I watched Robert Reich tonight on Rachel Maddow's show. It was so good to see him get air time. I have been working on a post about how the Florida debacle happened and why....and I remembered this post of his right after the 2006 election. It was written in response to the attempted coup on Howard Dean as chair...
led by James Carville. Reich was right on the point. He did not spare anyone the truth. What he said then was just as pertinent to today, when the dissatisfaction and propaganda about the Florida primary are still going on even here at DU.
From November 2006:
Why are they gunning for Howard Dean?"Why? Dems now control both Houses and have twenty-eight governorships. Dean ought to be congratulated. So what’s the underlying agenda here? Three theories:
1. The only way a Dem gets on television after such a sweet victory isn’t by criticizing Republicans – it’s by criticizing fellow Dems. Stirring up clear waters grabs attention. Attention draws crowds. Crowds create power. Power is the name of the game in Washington, especially when formal control of Congress changes hands.
2. Dean’s strategy of putting money into state party infrastructure takes money out of the pockets of Washington insiders – away form Democratic consultants and key congressional party activists. That makes insiders angry.
3. Dean is an independent DNC chair, not under the sway of the Clintons. Unlike Ron Brown, who guided the DNC toward a Clinton victory in 1992, Dean doesn’t play the usual power games. Hence, the Clintons would like him out, and the sooner the better. Carville, Greenberg, and Emmanuel, among others, are doing their bidding.
Which is it? I’m not so cynical or conspiratorial as to believe any one of them. But you come up with a more credible theory.
Last night in a thread I was said by four people to be dishonest in my posts about the Florida primary. This is my defense. It has split my state badly, and it's a real shame that not one single Democratic leader involved has apologized for what they did...for their accusations of unfairness against Dean.
This is a long post. There really is no way to shorten it too much. A lot more could be included, which I will just leave out to keep it from being too long to read.
First off here is a video clip with the words of Hillary Clinton written down.
Hillary accepted & signed the DNC rules barring MI & FL delegates. From a MTP interviewRussert was interviewing Dick Durbin. Do not miss the video. It is critical to understanding what came later.
On Sept. 1 2007, she accepted and signed the DNC rules barring any other states having a primary earlier than the specified date. She did agree upon it before the election and now because she is losing, she wants them counted?
What about your signed pleadge? -
on MI and FL votes.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Letter to Democratic Presidential Candidates
August 31, 2007
As the leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules...
The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only 4 states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, 2008. The findings of Non-Compliance included a 100% loss of pledged and unpledged delegates.
Hillary Clinton Campaign
September 1, 2007
Clinton Campaign
Statement On The
Four State Pledge
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
Added: April 06, 2008
This is one of the most revealing sets of information that Florida knew exactly what they were doing, did it deliberately, and then turned the blame on the party and its chairman. Inexcusable for them to do that.
Florida KNEW they could lose ALL their delegates if they voted yes to move the primary.Under the DNC delegate selection rules, if a state party’s plan violates the rule with respect to timing, the number of its pledged delegates—those delegates awarded proportionally to candidates based on the primary or caucus results—is automatically reduced 50%(without any action by the RBC or DNC); no member of the DNC can attend the Convention as a delegate; no Member of Congress can attend the Convention as a delegate; and if applicable, the state’s Democratic governor can not attend the Convention as a delegate. In addition, any presidential candidate who campaigns in the state for the event in violation of the rules cannot receive any pledged delegates from that state. In addition to these automatic sanctions, the DNC the RBC has authority under the rules to impose additional sanctions, including further reductions in the state’s delegation.
At its meeting on August 25, 2007, the DNC RBC found Florida’s plan in noncompliance with the DNC rules, and voted to increase the sanctions against Florida by reducing the state’s delegation by 100% unless the state party, within the 30-day period allowed by the
Committee’s regulations, submitted a plan for an alternative, state party-run process on or after February 5 that would be used to allocate delegate positions.
One of the links there is dead now, and I found a new link for it.
http://florida-delegates.com/pages/dnc-position/senate-statement.phpThe date of that hearing was September 18, 2007.
Here is more on the delegate selection from earlier. Again it refers to the automatic loss of 50%, but makes it clear that the committee has the power to do more than that. PDF format.
Delegate Selection Rules RBC meeting August 19, 2006C. 1. a. Violation of timing:
In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party
provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the
event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent...(the 50% is automatic without any action by the committee)...
....6. Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules , where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2)or (3) of this section C.
