Shredding The Constitution
Posted May 29th, 2008 by Da King
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws - 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude - 15th amendment to the United States Consitution.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex - 19th amendment to the United States Constitution.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age - 26th amendment to the United States Constiutition.
This is the United States Of America. Our citizens have the right to vote, to have their voices heard, to choose their representatives in government. That is the essence of our democratic Republic. Without that, our freedoms are not secured.
But now we have a candidate running for president, Barack Obama, who wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan. It appears the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wants to help him do it. Ironically, Obama claims to be a former civil rights lawyer who represented many people in voting rights cases. Now, he's advocating against voting rights. Is this the 'Change We Can Believe In' that Obama promises us ??? I think not. This is the Change We Do Not Want. Even more ironcally, Obama is a black man. It took nearly 200 years from the founding of this country for African-Americans to throw off the chains of slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, prejudice, and voter intimidation to secure their full right to vote. Now Obama and the DNC come along and toss 2.3 million votes out the window at their whim. Welcome to the Obama Banana Republic, fellow citizens. What the hell was all that civil rights marching for anyway, if our votes can be brushed aside so easily ?
Obama wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters for one reason - it benefits HIM. Forget about the U.S. Constitution. Forget about the civil rights movement. Forget ALL that. Obama wants to be president, and the liberal Democratic establishment wants it too, so we can't be bothered with trifling issues like voting, civil rights, and Constitutions. In a third glaring irony, it was the Democrats who lamented over every vote being counted and recounted endlessly in Florida during the Bush/Gore presidential election of 2000, when it was to their advantage to figure out a way for Al Gore to win. Now, they don't care a lick about 1.7 million Florida primary voters, because they want Barack Obama to win. That is hypocrisy on a breathtaking scale.
And it's unconstitutional, criminal behavior. Peter J. Wirs cites the case law in his excellent article, called Specter Demands Sanity Check On Obama's Hypocrisy:
Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
In the United States v. Classic decision, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone expressed the majority opinion by stating that the Constitution's protection of the right to vote cannot be effectively exercised without reaching to primary elections and/or political party nominating procedures. Even the dissenting opinion in Classic recognized a Congressional right to regulate primaries.
Democrats should not be allowed to rip up millions of ballots. If the DNC doesn't find remedies for both Florida and Michigan's disenfranchised voters, Congress and the people should demand one. The principle of one person, one vote vastly overrides any other consideration here.
Now listen to the unamerican, vote stealing "compromises" Barack Obama has come up with for Florida (every "compromise" results in Obama being the nominee, btw. Some surprise). This comes from the Huffington Post:
Barack Obama is now floating a compromise on the Florida situation, telling the St. Petersburg Times that one idea would be to cut the delegations' sizes in half — a step back from his previous stance of splitting the delegates 50-50 between himself and Clinton, but a far cry from the Hillary camp's insistence upon seating them in full.
Obama only offered the "cut the delegate size in half" compromise after he knew it could not hurt his chances to become the nominee. Prior to that, he stuck to the absurd "50-50 delegate split" compromise, thereby nullifying the Florida primary and pretending 1.7 million Florida voters didn't go to the polls that day.
There is a DNC meeting this saturday, where the DNC will allegedly decide whether they care about democracy a little bit, or not at all. Stay tuned for the results.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:56 am
This single issue proves Obama is a complete fraud.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
As a lifelong Democrat, I am infuriated with the DNC for putting their rules above the rights of the people to have their votes counted—this is shameful for the Democratic Party. It smacks of hypocrisy that Obama and his supporters would even think that honoring the rules of a committee should trump the votes of the people in this country—the Democratic Party needs to get its act straight or people like me will become so disenheartened that we will consider abandoning the party, perhaps encouraging Hillary to run as an Independent, as an independent spirit will not be beholden to the arbitrary rules of a committee that effectively cuts off Americans from having their votes count—the Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan are the ones to be punished—not the Americans who took the time to vote. That would be the truly American thing to do here.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
"King: Obama wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters for one reason - it benefits HIM. "
Interesting contrast. The 2000 "disenfranchisement" had all Doomocrats on board and the 08' version follows a distinct biased line. I've had this arguement several times and the sheep aren't budging from their half-baked justification………."They both agreed that these states would not count"
There's a problem with that. What gives either of these candidates, or the DNC, the right to negate millions of voters? Elitism? We've heard how important the popular vote is and that the will of the people must not be denied. If the sheep could only remove their 3-d glasses, kick the Kool-Aid, and refrain from fainting at pep rallies………………..they would see the distinction between democracy and hypocrisy.
