All at the same time.
We’ve had a spirited discussion over what to do about the FL/MI debacle. Picking up from where we left off, I can’t agree with the premise that votes are somehow severable from rules that govern the voting process: BDBlue wrote that “Once you cross that threshold, where you’ve essentially agreed that votes can be discounted if rules were broken, all you’re doing is arguing over the rules.” I disagree. Of course votes can be thrown out when rules are violated, it happens all the time. Without rules, the ballot box is worthless and democracy cannot function. We argue about the rules all the time, precisely because they are important. That repressive elements try to install regressive and anti-equalitarian rules is no justification for throwing out any and all rules. Whatever the rules are, votes that violate them must be thrown out or there is no purpose to an election. Voting laws that are repressive need to be changed, not ignored.
Additionally, the argument has been made that what matters most is voter’s perceptions, and that if they feel they’ve been deprived of their due they will be displeased. I argue that it is more important to make clear to the voters that under the current rules they never had any real voice in the first place. If voters have been deceived about the primary process it seems to me that the higher purpose would be to enlighten them with the truth, not perpetuate the fraud in hopes they’ll feel better and never catch on. That said, I am comfortable with the idea that both objectives can be attacked, that the voters can regain their self-respect in this season’s process and be persuaded to demand that the proceedures be changed, so their perception of participation becomes a reality.
The real problems here, beyond the colossally obtuse behavior of DFL and DMI, are with the non-representative primary process itself and the maniacal behavior of Donna Brazile. Any meaningful solution to the immediate problem of FL and MI needs to also address those larger issues. Fortunately, Doctor Dean is already on the case and he has been busy.
Recall that Dean, Pelosi and Reid have all said the delegate issues would be settled in advance of the Convention. Recall also that Brazile, from her position on the Rules & Bylaws Committee, is the one who insisted on the maximum penalty for FL and MI; a curious position for someone who is also the Chair of the DNC Voting Rights Institute. She’s also angling for Dean’s job as DNC Chair, and neither her machinations nor the effect of her intransigence has escaped his attention.
Last week Dean announced that he’d met with State Democratic leaderships of both Florida and Michigan, and they’ve reached an agreement to seat the delegates. No details explained but the commitment has been made and guess which prominent DNC bigwig wasn’t involved in either the negotiations or the press releases? That would be Donna B, self-styled Queen Bee of the Rules & Bylaws Committee; not needed at this point, it seems.
Also last week, Dean made a third announcement. He’s directed the DNC Secretary to enter the names of representatives from Florida and Michigan onto the rolls as members of the three Standing Committees. It is a formal step, like credentialing of delegates to the Convention, which conveys certain privileges and powers to the recipients. The action means there are eight Floridians and six Michiganders now on both Rules & Bylaws and Credentials committees, as well as Platform. While R&B did not specifically prevent their seating, as could have been done when they sanctioned the elections, the wording of the Brazile-backed declarations prohibited any “delegates” from those states from serving on the standing committees. Dean and the Executive Committee did an end-around Rules & Bylaws by simply accepted people who were not delegates as Standing Committee members, something the rules allow. Once again, Donna B. failed to understand the rules she was so determined to enforce.
But what if R&B steps back in now and formally strips FL & MI of any standing on the committees, or continues to block any attempt by the Executive Committee to broker a compromise? Could happen that way, which would force the issue into the Convention and provoke a floor fight that Dean and Pelosi have said they won’t allow. Will Donna Brazile be able to control the Rules Committee as she did last fall? Not likely, because in another executive management decision she was removed from Rules & Bylaws by Dean last January. Here’s the new R&L roster and no more Donna Brazile.
Brazile is not listed on any of the three Standing Committee rosters, so unless she can wiggle back in through a DC individual selection she will be reduced in the DNC hierarchy to her at-will seat as Chair of the Voting Rights committee. That’s some position from which to argue against recognizing voter will in FL and MI, and if she continues that stance it will be much harder to convince the DNC membership as a whole that she’d be effective as Leader of the pack.
