Commentary: Florida, Michigan don't deserve revote

[Saguaro]

CNN) -- For two weeks we have watched nearly every political hack from Michigan and Florida hit the airwaves to tell us that voters in those states deserve to have their votes counted, and new elections should be called for and paid by* the Democratic National Committee.

One word they all keep tossing around is disenfranchisement. Because of this nation's sordid history on the issue of denying African-Americans the right to vote, those calling for a revote know the true power of the word, and just uttering it sort of backs the opposition up.

But folks, I'm sorry. Knowing full well how the two political hacks --* also called governors of Michigan and Florida -- deliberately chose to ignore the Democratic Party rules and try to leapfrog the other states, I just don't have any compassion for them.

Just listening to Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Charlie Crist of Florida whine and complain on national TV is just too much.

They keep blaming Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, for this debacle. But he's not to blame. They could have vetoed the bill, or told their state legislatures to stop the grandstanding and get on with the people's business. But they chose otherwise.

Yes, I do feel sorry for the voters in those two states because their votes should have mattered. It would have been great had they counted. But it was the elected officials in both states who chose to go down this terrible path. Had they just remained where they were, their delegates may have made the difference in this close presidential race between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Now it's March, and less than a dozen states remain, and Michigan and Florida are demanding that the DNC, superdelegates, even the campaigns, do something to allow them to vote again. And by the way, come up with a way to foot the $20 million to $30 million it will cost for a full-fledged election.

If it were my call, I would tell them, "See ya in four years."

Sure, that's pretty harsh, but 48 other states followed the rules. There is no doubt some of those states thought this would be over by Super Tuesday on February 5 and wanted their state to have a say in who the nominee would be, but they chose to be patient and wait their turn.

Michigan and Florida didn't.

Senators and members of Congress from multiple states were clamoring to get in on the action. But with the DNC's threat looming large, they got with the program.

Michigan and Florida didn't.

So we are all supposed to feel sorry for Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Bill Nelson of Florida because they want this issue addressed by the DNC, but were they pleading with their governors to not sign the law changing the dates? Nope.

The compassion just isn't there for the arrogant folks from Michigan and Florida.

If this is all about seating delegates, fine. Split their numbers down the middle and give half to Clinton and the other half to Obama. There. We just saved $30 million.

But the DNC should protect the integrity of its rules process. If it acquiesces, how many states will pull the same trick in four years? The precedent would have been set, and anyone else could make the same argument: Please, please, give us another chance, even though we brought this on ourselves.

No. Enough. Let's end this madness and tell Florida and Michigan that they had their shot. They blew it. It's time to move on and let the people who know how to play by the rules get on with this process. They made their bed. Now sleep in it.

And the people in Michigan and Florida should throw out the bums who stiffed them. Somebody must pay for the sins of these two states, and they should look to the politicians who keep running their mouths on TV demanding a revote.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/roland.martin/index.html

[patriotsblade]

And the people in Michigan and Florida should throw out the bums who stiffed them. Somebody must pay for the sins of these two states, and they should look to the politicians who keep running their mouths on TV demanding a revote.

That really is the bottom line right there. The powers that be in those states knew the rules and consequences of breaking them. I empathize with the voters in those state but the rules are the rules. The voters should take it up with the folks that screwed them over.

[Matt]

This deal with the primaries that were held before February 5th is very confusing.
Some states got permission to change while others didn't bother, it appears.
The Republicans did it a bit different. They deducted half of their delegates if their election was before Feb. 5th.

If you are interested you can look at the info state by state at http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/index.html

[toxic]

No one would like to see Iowa, New Hampshire, et al de-throned more than me, but a RE-DO will just screw things up.

Floridians need to punish their Republican Govenor who changed the date without regard to DNC rules.

Florida is chronicly screwed up when it comes to voting. They need to get their own act straight.

Plus a 3 month time delay probably just gives all the New Yorkers and others time to reestablish residency there and vote twice. No thanks.

[issac the dragon]

I don't care a fig about the DNC's rules. The people in Michigan and Florida voted. They are American citizens, to deny their votes is wrong. If Obama had won, and Clinton wanted to refuse to count the votes of all those blacks and hispanics, the Obama fans would be screaming with rage and shouts of racism. The people voted, count their votes.

[Saguaro]

Absolutely not,Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan or Florida

[Trueblue]

Obama took his name OFF the ballot, that is completely wrong to now give Michigan votes to her!

[Viki]

You can throw a lot of words at it, but the bottom line is clear: the voters in both states need to be honored; their votes should count, anything else is ridiculous.

[Trueblue]

You can throw a lot of words at it, but the bottom line is clear: the voters in both states need to be honored; their votes should count, anything else is ridiculous.

Are you claiming that it honors the voters of those states to count votes when they didn't have the full range of choices?

[Saguaro]

I find that the Clinton supporters want it to remain the same, Obama supporters don't want it to remain. It is blatantly unfair

[Saguaro]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Florida Democrats on Thursday proposed a vote-by-mail presidential primary to solve the high-stakes delegate dispute while acknowledging the plan's chances are slim.