Here's an even more interesting twist. Unhappy with the electoral college, Dooms have stressed the significance of the popular vote and how it should trump all. Then we have the super-delegates that were given an ultimatum to follow the will of the voters and the importance of the popular vote. With Hillary poised to overtake the popular vote, will the sock puppets change their tune and claim Puerto Rico shouldn't count?
Maybe the DNC will find a solution this weekend, but if it hurts Obama's chances………………..it'll be construed as the wrong one. I sincerely hope nothing is resolved until August because observing the sheep suffering from anxiety is extremely rewarding. It couldn't happen to a more deserving flock. By then, the gaffe machine will have put the finishing touches on himself.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Lets' review….
Republicans refused to count the votes in the year two thousand, and even ordered the counting stopped. That election was actually for the presidency of the U.S. We were told to "get over it".
Democrats in Fla. and Mich. KNEW ahead of time their votes would not count…..in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. All of it was completely out in the open. Obama has no single-handed control over the RULES of a Democratic Primary.
All that this post and it's comments reflect is desperation. So desperate to see the weaker Democratic candidate run against Bush's third term candidate with the slim hope of stealing another presidential election.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
This is just crazy. Before I go into why this is blatantly wrong, I need to point out one thing: criticizing Obama for having bad faith opinions on this matter is unbelievably self-unaware, King. Where was the outrage when the DNC made this decision eons ago? No, Rev is correct. You, just like Obama, only arrive at this opinion because it benefits the weaker candidate and you're clearly rooting for a long-as-possible Democratic primary.
First of all, there is no Constitutional violation here. It's odd that you would post the 15th Amendment here but then not explain where the right to vote is NOT being granted on the basis of race, age, or previous condition of servitude.
Second, no one was actually prevented from voting in the first place. Everyone in Florida and Michigan that wanted to vote in the primary was able to vote in the primary. The only issue is that their votes won't be properly allocated. But guess what? That happens every primary!!!!!!!!! As in, yes, every single one for the last eleventeen decades, King! For example, I voted for Howard Dean in 2004. But guess what? My vote went to John Kerry at the convention! Oh no! What? You mean, my vote wasn't counted? It went to someone else! Blasphemy! That's unconstitutional! Dear lord, the end is near! Armageddon is upon us!
Third, there's a much bigger bloc of voters that get disenfranchised in every closed primary: people who aren't Republicans or Democrats. I'm a member of the Whig Party, but we didn't have a Whig primary this year, so I'm disenfranchised because I didn't receive my (apparently) consitutionally guaranteed right to vote in some party's primary.
This is nonsense. No objective observer is really buying this HRC spin. It's the DNC's primary and they can pretty much do as they please with it. And why you aren't considering more recent Supreme Court decisions is beyond me (wait, no it's not). First, you've got Democratic Party v. Wisconsin:
http://vlex.com/vid/19980088
[Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules.]
Or Cousins v. Wigoda:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/419/477/
[In the selection of candidates for national office, a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards.]
But hey, keep cherry-picking case law to better suit what you want to be true. I promise I'll be convinced by your objectivity.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
"Rev:Republicans refused to count the votes in the year two thousand, and even ordered the counting stopped."