Obstructing the reinstatement of FL and MI delegates is not the only act of equal-opportunity suppression with which Brazile has distinguished herself recently. Last fall she was the most vocal opponent of establishing GLBT equality provisions for delegate selection, claiming from her position on the DNC Black Caucus that to do so would “denigrate the struggles and sacrifice of the civil rights movement.” Being a closeted homosexual while oppressing GLBT equality is not, apparently, a practice reserved for the GOP.
If Obama wins the Presidency, Brazile will claim credit for him doing so because of her mad skilz, as she has claimed for years that it was only her support that kept Bill Clinton in office. Of course, when she actually had the chance to show her stuff as campaign manager for Al Gore in ’04 and failed, she blamed it on – Bill Clinton. If Obama is nominated but defeated in the general, expect Donna to blame the Clintons again. When she backs a winner, she claims all the credit. When she manages a loss, she blames other people. And she’s a hypocrite who is opposed to equality. Altogether just the qualities needed to lead the Democratic Party.
What can outsiders do? It appears that in functional terms there is little now to be done externally about FL and MI; delegate seating will take place under the direction of Howard Deal and with the influence of Reid and Pelosi, through an internal process driven by their consensus view on what will be best for the Party in November. With the cooperation of the new Rules and Bylaws Committee, a solution will be brokered and put in place by the end of June - around the same time that the superdelegates will decide the nomination. (Nothing about that nomination decision being final until the Convention floor vote is taken; even though a nominee will be putatively anointed a major gaffe could lead to a delegate revolt.)
There are two areas where outside commentary will be useful and potentially very meaningful. One is to raise our voices in condemnation of the person singularly associated with the FL & MI debacle, the individual who personifies intransigence and lack of imagination, the creature most out of step with principles of equality and voter rights, and that is Donna Brazile. When blame is laid for failing to solve the FL & MI conflict, name Donna Brazile. When all that is wrong and foul about the primary process is decried, name Donna Brazile. When a symbol of ineptitude and malice is invoked over voter suppression, name Donna Brazile. Whenever possible, condemn Donna Brazile; make certain she becomes so tainted by negative association there is no way she can get control of the DNC.
The second area is to seize voter dissatisfaction and make it a teachable moment, to drive reform of the primary process. This year has been awful, and no one can deny it. A system that sensibly and reasonably gives a more direct voice to primary voters is required, and there will never be a better time than this cycle for advocating major change. The GOP has recognized this, and the RNC has already taken the first steps to try and seize control of the reform process. Will the DNC let Republicans dictate the way reform will unfold? Shouldn’t the DNC recommend establishing a new Presidential Primary Reform Commission to devise a strategy for greater voter participation and control? If the Democratic Party is to stand for anything, shouldn’t the principle of direct democracy be foremost? Shouldn’t everyone who has obstructed the will of the voters, most especially Donna Brazile, be removed from any position at all in the DNC? If only one person takes the fall for the morass through which the voters have been dragged, shouldn’t that person be Donna Brazile?
A campaign that simultaneously presses for greater primary voter influence and elimination of a destructive individual would seem to be an effort that can appeal to every right-thinking person. I look forward to a collegial effort here to uproot the established order and expand democracy.
Front page
Rules do not take precedence
over fundamental principles.
In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) SCOTUS ruled that procedural rules were unconstitutional when they had the effect of violating the right to due process.
No one is disputing the right of the DNC to regulate the primary/caucus schedule. But when their exercise of that right has the effect of disenfranchising the voters of two states, it’s wrong.
————————————————————————
“It’s like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you’re wrong.” - Molly Ivins (RIP)
Sounds like the Brazile attempt at a palace coup
is running out of steam and/or stealth.
’Bout damned time, too.
The revote was the best solution
Obama blocked it.
While Brazille must take great responsibility for causing the problem, Obama must take responsbility for preventing a solution, by lawyering up and proposing absurd non-starters like 50/50 proposals.
If he wished to delegitimize his nomination, it’s hard to see how he could have proceeded more effectively.