Democrats in Florida and Michigan have been struggling to come up with an alternative to ensure their delegates are seated at the national convention this summer after the party punished them for holding early primaries. The pressure to resolve the issue has increased amid the protracted fight for every delegate between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, offered a mail-in/in person proposal for voting and urged state leaders, the national party and the presidential candidates to sign on. Under the plan, all of Florida's 4.1 million Democrats would be mailed a ballot. They could send it back, or cast a ballot in one of 50 regional voting centers that would be set up. The election would end June 3, a week before a Democratic National Committee deadline to name delegates.

The estimated cost is $10 million to $12 million.

Asked if the plan will be implemented, Thurman said, "I have a feeling that this is probably closer to not, than yes."

Members of Florida's congressional delegation reiterated their opposition to the plan, saying, "We do not believe that this is a realistic option at this time and remain opposed to a mail-in ballot election or any new primary election in Florida of any kind."

Thurman will review comments from Democratic leaders and make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed with the re-vote. But she acknowledged that Obama has had concerns and the Democratic National Committee won't support a proposal unless both candidates also back it. She said there's a serious question over whether the state could legally verify the signatures of a privately run election.

"If this becomes something that we can't do, then we can't do it," Thurman said.

The Democratic Party is talking with the secretary of state's office about whether elections officials would be able to verify ballot signatures, but Republicans, who control the legislature, have opposed any state involvement and legal questions have been raised.

"The state of Florida should not be involved in certifying or mediating intraparty squabbles," said House Speaker Marco Rubio.

Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, however, has said he isn't opposed to the state helping verify signatures as long as no taxpayer money is spent and state and national parties haven't already worked out another solution.

The Justice Department would have to pre-approve any plan for a re-vote in Michigan or Florida to ensure that voting rights aren't being denied because of race or an inability to speak English. The department has 60 days to make a determination, but Justice spokesman Peter Carr said they provide expedited review whenever possible.

Officials at the Democratic National Committee said they don't foresee any problem with the Bush administration reviewing the Democratic plans. The Florida Democratic Party also expressed confidence that it won't be a significant hurdle to its vote-by-mail proposal.

"Fortunately, this is a very inclusive process, and we will file the appropriate paperwork," the party said in a statement, also noting that ballots in Florida will be printed in English, Spanish and Creole.

Clinton won Florida and Michigan, although she was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told CNN that he was in Florida Wednesday and has been calling members of the congressional delegation to encourage them to cooperate. He said he'd like to find a way to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and not leave the issue until the convention.

"The best option is whatever we can get the candidates to agree with, which puts a vote back in the hands of the people of Florida and Michigan. And that's going to be not so easy to do," Dean said.

Obama told reporters traveling on his campaign plane Thursday that although he has concerns about mail-in voting, "we're going to abide by whatever the DNC decides."

"We're not gonna make the final decision on it, and I'll abide by whatever rules the DNC lays out," he said.

Obama's national co-chairman, former Sen. Tom Daschle, said it wasn't a good idea.

"For a lot of reasons, I think that it's not going to be a plan that will be adopted," Daschle said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The Clinton campaign made it clear that it strongly prefers a state-run primary to mail-in voting during a meeting with Michigan Democrats Thursday, according to a campaign official speaking anonymously about the private talks. People involved in the private meeting said the Clinton advisers favor the state-run primary because there would be less likelihood of problems such as fraud and ballot counting than with a mail-in vote.

Four Michigan Democratic leaders uncommitted to either candidate discussed options for a do-over Thursday with both the Clinton and Obama campaign leaders. Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sen. Carl Levin and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger are in that group trying to develop a new plan with input from both sides.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AnxfbcLugGG0aKB8JwcwCnus0NUE

[toxic]

I find that the Clinton supporters want it to remain the same, Obama supporters don't want it to remain. It is blatantly unfair

Actually I don't support either scumbag, but I agree with you that it would be unfair to use the prior election results.

Hillary and her supporters are of Karl Rove vintage and make me puke.

[Viki]

I find that the Clinton supporters want it to remain the same, Obama supporters don't want it to remain. It is blatantly unfair

Nope, I assume Michigan will go to Obama and Fla to Clinton ... my position is solely based on what's right.

[issac the dragon]

Absolutely not,Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan or Florida

Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Every Democrat was. Clinton won fair and square. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan. That was stupid. Clinton, Kucinich, and two others were on the ballot. They were not stupid. And I do believe that if Obama had won, it would have been like the end of the world on the media and in Obama's camp, if Clinton had wanted to stop those votes from being counted.

[Trueblue]

Nope, I assume Michigan will go to Obama and Fla to Clinton ... my position is solely based on what's right.

Are you serious? Viki, I think you are great, but you've declared your point of view as right and clear without all that much justification provided.

How can Michigan go to Obama? He wasn't even on the ballot.

[Viki]

Are you serious? Viki, I think you are great, but you've declared your point of view as right and clear without all that much justification provided.

How can Michigan go to Obama? He wasn't even on the ballot.

lol ... I'm assuming a re-do.

And you're right ... I'm not defending my position because HONESTLY I can't think of one reason why we wouldn't.