HBO will be happy to hear that you enjoyed their movie "Recount". The Bill Maher show probably offers some equally interesting angles on democracy. Haven't they realized that the Michael Moore tactics do not penetrate those with common-sense.
"Rev: Obama has no single-handed control over the RULES of a Democratic Primary."
True. However, they could have done the right thing and refuse to sign on to a plan that negates the voices of millions. They were not forced at gunpoint. Why should voters, in either of these states, reward such arrogance in the general election?
"Rev: So desperate to see the weaker Democratic candidate run against Bush's third term candidate with the slim hope of stealing another presidential election."
The far-left had their dream come true, when they manipulated the system to yield the weakest republican candidate. As they continue to self-implode, the "senile" elder appears to be the heavyweight. There was a time when I believed Hillary was the weaker of the candidates, but now I truly look forward to running against Obama. With no experience to go on, his tall-tales are becoming quite the showstoppers. He's supposedly meeting with some Indians today and I wonder what adventures that will bring? Possibly his uncle fought against general Custer, or maybe he was a buffalo salesman that sold meat to the tribes? Too funny.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Brent: Very nice…Thank you for the informative response to this bunch. They do keep me amused thou.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I can tell Brent knows he's wrong when he gets so frantic.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I can tell Brent knows he's wrong when he gets so frantic. The Reverend, on the other hand, is gone for good.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
"Brent: Where was the outrage when the DNC made this decision eons ago? No, Rev is correct. You, just like Obama, only arrive at this opinion because it benefits the weaker candidate and you're clearly rooting for a long-as-possible Democratic primary."
Not that King needs any assistance, but I couldn't resist the irony. Several months back, when Osama was behind in super-delegates, the pro-bama camp was screaming bloody murder about SD's possibly deciding the fate of their candidate. It's not like the role of the SD's was something new, as they've been in existence since 1982. They were never required to vote in any direction, other than exercise their own wisdom. Then came the sheep…………….calling for violence if the SD's overturned the will of the people and that they must follow the popular vote. Where was all the hoopla before the primaries? When Obama was behind in the super-delegates, one would have thought the world was nearing it's end.
Where was all the outrage when the DNC created the super-delegates 26 years ago? It only seemed to matter when Obama didn't stand to benefit. Should Hillary regain the popular vote, will the far-left heed their previous recommendation that the super-delegates go with the will of the people? ie the popular vote?
May 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I can't speak for anyone else, but I maintain my stance that SDs shouldn't overturn the pledged delegate result, though I always did see where superdelegates can have some value. Namely, a pledged delegate margin that's virtually even.
No matter, what's lost in all this bickering is any consideration as to who runs the show here. You must keep in mind that the entire primary process is nothing more than a function of the individual parties and that's why constitutional arguments or 'voter rights' pleas don't hold much water. I could invent a party tomorrow–let's call it Brent's party–and I could only allow people named Brent to vote in my primary to select a candidate for the general election to represent the National Brentic Party. I'm not obligated to conform to the rules of the state-run general election. Moreover, this is why ridiculous things like caucuses, superdelegates, Iowa-first-New Hampshire-second, etc. are allowed to exist… all of these are probably constitutional violations if you concede that party primaries are obligated as such. But that's just not the case.
And by the way, I'm glad it's not the case. Not necessarily because I like Obama, but because the party really should have some element of control here. It's in our national interest to not have primaries for the 2012 election starting in February of 2009. Occasionally these people have to govern and, you know, do stuff instead of gearing up for the reelection campaign before the first term even starts. Michigan and Florida shouldn't be allowed to reschedule their primaries back into the 19th century if they want to. That's absurd. Yes, it's a shame that these people don't get to have a say in this year's primary, but 1) that happens to everyone not in NH or Iowa every election, and 2) it's really just a shame that Florida and Michigan's state Democratic parties decided to risk disenfranchising their own voters like that. It's more than clear that this sort of thing can happen (indeed, if you know how to use Google you'll see that it HAS happened before and the Supreme Court okay'd it, as I noted above).