So, it will be interesting to see how Dean, Pelosi, and Reid between them make the voters of FL and MI whole — which is the fundamental issue of fairness here.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Right, wrong, and rules
Sort of what I was hoping to get away from and move towards something mutually desirable, so thanks awfully myiq for bringing the matter right back front and center. :-)
Chambers reinforces the primacy of due process in a criminal trial. The controlling case law for political party candidate selection rules is Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981), which establishes that political parties have the absolute right to determine their methods and rules for candidate selection. There is no requirement whatsoever for the party to respect any claims of primacy from any other entity or from voters themselves. Under current primary rules, voters are invited to participate in what are essentially expressions of preference, but the “will” of the voters clearly has no controlling interest in the nomination process.
Further, it was not the DNC rules that “disenfranchised” voters, but the defiance of those rules by the state parties. Leadership in the state parties is in turn selected by the Democratic voters of the states; the voters themselves are responsible for that selection. Additionally, nothing precludes the citizenry from organizing caucuses or a convention that would meet DNC rules and tender a slate of delegates separate from the established state party organization.
I agree completely, as I hope I have made clear, that the process is flawed and needs to be democratized. I cannot, however, agree that following established rules that penalize those who did not follow the rules is somehow a moral outrage. Everyone knew what the rules are, as well as the range of consequences. Deliberately breaking the rules and being punished for doing so isn’t to my mind equivalent to violation of due process in a criminal proceeding – can you explain how you relate them?
Sarah, my take on Brazile is that she won’t be persuaded to Step Away From The Chair by anything anyone says or does. The only thing that will stop her is if there is a broad consensus that she would damage the party, and the best way to demonstrate that is to keep repeating that Donna Brazile is damaging the party. Please help if you can.
What about
I cannot, however, agree that following established rules that penalize those who did not follow the rules is somehow a moral outrage.
What about equal application of the rules? New Hampshire and South Carolina all moved up their primaries(in response to MI & FL) but all states were to be penalized. The ruling then decided that since the were slated to go first, it didn’t matter if they moved up. Doesn’t the unequal application of the rules, declare that the rules don’t matter as much as the votes, as the DNC demonstrated by the different reactions.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Ah Aeryl; the "everybody else is doing it" excuse
Won’t wash. The only two states to move up ahead of the established timeframe without a variance were MI and FL. The other states that moved up did so in response; they were forced to do so by the maneuvering of MI & FL, to bring themselves back in line with the order of occurrence that DNC Rules & Bylaws had established. Those states applied for and were granted variances so DNC Rules would be followed. No sympathy from me to FL and MI for that one.
But they were all doing
to protect their self interests. I don’t care who did what first, and oh they made me do it(that’s an Obama excuse, too). Brazile said only the week before that the next state to do it would also be punished. They didn’t stick to it, and they have shown me no good reason to stick to their original ruling, either. Either breaking the rules is important, or it isn’t.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Happy to Move On, BIO
I’ll agree to disagree on the rules (usually the rule breaker is the one punished, e.g. the person who voted illegally, and here the punishment hit the voters and not the wrong-doers), but I’m happy to move on to Ms. Brazile.
I’m very happy to read that Dean may have finally gotten control of the situation. And if true, then good for Dean.
I’ll happily remind everyone what a disaster Ms. Brazile is and how bad it looks for the party that someone of her mediocre caliber can rise so high. Surely there are more talented people the party could elevate instead of her.
If folks can help point me to videos of her making a fool of herself by either 1) lying, 2) mistating known facts, 3) pissing away the DNC’s credibility and 4) generally acting like the idiot she is, I will happily try to put together a little YouTube video of Donna’s greatest hits. Because it’s only when you see the totality of damage she’s inflicted over the years that she can truly be appreciated.
BIO: "Procedural" due process doesn't
trump “substantive” due process.
I didn’t say that what the DNC did was unconsittutional, I said it was wrong.
Having the legal right to do something doesn’t make it “right.”
