a legitimate primary vote first?

[malik flavors]

45. Charlie Crist is an asshole. I don't know why he isn't blamed for this mess he created.

[NC_Nurse]

51. Because only the HIllary supporters CARE and they want their way in order

to help her. It's not about FL or MI, it's about Hillary. Duh.

No one gives a fuck except her and her diehards.

[Sancho]

54. I disagree very much...

I lived through the 2000 and 2004 elections and this has nothing to do with Hillary or any other particular candidate to me.

I think that allowing GOP manipulations in Florida have cost the Democrats two fairly won elections and is about to cost us a third.

[NC_Nurse]

55. I'm not talking about the anger at the GOP and the Dem leaders of FL who

have screwed this up in the first place. I wholeheartedly understand the frustration
of having multiple elections become invalid or skewed by hacks with or without partisan intent.

I'm referring to the people of FL not caring as much about how the primary delegates seating is resolved.
Only the Clinton camp is ranting about seating them all with no penalty. That's not only unfair, but completely
outside the rules of the DNC that were agreed on by ALL of the candidates. This could have been resolved, but
the Hillary campaign has refused to compromise.

[Sancho]

60. Maybe, but I'd expect any candidate to do what they can to win...and

if you look at Florida web sites about counting the vote, they are not just Clinton but represent lots of voters. There seems to lots of ranting down here and there has been for a while. Even before we were down to two candidates:

http://www.floridademandsrepresentation.org/

http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

http://www.martincountydemocrats.org/2007/070828primary_vote.html

http://www.floridademandsrepresentation.org/files/NationalMASTERWeb2.pdf

\http://florida-delegates.com/pages/site-map.php

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465

http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/2008/02/dnc-primary-rulesdisenfranchisement-of.html

http://www.countthevotes.net/id2.html

http://www.countfloridavotes.com/index.php

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article473738.ece

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/seatourdelegates/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/hey-dnc-count-every-vote

[TheModernTerrorist]

52. nah

its an attempt to change the election system by throwing one election under the bus "for the sake of the nation"

...or something

[Ravy]

56. As a Florida voter, I will tell you why I hang up on DNC calls right now...

We are a state controlled by Republicans, and a swing state particularly hurting from the Republican caging efforts of the past. There was great public support for moving the primary in my area, so I view the representatives here as being representative of the people we represent. I don't recall Florida being able to vote "Present" for politically charged votes as is done in some other states.

We scheduled our primary after the anointed four, and only one week early from the calender. and accepted the fact that the state would lose millions in revenue by not having the campaigns come into the state.

There was a minimum penalty. If Florida wasn't a poster child for a minimum penalty, then why even have a minimum penalty in the first place? One week early? After the others? Swing state? Democrats could not have stopped it anyways?

The DNC went after the death penalty. Republicans are supposed to be the strict authoritarian party. Democrats are supposed to be able to see shades of gray an nuiance. In this case, that got flipped entirely around.

It will hurt the DNC and Obama in the fall for taking the hard line.

[progressoid]

65. "There was great public support for moving the primary in my area..."

I'm willing to bet there is similar support in most of the States. So what?
Luckily the other 48 states decided to play by the rules or we'd REALLY be in a cluster-fuck.

And your flippant remark about "one week" is a tad disingenuous. One week early meant moving ahead of 22 other states (you know, those Super Duper Tuesday states). This has little to do with the effect on the first four (IA NH NV SC) but would affect the voters in nearly half of the country.

But what the hell, if people in your area wanted it, then we should let them do whatever they want. :eyes:

[stillcool]

70. I'm sure you would do it again...

which is why I am so happy that the "Democratic National Committee" didn't take any shit from 2 rogue states out of 50. Florida had plenty of time to change the date and comply with the DNC rules...well after they knew what the consequences would be. I just watched Recount. Sure puts everything in perspective.

[Ravy]

72. I am not questioning a penalty, I am questioning the maximum penalty. nt

[stillcool]

79. Why? Florida knew well in advance...

what the penalty would be if they did not change the date, and comply with the rules. Obviously neither you nor they could give a shit. I think it's hysterical that you have a problem with how another state legislature votes. That is just too funny.

‘Present’ Perfect
Published: February 16, 2008
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
-------------------
It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
By ABNER J. MIKVA

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863
Friday, January 25, 2008
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer

In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.

The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.

But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.

“The ‘present’ vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.

The Land of Lincoln isn’t the only state where lawmakers can register their displeasure without actually voting against a bill. Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas also allow “present” votes or similar options in at least one chamber, according to a recent review of chamber rules by the National
-----------------------------

In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.

That’s not how U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) characterized it in a debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this week.
Contact Daniel C. Vock at [e-mail].

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863

[Ravy]

80. You left one out.

The Illinois branch of the Planned Parenthood organization has given him a "100 percent" pro-choice voting rating and depicted the present votes as part of a previously agreed strategy to provide political cover for other legislators.

Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

A present vote is also used to provide cover for voting against politically charged issues.

[hokies4ever]

58. Dean will put the FL and MI legislators on trial on 5/31

for the entire nation to see. He'll have them crying after he's done with them. :rofl:

[RiverStone]

67. That's a very good question!

I have also wondered the same thing. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

69. This is why I favor banning from the convention anyone who supported FLA or MICH

The actions were misconduct, and the guilty parties should be excluded from the Denver convention hall. They should be identified and prohibited from being delegates or having floor credentials, as a sanction against those perps.

[Tippy]

74. In this case I firmly believe the Democrats in the FL legislature

Are to blame....It was sorta like this, the Democrats wanted a paper trail....The Republicans would give them that if they would vote for an earlier date....The dummy Democrats fell for it...the Republicans knew the DNC would do exactly what the DNC did....Hell it's in the rules..Then to top it off they were told by the DNC what to do and they would still get to vote at the convention but they sat on their asses and did nothing because they promised the Republican leadership they would vote with them...Then along comes Hillary and you know the rest of the story....

[Imagevision]

83. Florida's Charlie Crist created the Florida problem now he's pulling a Hillary...