May 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Brent…very well done.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Alex:
"Haven't they realized that the Michael Moore tactics do not penetrate those with common-sense."
I always enjoy the "common sense" rebuttal. Those who, like, have all the empirical facts on their side, are always, mysteriously, deemed to lack "common sense". Is "common sense", like, an option in a cable teevee package or something.
"The far-left had their dream come true, when they manipulated the system to yield the weakest republican candidate."
Perhaps you could work up, you know, a few examples of what "manipulated the system" actually means.
King has stumbled on this point as well. He's trying to tell me that real Republicans didn't nominate McCain. Sounds like what you are saying.
Is that Rush's new talking point?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
They'll end up placing the delegates, and it won't matter.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Mr. Brent,
Thank you for your well thought out posts. You never have to resort to insults and name calling to get your point across.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Brent,
You are an intelligent guy, so I'm disappointed that you don't see this as a voter's rights issue, when it clearly is exactly that. There's nothing else it even COULD be. As for your allegation of my bias, I am the one here arguing for every vote to be counted, and you are the one arguing against that, so I have to point the bias charge right back at you. It's not like I'm a Hillary advocate (or even a McCain advocate, for that matter). No, I'm a democracy advocate. I think you are the one letting partisanship override logical thought here. I do agree with other posters that you state your case eloquently, however. I admire that.
But you are wrong. The Democratic and Republican parties are a duopoly. They have a stranglehold on american politics. The way things are configured, the Libertarian, Green, Taxpayer, or other third parties don't have a prayer against them (and both major parties intend to keep it that way). Thus, if the Dem and GOP primaries aren't as much an expression of the will of the people as possible, we effectively nullify (or at least greatly diminish) the democratic process. I'm not in favor of nullifying democracy. The reason there are primary elections in the first place is so the voter's can choose the candidates. That's the way it should be, and that is incompatible with disenfranchising 2.3 million primary voters over a technicality in such a close election. If the voice of the people wasn't important in the party nomination process, we could save a bundle of money and just have party insiders select the Democratic nominee. Ditto for the GOP. I hope nobody favors that. The Dems disenfranchisement is a travesty. A remedy can be found, and a remedy should be found.
You even admit as much yourself when you say the superdelegates shouldn't override the elected delegates. If the voice of the people wasn't important, then the superdelegates should do whatever they want. You can't have it both ways. You can't stress the importance of elected delegates and then favor the suppression of the voters who's voice pledges them. That's senseless. You destroy your own point.
Another unpersuasive argument is the one you put forth that it's okay to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan because other voters have been disenfranchised in the past. Even if I accept your argument as true (which it really isn't), it is nonsensical. It's like saying we shouldn't prosecute people for murder because there have been so many other murders. Iowa and NH may have have more impact than other states in the primary process generally, but it isn't mandated, we still have primaries in ALL the states, and it certainly isn't true that Iowa and NH have more impact in this election, which is exactly why it's so important to let Florida and Michigan be heard.
Finally, I would urge all who think it's just fine and dandy to destroy the rights of millions of voters in this election to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you're doing. Everyone age 18 and above should be against this. There shouldn't even be a debate here.
Stand up for voter's rights. End of story.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Right on, King. The Soviets probably branded their government as democratically elected too, but party rules were certainly party rules.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
King,
Here's the key point that I think obscures much of this: the two parties effectively are a duopoly, yes, but this is not inherent from a legal or constitutional framework. It just happens to be the case. Thus, I disagree that each party has this implied responsibility to the grand goals of democracy. In fact, it seems to me that each party is really only interested in their own selfish concerns… it just so happens that the dualistic competition of these concerns tends to benefit our democracy as a whole (imperfect as it may be). In other words, the Democratic party is wise to use a (admittedly bastardized) version of a voting process among its constitents, but only insofar as that's what is ultimately beneficial to the Democratic party itself. As a side effect, a good chunk of the country also just happens to benefit. So while they could technically just hand over the nomination to whoever gives them free donuts, it's obviously much better for the health and strength of the party to not do something so arbitrary and unfair.