————————————————————————
“It’s like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you’re wrong.” - Molly Ivins (RIP)
Citing Donna Brazile gets you nowhere with me
Aeryl, the pain oh god the pain. Cut to the quick, I am.
Rules & Bylaws set the agenda, with date restrictions and the order of appearance: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, then everyone else. It wasn’t until FL and MI jumped the rules that the official early states started to move up as well. FL & MI made this mess, no one else to blame - except Donna Brazile.
Myiq, right/wrong depends on POV. The rules were there, and perfectly clear; well, pretty clear. Can’t have everyone running around breaking the rules when they feel like it; that would be just as bad as George Bush, now wouldn’t it? If you choose to break the rules, you need to be prepared to accept the punishment; won’t do to deliberately break rules and then
whineobject to getting punished for it.The right thing to do now, seems to me, is to blame Donna Brazile and start pushing Dean and Pelosi to introduce a resolution to democratize the whole primary process before the 2012 election.
Absolutely, Blame Brazile
and I’m still not sure she didn’t set this up, just to help Obama get the nom.
But this,
If you choose to break the rules, you need to be prepared to accept the punishment;
The rules clearly state that 50% reduction in delegates is the punishment. And from what I’ve read both MI & FL were willing to accept that.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
And The Rulz go round and round and round
The rules go on and on. A 50% reduction in pledged delegates is the minimum. R&B have the sole authority to decide what to do, and they have the authority to strip all the pledged delegates and the PLEO and the at-large and block any delegates from being placed on the Standing Committees. Sole discretion, and neither Credentials or the DNC Executive can override them - until the Convention is called to order, and then the seated delegates resume total control.
A look back at how this got started
On August 25th, 2007, during the DNC Rules & Bylaws Meeting, in Washington, D.C., plans for the Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention were reviewed. They voted to invalidate FL delagates at the 2008 convention despite a compelling argument from Florida Democratic Party Chairman, Karen Thurman, that they were not in non-compliance due to actions by Republican politicians.
Video here:
http://www.bluespotblog.com/2008/04/braz…
When you get to about 14 minutes, it’s astonishing to see how determined Donna Brazile is to see the voters of Florida punished for moving the primary date up. She actually yells out, “I’m going to send a message to everybody in Florida”.
And you did, Donna, you did
The message to the voters of FL was a big “Fuck
you!”
Well done, all.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
if you'll allow a floridian to whine for just a moment
i’d also like to mention this little matter.
Why is Donna Brazile colluding with Florida Republicans?
Why does Donna Brazile want to keep the Democratic presidential candidate off the November ballot?
Hasn’t Donna Brazile already done enough to destroy the Democratic Party?
When will Barak Obama disavow Donna Brazile?
When will Barack Obama disavow Donna Brazile?
Good one, bringiton. I like that.
You know what? I think Donna’s bitter.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Sinfonian, you're from FL?
I’m not Xan, so I can’t say “Come over here and sit by me,” but if I were, I would.
More posts about FL, please! Is everybody as pissed as the lady from FL?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
This one is hysterical
God am listening to DB now.
This link with Florida looking into whether or not they can NOT have the democratic candidate on the ballot if Florida is not part of the election process for the candidate.
http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=1423
You see this is why we need to begin pulling and pushing up the ranks women regardless of their looks, so that when we are relying on them, we know that they got there by merit FIRST of all, looks was incidental.
Could someone tell me what the heck happened
I should have waited until the end of this.
Wow she is like Jim Crow isn’t she. I remember my grampy telling me about the poll tax, and how they didn’t want poor farmers to vote. This whole these the rules so suck it up! is so indicative of the Old southern network that discriminated against poor folks.
There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women. ~Madeleine K. Albright
[ ]Hitlerbama [x]Cthulu is my homeboy
Florida election law
Nothing Floridian would surprise me, but it doesn’t appear that there is any question over keeping the Democratic presidential nominee off the November ballot.
The law:
Yet more officeholders who don’t know the law. At least this time they’re Republicans, less of an embarrasement; I mean, who would expect a Republican to know what the law says?
