Florida DNC appeals

Via the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog, Jon Ausman's letter explaining the Florida DNC appeals dated 8 April 2008 (with emphasis):

The staff of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have completed and submitted their review of the two appeals seeking to have 23 superdelegates and 92 pledged delegates award to Florida .

The first appeal notes the DNC Charter states Democratic US Senators, Democratic US House Members, former DNC Chairs and DNC Members “shall” be delegates to the Democratic National Convention. This “bill of rights” given to 23 Floridians cannot be taken away by a subordinate body created by the DNC since that subordinate body does not have the authority to do so.

The second appeal states the penalty for violating the “timing rule” “shall be” a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the pledged delegates and the loss of the three (3) unpledged add-on delegates. This means Florida should have at least 92 pledged delegates.

The remaining 93 pledged delegates and three (3) unpledged add-on delegates I hope to win at a later time if not on this appeal itself.

Review by Co-Chairs, Rules and Presidential Politics

The two Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) have been reviewing the staff comments and recommendations since 31 March 2008. While the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules provide a strict timeline in many areas when an appeal is made it is silent on how long the Co-Chairs can review the appeals and the staff review.

For those who suggest the Co-Chairs are stalling, or planning to delay hearings until June, I say lets [sic] give them a reasonable amount of time to review the documents. If the staff has two weeks to review and write a report then lets give the Co-Chairs the same two week period of time.

This means the Co-Chairs should make a statement on Monday, 14 April 2008, at the latest.

The Co-Chairs can say one or both appeals are meritorious and grant the sought for remedies, they can deny one or both appeals (which will allow me to appeal such a denial within five days to the DNC RBC, or they can call for a DNC RBC Committee to here argument on the appeals.

I believe we are going before the full DNC RBC and I would like to be there no later than Saturday, 10 May 2008.

Unfortunately, these two appeals involve more than the consideration of what the written rules governing the DNC say. Rather than interpret the rules as written consideration is now being given to what the two Presidential campaigns want (what they want, of course, is what benefits them the most).

I believe one campaign is very interested in allowing the DNC RBC decide the matter while the other is stalling in order to preserve their position.

One would think both parties would see the tremendous advantage of resolving this matter early as it would help improve fundraising for both campaigns in Florida (not to mention DNC and FDP fundraising) as well as allow our attention to focus on getting ready to be [sic] Senator McCain, but short-term views are prevailing over the long-term benefits of ending this running sore.

With respect, I am,

Jon M. Ausman, Member
Democratic National Committee
Florida

What campaign would stall to preserve its position? Sen. Hillary Clinton hasn't enjoyed any pledged delegate or superdelegate counts from FL. So what advantage would she gain from a delay? What say you?

Michigan revote chances die

Yesterday, I noted that the DNC had approved a plan for a Michigan revote. Not so fast:

LANSING, Mich. — Chances for a June 3 do-over of the Democratic presidential primary in Michigan evaporated Thursday afternoon when the state Senate adjourned for two weeks without taking action.

State Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, a Republican, said he saw no point in taking up the primary legislation since Democrats loyal to candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama disagreed on whether to go forward.

Thursday was considered the last chance to pass a bill to allow a primary before the state Legislature left for a spring recess. Florida Democrats scrapped their proposal for a primary re-do Monday after facing obstacles inside the party and the presidential campaigns.

What else can I say but $@#*&^*%!

The ball is back in the DNC court. Surely, the Democratic Party wouldn't dare disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters by not seating their delegates at the convention, would they? Crikey, what an obscene situation.

As a reminder, Riverdaughter's post on the DNC rules and Anglachel on trying to win the General Election without these critical states.

The morning after edition

Florida, the Wright stuff, boyz blaming Hillary, and more




No Florida revote! May be old news to some but what's next.

For those who would like to understand the DNC rules affecting Michigan and Florida, see Riverdaughter for in-depth details.

Peter Daou's email about the litany of Obama campaign's attacks on Hillary Clinton is online via eriposte (H/t Avedon). I had already decided that Sen. Obama's new kind of politics spiel didn't pass the smell test. In Iowa, he criticized John Edwards over a 527 ad "attacking no one." But Barack fell mute over a dubious 527 radio ad in Nevada that smeared Hillary and supported him. Furthermore, as eriposte said, "Some of the top "progressive" bloggers have either been wilfully [sic] blind to the campaign tactics of Sen. Obama or given him a pass while going after Sen. Clinton in a very ugly and mendacious manner."

Another hat tip to Avedon for pointing me to Bryan of Why Now? to peruse his Florida archive over the DNC's cock-up of the state's primary and its delegates. I've noted before the Florida Jan. 29 date was about "a property tax initiative [that Democrats] had hope[d] to defeat... on the ballot that day." Glad to read a Florida blogger's viewpoint, and learn about the FL lawsuit against the DNC.

Boyz blaming Hillary -- I've thought it but Anglachel penned it beautifully so props are in order. What's up with "the murderous misogyny of the A-List Blogger Boyz and their grad school mentality"? "It's all about Iraq and their own guilty consciences." They were for the war before they were against it, "all rah-rah war supporters when it first began." And they were wrong. Had they been U.S. senators, would they have voted, "Yea!" for the AUMF? I'm guessing in a snap. Watching the drama unfold, witnessing the pillory of Hillary as if the Blog Boyz had morphed into Beltway hacks or right-wing freaktards has been creepy. Talk about divisive! Go read Anglachel's entire post. I'm leaving out points for the sake of brevity. Caution: Don't lump Atrios into the boyz group.

Who wrote this of Hillary? "She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power." Answer: Someone who has lost his kewl and many who have fled in protest. Cap'n Ahab is willing to split his blog apart in his obsession to harpoon Clinton. I whole-heartedly agree with Lambert: GFY, Kos.

The Wright stuff -- Obama's favorable ratings have slipped five points in five days and "lost ground" to McCain. Taylor Marsh offered the good, the bad, and the ugly of Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. At Shakesville, Melissa McEwan talked about Amanda Marcotte's post on "media's fixation on the beliefs" of Rev. Wright and their "indifference" to the religious extremists of the GOP, and then hits the core issue of religious litmus tests and separation of church and state. My two cents: There's too much religion enmeshed with politics.

Time's managing editor Rick Stengel used the Wright controversy to flip it against Ferraro and Clinton on Tweety's freak show. Shameless.

More immigration factoids from Orcinus and that "noxious" term, illegals.

Got an email about Elton John's concert for Hillary. One night only, Radio City Music Hall, April 9. Tickets and info on the Elton-Hillary Event Committee.