And yes, that same line of reasoning can also apply to your case that all these votes should count equally. But at the end of the day this isn't really about virtue or doing what's just- this, too, would only be done because it serves the Democratic party's best interests. And heck, it probably would except…
The party has to have some lever to exercise its control. It is their primary after all. That means they've gotta keep every looney state out there in line. And probably the most effective lever is stripping delegates (or stripping 1/2, like the Republicans did). Which leads to me to another point- I think we need to go back and remember how this all played out in chronological order:
1. Summer of 2006 - DNC rules that only IA, NH, NV, and SC can hold their primaries before Feb. 5.
2. Spring 2007 - FL moves its primary up to Jan. 29. MI moves up to Jan. 15.
3. Late 2007 - For violating this rule, the DNC strips delegates from FL/MI. All Democratic candidates agree not to campaign in said states. Most of these candidates even withdrew their name from Michigan's ballot.
So, everyone (including Clinton) agrees to not campaign in those states and go along with the DNC. Clinton never once made a complaint about voter rights or anything when all of these decisions were actually made. And neither did you, King. To be fair, it's perfectly plausible that you just didn't hear about it or had more important things to blog about at the time. In any event, I think it's prudent to note that you and many others were quiet about this until after HRC started shouting about it, which itself didn't happen until after she fell behind in delegates. I'm not suggesting you love Hillary Clinton, just that she is the one who drove this conversation. And she only did so after everything had been decided upon. The DNC might've been more willing to listen to her concerns before they ruled on it, but trying to change the rules in the 4th quarter is a pretty tough case to sell.
Obama, meanwhile (and whatever his motives) has been consistent on this issue. He agreed to not campaign in FL/MI and maintained from the beginning that he supported the DNC's decision. Now he's willing to make a concession and agree to some sort of compromise. And of course his concern isn't about voters in FL and MI (as it's clear Hillary doesn't sincerely care either) and he probably is only willing to meet her half way so that he can stay on somewhat amicable terms with the Hillary supporters that he'll need in the fall. This dovetails nicely with my overall theme here that everyone here is only looking out for their own interests and it's a lost cause to argue under any other pretense. Libertarian conservatives should appreciate that thought.
Likewise, the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the pledged delegate result because that would be bad for the party. Again, the party should be interested in some semblance of democratic virtue (and, again, they may well be doing a lousy job of this, but that's to the party's own detriment), but basically just because that's for the good of Democrats.
The crux of my whole argument is that by having both parties do what's in their own interests, the public interest as a whole will more or less be served. It's far from perfect and both parties certainly have a hard time here and there in striving towards their own ends. But I'm pretty okay with letting them each work it out on their own. If everyone else disagrees, then perhaps everyone should stop fooling themselves into thinking anyone is ever going to do what's NOT in their own, selfish best interest and get some of this legislated into law- either by statute or even constitutional amendment. At least, if voters rights in a primary are sacred enough that they really ought to be above the control of the two parties.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
BTW, thanks to King and others for the nice compliments. I'm a liberal, but I'll forever admire the style of people like William Buckley. I'll obviously never be that smart or eloquent (or have that amazing vocabulary!) but I think that type of approach is the gold standard for political debate.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I agree with the point that all states should have a say in this primary.
Unfortunately the DNC declared that votes would not be counted in either of these states and the candidates were asked not to campaign there. I know that Obama complied with this request in at least Michigan.
Do I agree with the DNC's decision? No, however to do this fairly elections would have to be held again in these two states. As it stands now the process is compromised. However, there is noone willing to pay the cost of running elections again so this will not happen.