Rules and legitimacy
I think you misrepresent one key fact. The voters of FL and MI were innocent in the entire process. It was their legislators who “broke the rules”. That is an important distinction to me. This isn’t a question of some voter failing to register to vote or lying about their residence, something that they are responsible for. “The Rules are rules” argument bothers me because innocent voters have to pay for the sins of others. That is fundamentally unjust.
That said, I agree that Parties can select their nominee however they want. Brazile’s machinations were clearly a bad-faith effort that allowed innocent Democratic participants to be kept out of the process for something they could not control. This shouldn’t matter much because regardless of what happens, the super-Ds are going to decide the nominee. But when Brazile and the Boiz are huffing and puffing about pledged delegate counts and popular vote counts (despite some, like Kos himself, who were adamant that they’d be counted eventually anyway), it becomes important.
My view is simple: count every vote or count only super-D’s. The exclusion of innocent voters does ultimately come down to legitimacy. And in the long run, its more than the legitimacy of the 2008 Democratic nominee. It’s the entire Democratic Party’s legitimacy at stake.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand, gm
What you said:
Note that bringiton’s argument — which I think would be really, really hard to sell anywhere else but here—does not directly respond to that:
It all depends on what the meaning of “real” is, doens’t it? And it’s all fundamentally a political calculus, nothing to do with “rules” at all. I think what we have here is really a clear cut case of the old standard, fetishization, where something based on human decisions is imputed powers of its own. (There are degrees of this; the stronger argument here might be that bringiton is confusing the rules of a political party with the rule of law.)
gm also writes:
Exactly.
First things first, as the slogan has it.
I’m all for hanging DB around Barry’s neck, but let’s not forget the simple stuff that’s so obvious it’s hard to see.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Actually, he does
BIO feels that since the voters elected these legislators, they are responsible for their actions.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
What Bringiton Really Means
The new game sensation that’s sweeping a small dusty corner of the intertubes.
Never knew I was so complex, nor that simple declarative sentences and three-step deductive logic could carry so many nuances. Maybe it’s the season, what with W.O.R.M.
and C.D.S. raging through so many fevered brows.
This I especially like; Lambert: “bringiton’s argument — which I think would be really, really hard to sell anywhere else but here” What does that mean? Exactly? On the one hand it sounds as though somebody here is buying, which could be a positive, until you get to the “anywhere else” qualifier. Is it that people here are so much smarter than elsewhere that they can appreciate the perfect logic of holding responsible those who actually are responsible for screwing up? Or is it that people here are more likely to fall for my clearly scummy and fallacious argument? Or is it that I’d just get shouted down elsewhere, instead of the rising chorus of agreement and polite applause…oh, wait…guess that’s not it either. Must be one of those Zen koan things, where the value is in the pondering; meant to never be fully understood.
GQM: “The voters of FL and MI were innocent in the entire process. It was their legislators who “broke the rules”. About that term “innocent”; how so, with these voters? Innocent like babes in the woods? Poor wee helpless things wandering from flower bed to mossy bank, giggling and laughing at the wonderment of it all and never realizing that the nice little doggie is a wolf about to spring? I don’t think so.
Innocent, as in naïve? It’s all so complicated, and they just fell for the charms of a slick door-to-door salesman like some wide-eyed housewife, seduced and left passed out on the wet spot with only a useless kitchen implement for a memento? How condescending.
Innocent my Aunt Fanny. Foolish, to be sure; gullible, and what’s new there? But innocent? That word doesn’t apply; let me explain.
Politicians lie. This can’t be breaking news, even for Floridians. The Democratic Party is a political party; it’s made up of politicians. Politicians run it; politicians occupy all of the positions of power; its entire purpose is to serve politics. Voters can be “members” of a political party just like they can be “members” of a religion. Just because you’re Catholic doesn’t mean the Pope actually cares about your opinion; nor do the cardinals nor the bishops nor the monsignors, the priests or the nuns. You can try to influence it, but as a parishioner or a voter your opinion isn’t an integral part of the management process. You may not like hearing that, but it is nevertheless the truth; no misrepresentation.