The prologue was all inside politicking ... way too inside for me... as a justice issue I'm happy with sticking it to both sides and letting the real voters have their day ... HONESTLY letting the chips fall ...

[Trueblue]

lol ... I'm assuming a re-do.

And you're right ... I'm not defending my position because HONESTLY I can't think of one reason why we wouldn't.

The prologue was all inside politicking ... way too inside for me... as a justice issue I'm happy with sticking it to both sides and letting the real voters have their day ... HONESTLY letting the chips fall ...

Okay, I see. I thought you were advocating just letting Hillary have all the delegates.

[Saguaro]

Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Every Democrat was. Clinton won fair and square. He took his name off the ballot in Michigan. That was stupid. Clinton, Kucinich, and two others were on the ballot. They were not stupid. And I do believe that if Obama had won, it would have been like the end of the world on the media and in Obama's camp, if Clinton had wanted to stop those votes from being counted.

He was playing by the rules

[Viki]

He was playing by the rules


The rules said he had to take his name off the ballot? I missed that... :)

But, honestly, I don't think either states' results should stand AS IS ... why not a re-do?

[Trueblue]

No, Clinton's win wasn't fair. How can it be fair for Obama to follow the rules and Hillary to be rewarded for breaking them?

[Saguaro]

updated 9:43 a.m. CT, Sat., Dec. 1, 2007
VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5.

Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.


Nevertheless, Saturday's vote further diminishes the significance of Michigan's Democratic primary. All the major Democratic candidates have already agreed not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida because the states violated party rules. And in Michigan, most of the major candidates won't even be on the ballot.

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.

That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and "uncommitted," as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan.

[issac the dragon]

Their was no rule that he had to take his name off the ballot. He was asked to and did. Clinton was asked to and did not. Others did the same. That was experience. And several of the superdelegates were stating publically that the votes would be counted when the convention was on. That there was no way the Democrats cound refuse to count them. So it was stupid to remove his name. Now he wants a do over. I don't think the people who voted should have to vote again. I am sick to death with the crap the Democratic party is pulling.

[Viki]

No, Clinton's win wasn't fair. How can it be fair for Obama to follow the rules and Hillary to be rewarded for breaking them?

I'm clueless, how did she break the rules?

[issac the dragon]

Clinton did not "break the rules." She just had the experience, as did Kucinich, Dodd, and others, to leave her name on the ballot. Why should she be punished because he's stupid? Is this what an Obama presidency would be like? Sounds like the same old politics to me. It is never "my fault."

[Lone Laugher]

Isaac,

Do you feel that the results in Florida and Michigan are in any way flawed, tainted, incomplete or unusual?

[Trueblue]

They agreed to this deal, folks, all the Dem nominees agreed to it.

Now Hillary wants to go back on the agreement and seat the delegates.

That is breaking the rules.

[Trueblue]

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates. Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.

Obama's campaign says whether to have a repeat contest is up to the national committee, but has signaled a willingness to participate. "We're going to abide by their rules as they exist now and whatever happens in the future," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.

"I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign - we're in a heated contest here - to have to be the facilitators here," Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080306/D8V7LT300.html

[issac the dragon]

Isaac,

Do you feel that the results in Florida and Michigan are in any way flawed, tainted, incomplete or unusual?

Are you suggesting that they were? I have heard no such claims. The only objection I have heard from Obama's camp is that the results in Fl. would have been different if he had campaigned there. To me that sounds like he thinks he would have been able to charm them. Without that, the voters had nothing but the facts to guide them and voted for Clinton.

Obama has not said he will accept the seating of the delegates from either state. Only that he would accept some other alternative. I.e. Anything but allowing the voters to have the outcome that they voted for.

[Lone Laugher]

Well, Isaac...we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think you are being less than objective about this issue.

Clearly, there are people who did not vote in Florida and Michigan because they were told their vote would not be counted.

In Florida, there was a property tax amendment on the ballot that brought voters to the polls....and on that day and for several days prior, Hillary Clinton was talking about Florida, planning and carrying out an acceptance speech in Florida.

At that time, Clinton was still the most well known name on the Democratic side of the ballot....Barack Obama had not made any attempt to get his message out in Florida. It is not a matter of "charming" voters...but a matter of communicating with them. Without campaigning...without "facts" the most well known candidate will get the victory. The results can hardly be called complete or fair. As it was....incomplete...Clinton won by over 16 pts. That is her highest margin of victory in any "big" state except her home state of New York.

You know, the more I read that discussion of "charm" and "facts" that you gave regarding Florida, the more fucked up it sounds. Seriously.

The Michigan issue is completely out of whack. If you cannot admit that Clinton does not deserve 100% of the seated Michigan delegates, then you are being intellectually dishonest. Those results are unquestionably tainted.

[issac the dragon]

How are they tainted? I spend my day listening to CNN, MSNBC, and C SPAN. I think if there was something going on, I would have heard something about it. With all the monotonous information, I would think the news programs would have jumped on that one.

You say that voter in those states didn't vote because they were told their votes wouldn't count. I personally heard many times that they would be counted when push came to shove, and I don't live any where near there. Surely, they heard that too.