Republicans, however, have no place to get involved in this. Its the Democratic party's issue as all primaries are conducted by the party. If the Democratic or Republican party said that the next nominee for their party was chosen by the congressional leaders that's the way it would be. Every individual has the right to vote for whatever party they wish. Any individual that can get the right amount of signatures can put their name on the ballot in the general election. The fact that we are dominated by a two party system is the fault of the fundraising system and lack of public inquiry.
So to sum up my point- this is not a voting rights issue. Its a party issue. If you're unhappy with how a party chooses to nominate a presidential candidate then join the party and change it from the inside, or move on to another. This has nothing to do with the constitution and nothing to do with voting rights. Its an issue with an imperfect party system.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Of course everyone's looking after their own interests and of course it's not being treated as a 'do the right thing' issue. But what's that say about the candidates involved, including Obama? Nothing good.
Once the primary is over and he's the nominee, I'm sure he'll show some concern over the voters and say something needs to be done and all his followers will start writing thousand-word rationales to support it. It's a joke and he's a fraud.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
So that's how stuff gets done, huh? You agree to something, see it through, and then, somehow, you're guilty if you didn't break the agreement? I'm not getting what you're offering here, larry. Obama…and this is the point….is seeking the nomination of the…wait for it….Democratic Party.
Thusly bringing me to my original take. The only reason a conservative blogger would complain about a Democratic primary rule is if it benefitted the Republican Party which the conservative blogger supported. Hillary is a weaker candidate for Repulicans….because she is on the wrong side of the Iraq/foreign policy stuff. Voted for the quagmire. Voted for declaration of Iranian military as terrorists. So did McCain. This neutralizes the quagmire occupation issue for the Democratic side. Got it?
That's why King is so compassionatelyand patriotically concerned about, you know, his opposition party…..in a desperation move to save the weaker candidate for McCain to run against.
Great stuff by Brent and dan.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Clinton is by far the one who is using this whole issue as a political tool. She doesn't want to count individual votes in caucus states, and not give ANY votes to Obama in Michigan. This is absurd.
It's even more disingenuous to say those votes should be allotted when Obama didn't campaign in both states and wasn't on the ballot in either.
No offense to Da King, but it really does seem like your spinning this issue solely because Obama will be the candidate. There is no constitutional issue whatsoever.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:04 am
What never gets mentioned about the Florida issue are the actual details of why this happened. One of the top priorities of the Florida Democrats was a verifiable paper trail for voting. The Republicans, who control the Florida legislature, stuffed into the bill the date change moving up the Florida primary.
From "The Hill:"
After the attempts to change the verifiable paper trail bill by making the primary date comply with the DNC Rules failed, Florida’s Democratic Legislators were left with a choice. We could either vote for the bill, which had one of our top five priorities in it, (a verifiable paper trail), or we could vote against the bill because it had the early primary date in it. If we voted against the bill which would have provided the verifiable paper trail, we would have violated Delegate Selection Rule 2(h) which required us to take all “provable positive steps” to obtain a verifiable paper trail. On the other hand, voting for the bill, which would give us a verifiable paper trail, would violate Rule 11, dealing with the timing of the delegate selection process. In other words, once the Republicans defeated our Amendment, we had to vote on a bill where if we voted for the bill we would violate Rule 11, while if we voted against the bill we would violate Rule 2. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Under this set of circumstances, it would have been a campaign issue against any of us to have voted against a verifiable paper trail, and we chose to vote in favor of a verifiable paper trail.
Read the full details at http://blog.thehill.com/2008/05/28/fla-democratic-leaders-plea-to-dnc/
May 31st, 2008 at 6:33 am
Brent,
If you don't think the Democratic party "has this implied responsibility to the grand goals of democracy", can we at least agree then that the name of that party should no longer be the "Democratic" party ? I think the democratic process is more than implied in that name, and also in the primaries and caucuses that the "Democratic" party holds in all 50 states and even non-states. If it's all just party selection (the Soviet process, as larry pointed out), then why bother with all that ? I have to reject that entire argument. The Democratic party IS beholden to the democratic process, as is the Republican party, because if we abandon it, we have abandoned the principles of our country, and swept away the people's rights. The primary process has to be more than just a show pony to give the peons the "appearance" that they have a voice. It has to give them an actual voice. Having the pseudo-right to vote isn't worth much.