I had to leave out a lot of both documents, as they are quite long. So it is not meant to mislead, just that I can't post all of it.
There is even a "good faith" clause for states like Florida which are controlled by Republicans. Florida chose not to make good use of that.
7. In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.
The good faith clause meant nothing to them.
This article from the Washington Post on September 22, 2007, shows the defiant attitude of the Florida Democrats. It shows they knew they were breaking the rules, and they were doing so deliberately.
Fla. Democrats Set to Stick to Jan. 29 VoteThe Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates, a party source said Saturday. The Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip Florida of its 210 delegates if the state party held a primary before Feb. 5, but it gave state officials until next Saturday to come up with an alternative delegate selection plan, such as caucuses or a vote-by-mail primary, to stay within DNC rules.
But state party leadership has rejected that course, the source said, after a poll of executive committee members found at least 75 percent support for the early primary. The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because executive committee members were still being notified of the state party's stance.
State party Chairman Karen L. Thurman, members of the congressional delegation and state legislative leaders scheduled a news conference for Sunday to announce their position.
"On Jan. 29, 2.5 million Floridians are going to go to the polls, and that's more telling than any caucus in Iowa," said Miami-Dade County Democratic Party Chairman Joe Garcia. "We'll be damned for it by some, but I think we're doing the right thing."
Broward County state committeewoman Diane Glasser, who also serves as state party first chair, said that she is fine with the decision, as long as delegates are selected in case they are permitted to attend the convention in Denver next summer.
"I'm not concerned with the DNC," she said.
No, they were not concerned with the DNC.
The meeting of the DNC rules committee August 2007, and what they knew about Florida's not acting in "good faith."
What the Rules committee knew...1. Florida Democratic Legislators sponsored the bill to move the primary to January 29th;
2. Florida House Democratic Legislators voted in committee three times for the bill to move the primary to January 29;
3. All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29; and,
4. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after receiving a call from DNC Chair asking for help in opposing setting the primary date before February 5, “I don’t represent Howard Dean.”
5. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5th, that the only reason he offer it was “to show that there was an attempt to state within the Democratic Party rules.” The amendment failed on a voice vote with no debate being offered.
6. Florida Senate Democratic Legislators voted in committee to move the primary to January;
7. Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.
They also had the video, I think, of Steve Geller mocking his own amendment. It did not show good faith.
Florida Senate Minority Leader jokingly introduces an amendment to show "good faith."Some of the Florida leaders sent Howard Dean a letter threatening him with lawsuits if he did not do as they wished. He wrote them back in no uncertain terms. Then they sued. Here is the letter.
Dean's letter to Bill Nelson and Alcee Hastings in September 2007
September 25, 2007
Dr. Dean's prescription for Florida: Get in compliance or deal with the consequences. The letter's in the jump.
September 21, 2007
Honorable Bill Nelson
United States Senate
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Honorable Alcee Hastings
United States House of Representatives
2353 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senator Nelson and Congressman Hastings:
I am in receipt of your recent letter concerning the date of the Florida 2008 presidential primary.
In your letter, you ask that I lift the sanctions imposed against the Florida Democratic Party by close of business, Monday, September 24, 2007. You also suggest that my doing so may help to avoid a legal challenge.
As you know, Florida’s 2008 Delegate Selection Plan was found in Non-Compliance by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). This finding of Non-Compliance included the automatic delegate reductions imposed under the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. Additionally, the RBC, exercising a power conferred exclusively on them under the Rules, imposed a further reduction in the delegation, equal to a total 100% delegate loss. The decision to impose the additional reduction was approved by a very substantial majority of the RBC.As the Florida Democratic Party was fully informed a month ago, the delegate reductions become effective if the Florida Democratic Party fails to submit a revised and compliant Plan by September 29, 2007. Proposed solutions that you reference in your letter would not comply with the Rules in that both proposed solutions keep the January 29, 2008 primary as a binding event that would allocate delegates among presidential candidates.
As I have said before, I remain committed to discussing solutions to this issue that comply with the Delegate Selection Rules overwhelmingly adopted by the full DNC over a year ago.
Sincerely,
Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman
September 25, 2007 in Bill Nelson, Democrats, Presidential campaign
Tampa Bay BuzzThanks for letting me vent. I do not post stuff that is not true to the best of my knowledge. I never have, and I never will. I have seen many of the posts on the Puma blogs accusing me of lying about the primary. I have not.
This is a sad time in our party's history. It needs to be remedied before too long. There is a difference between hard campaigning in primaries and simply making false accusations against the party chairman.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