But this collection of politicians understands that voters want to feel involved, and voter excitement and a sense of ownership is useful for the general election. They also understand the principles of advertising; convince people they want something; convince those same people that what you’re selling is what they want; and then convince them that what they’ve purchased is what they wanted even if it isn’t.
Welcome to the modern primary system; it may appear all bright and shiny democratic and you may as a voter feel as though your mark on a piece of paper or your shouting and waving and jumping up and down at a caucus or going into a curtain-covered booth to fondle a touchscreen actually matters, but that’s because you’ve fallen for the advertising pitch – a bit like a babe in the woods, now I think about it.
And like the small print, ten page, six language LIFETIME GUARANTEE that comes with the widget that the wide-eyed housewife paid for, the Party Rules are clear but complicated and nobody bothers to read them. What they say is that voters and their votes don’t count. They don’t matter; they have no meaning, zilch, nada, bupkis. If you think they do, then you’ve been fooled. Maybe, like that housewife, you were wanting to be fooled, just a little bit; looking forward to and excited at the prospect of that quickie roll in the hay, an afternoon’s tumble so you could feel a little bit better about yourself, that you still have it, that you can still turn somebody on, and if you have to pay the nice man/woman a little something and listen intently to a phony spiel for that to happen, well, small price to pay for a half-believable fantasy and a little bit of touchy-feel-good, don’t you think?
Lambert suggests that I have fetishization issues, and that I am a bit of a dunderhead: “the stronger argument here might be that bringiton is confusing the rules of a political party with the rule of law.” Silly Bringiton, poor confused little creature. But actually no; I am very clear on this.
There is confusion between the rights of voters in a general election governed by civil law and the primary political process where voters have no rights, but it is not I who am confused. The frustration being expressed stems from that very confusion, the thinking that voters in a political party primary have a legitimate claim to influence; under the current system they do not, and the written rules make that very clear.
What seems to have happened is you believed the sales pitch, you bought the widget, you got fucked and now you feel badly about it. Blame the salesperson if you will, (they are, like a wolf or a politician, just trying to make a living), but I say the real responsibility is with the person who let them in the door, listened rapturously, handed over their hard-earned money and then lifted their skirts. What were you thinking? What did you expect?
Lambert, I say this with all due respect, no small amount of affection, and as delicately as possible: You need to be more cynical. What this country, the voters, you and I, need is much more than making sure the delegates from Florida and Michigan get to play at a great big way fun mile-high party. All that does is perpetuate an unrepresentative system, the one that during this cycle squeezed out Edwards and ran over Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Gravel (bless his feeble mind) like they were so much roadkill. We need to do better than that.
I argue that we need to rip the Democratic Party a new one. We need to take this outrage over how many insiders get to go to the Party and refocus it into why in the hell is the Party deciding who gets to select the nominee? Why is the primary process so jacked up? Why aren’t the voters actually influential? Why isn’t it strictly Democrats who get to vote for the Democratic candidate? Why isn’t the decision made on the cumulative popular vote of the people who are putatively the actual Membership of the Democratic Party, instead of this impenetrable thicket of caucuses and voting and more caucuses and county conventions and state conventions and appointed PLEOs and hand-selected At-Large delegates? Why don’t the voters have a say?
That’s what I’m arguing for. Change the system. That’s what Carl Levin was arguing for last summer as he pushed advancing the Michigan primary. He wanted, still wants, to stir up the pot enough for the voters to see how inherently undemocratic the whole primary system really is, and force a change. My view, to be blunt, is that fussing over the Florida and Michigan delegations is like arguing over how many layers of lip gloss to put on a pig. I want to (sorry mandos, amberglow) gut the pig, roast it and eat it, and buy myself a donkey that can actually get some work done.
I want a primary that keeps dissident voices engaged for more than a few weeks, I want more fractiousness not less, I want a public conversation that lasts longer and is more focused on substance than the attention span of a hormone-addled 12-year-old with ADD, I want the popular vote to determine the outcome, and I want to be an active participant in the process. Isn’t that what all of you want, too?