And if I didn't complain about the FL/MI delegates last year (I'm not sure if I did or didn't), it wouldn't be because I felt any differently. It would only be because it hadn't come up as an issue yet. I mean, I hate China's Tibetan policy, but I haven't spoken about that either.
I do see Hillary's position as being entirely self-serving, just as is Obama's. I agree with you there. I'm really not concerned with either one of those two. I'm only criticizing Obama because his self-serving position is the anti-democratic one (and he contended he was a new kind of post-partisan unifying politician. What a joke). His position disenfranchises all those voters. But Hillary is no saint in this matter either. I'm certain she'd take all those Michigan delegates in a NY minute if she could, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot. That wouldn't be fair either. To me, the only fair thing in Michigan is a re-vote. Florida should either be seated, or a re-vote held there also. Both candidates names were on the ballot in Florida, and Obama even ran commercials there. The most fair thing would be to hold both primaries over, but that probably won't happen.
You have touched on a bigger issue that I'd like to say a word about as well. You say politicians are always going to act in their self-interest. I could not agree with you more. When you add in all the money and power that comes with the political territory, that self-interest can easily lead to corruption and become very dangerous, which brings me to the central premise of my entire political philosophy - the only way to minimize that danger is to limit the power of government, as our Constitution intended. Limiting government power, by definition, involves liberty, low taxes, free market capitalism, minimum regulation, minimum government interference. That's why I oppose modern liberalism, which is the antithesis of those principles. Republicans certainly aren't perfect in these areas, but at least they aren't philosophically opposed, as liberals are.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:37 am
The DNC better rule well on this because if not, I predict that the Democratic Party will lose many members. We 've had enough of their making rules and the powerhigh they get from it—just count the votes of the American people and that's it.
We'll find a party that has not drifted into the slippery slope of hypocrisy or make a new party all over—more like the Democratic Party than the Democratic Party has become.
As one who has always been a Blue Dog Democrat, I have become very disenchanted because of the glimpses this primary have given me into how other members of my party think—I am no longer comfortable with them. I am moving on.
If the Democrats no longer represent my interests, then for what reason should I call myself a Democrat anymore?
May 31st, 2008 at 6:37 am
And I don't have the vocabulary of William F. Buckley either. I remember listening to him on television when I was a little kid. I didn't grasp half of what he was saying, but it sure sounded good.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:42 am
Contrary to what the Rev said about the reasons Conservative bloggers would bring this issue up, I bring it up only because I believe those voters shouldn't be disenfranchised. It has NOTHING to do with Hillary being the weaker candidate. In fact, I believe Hillary would be the stronger candidate against McCain, and the polls bear that out. The Rev can NEVER see beyond his own narrow self-interest.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:44 am
David,
Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and he ran campaign ads in that state. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:50 am
Jimmy,
I think you will find that the Florida primary date change was first proposed by a Democrat (can't recall his name at the moment). The Republican majority legislature did pass it, but no Dems voted against it. Both parties have blame in that. In any case, what bothers me is that a handful of screwy pols in Florida can nullify 1.7 million votes. THAT is the tragedy and the travesty here. That is my overriding concern, and that is what I'd like to see remedied.
If you want to blame the Republicans for the Florida primary debacle, that's fine with me. They aren't above criticism. However, if you do, that should be even MORE reason to have those Democratic votes count. Why would you ever let the GOP disenfranchise Dem primary votes ? If what you say is true, the DNC should be up in arms. They aren't.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:46 am
All disingenuous. All of it.
The Democratic political party has the Constitutional right to do what it's doing.
In 2000 conservatives could have cared less about disenfranchising voters in Florida. In fact, thanks to Cruella Deville Harris, Democratic voters were systematically targeted for disenfranchisement. The Supremes nailed the voter disenfranchisment coffin lid shut.
The ends justify the means with the GOP. Those in the GOP are simply, and only, seeking to control the ends, a Hillary nomination she hasn't earned, by any means. In this particular case the means comes across as deep concern for Florida's Democratic voters.
Disingenuous. All of it.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
To me the bigger issues are the fact that the two parties have created a system of laws and regulations that make it almost impossible for any other party to grow and threaten their stranglehold on the system. The second is why in the hell should the taxpayers have to pay for the parties primaries etc?
May 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Good point, angry c. If these parties are operating with public funds, maybe they shouldn't be able to undercut the democratic process whenever they feel like it.
Nice try Reverend and you can repeat it until the cows come home, but the issue has revealed you to be more deluded by Obama than you ever were by religion.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:25 am
King - my bad, I got the states mixed up. But Obama didn't think the votes would count so he didn't campaign there in any meaningful way like he did in nearly every other state that counted.
I know you've heard these arguments before. If you cannot see this was a flawed election then I don't know what to tell you.
You want Michigan to count when Obama wasn't on the ballot? And you want the Florida election to count when Obama (its been well documented his campaign largely ignored the state and many voters thought it wasn't going to count? C'mon.
Again, you are calling for a severely flawed election to count. Many international election watchdogs would find major problems with counting those votes, and I say that in all seriousness.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:10 am
I am so sick of that word, "disingenuous"—I think most people that use it are unaware of its true meaning and use it to sound intelligent to themselves.
How disingenuous of them.
It means "against being sincere". As in, not genuine.
Like, Obama's apologies are disingenuous. See-through—calculating, phony— a real-turnoff.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Well…..how about the word 'lie'..then? How about that word?
Those Republican voters, acting as if they are patriotically offended by the opposition's primary rules, are simply lying about being offended. They simply want the weaker candidate, Hillary…..or they want to help divide the Democratic Party…or both.
Is that sincere enough?
I know I'm intelligent enough to use three letter words.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
David,
Actually, what I wanted was re-votes in both states. If that couldn't be done, I would have wanted a re-vote in Michigan and the Florida delegates seated, since both candidates were on the ballo there. Hillary didn't campaign in Florida either. The LAST thing I wanted is for 2.3 million votes to not count. That should be unacceptable in this country.
But now the DNC has worked their grand compromise, and Florida and Michigan voters count as 1/2 persons. Still not very Democratic, is it ?
June 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
sincere,
The Rev must not understand the word "disingenuous", because I'm very, um, "ingenuous" about this. The Rev is using the old and tired 'attack the messenger' tactic. It's the last refuge of those who don't have a leg to stand on.
He must not understand the words "ironic" or "hypocrite" either, because he's complaining about alleged disenfranchised voters in the year 2000 at the very same time he's advocating in favor of disenfranchising 2.3 million voters this year. Hello ?
Logic is not his strong suit.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Of course, what I was pointing out was the duplicity in the rhetoric of conservatives over this "count the votes" issue.
Conservatives were supportive of STOPPING the vote count when STOPPING the vote count meant their candidate won.
Now these same conservatives want to count the votes in an OPPOSITION political election even though that election was publicly understood, ahead of time….wouldn't count.
Evidently these conservatives want me to believe that they have a genuine concern for all Democratic primary votes to count.
See the problem?
June 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Which Florida vote count did Al Gore win in 2000, Rev ? There were several.
And it was the Supreme Court who voted 7-2 for a violation of Equal Protection that stopped the vote, a correct ruling since not all Florida counties were counting votes the same way. It wasn't "Conservatives" who did it. After that, Gore stopped appealing and conceded. Nice try.
Yes, I see the problem. It's in your mind.