Maybe this is just my own fantasy. Maybe all I’ll have in the end is a credit card receipt and another useless widget. But by damn, if all it amounts to is a piece of junk and a quick lay, I want to be the one on top.
Fetishization? Feh.
[Note: Thanks, Aeryl, for your reading for content. Exactly so. Voters elect the PLEOs who run the show, both in the Party and in Government. It’s called representative democracy, the system those revered Founders gave us. If the people you’ve elected aren’t doing what you want them to do, kick them out and replace them. Spare me the vapors over how hard it is to change them; my strong suggestion is that dissatisfied voters take a good long look in the mirror and figure out how to make the only change they can. We cannot change others; we can only change ourselves. Once we begin to change, others around us also begin to change. Be the change you seek.]
[Note 2: Lambert – Yowza, brother; BO, DB, & hanging? May want to rephrase that, some folks are a might touchy these days; just sayin’.]
I agree that the Dems need to ripped a new one
I merely suggest that the place to start is where people are: With the simple belief that their vote should be counted. How about we use that belief to, er, create our own reality, just a little bit? [That’s what I mean by “not easy to sell”]
The rules, and the arcana, all of wish are interesting and useful to understand, come after the basic principal. [That’s what I mean by “fetish” — and not, I hasten to add, in the Sacher-Masoch, or have I got that confused with sacher torte, in case that wasn’t clear.]
NOTE Hanging around the neck, not by the neck.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
are we mad?
you decide. a sampling of floridians:
sinfonian
bryan
me
florida lefty blogs [apologies, it’s an aggregator, lots to sift through, and much of the madness has eased off recently]
Which part of "representative democracy" ...
… does the DNC not understand?
Great stuff. You know, any time anybody from the great and extremely pissed off state of Florida wants to (cross-)post with some local detail on this stuff, have at it. Those are some good blogs.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
BIO, I do see your point
I just don’t agree with it. How far do you plan to go though, in holding voters accountable for everything politicians do?(We are already accountable in many ways, we the people are going to have to pay for the things this collection of wankers have done) If you agree that taking their right to vote and have an influence(as symbolic as it may be in a primary), what else do you get to take away when they have made a “bad choice.”
Your argument is pretty much blaming the victim(nice rape reference in your post, too/not), and that is where I feel I have to draw a line. You, as a consumer have a right to be pissed, if the guy you hire to clean your house, steals everything you own. You wouldn’t just tell them to “get over it”, it was the risk you took. They should demand recourse. And their neighbors should stand with them, b/c if it happened to them it could happen to others.
And other actions by the DNC, have only aggravated the problem. Stripping them of 100% of delegates, then going lenient on other states, arguing some bs about the candidates needing to agree with the revote process. They are being made “an example of” and no one likes that.
So, yes the situation must be solved, even if it is only “symbolic” and it must be fair and equitable.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
When representatives don't represent, what can citizens do?
“Create our own reality” is the operative phrase. In 1964 Fanny Lou Hammer organized a state convention in Mississippi that met all the legal requirements and elected a delegation to the Democratic National Convention, all the while under constant threat of death from local segregationists. And, she had just a 6th Grade education.
I suppose though it would have been too much for Floridians to have done something similar this year. Lot of work required. Probably Howard Dean’s fault that didn’t happen, even though he didn’t have any authority whatsoever. Or maybe it was that Pelosi woman ridin’ ’round the state in her pearls and a pickup truck terrorizing innocent folk with threats and intimidation. Had to be one of them at fault, or maybe that Obama fellah because he didn’t say the right words. Too much risk and too much trouble for the people of the state to want to deal with it their own selves, that’s for sure.
You rang?
Sinfonian, you’re from FL?
Submitted by lambert on Mon, 2008-04-14 02:43.
I’m not Xan, so I can’t say “Come over here and sit by me,” but if I were, I would.
I didn’t even realize I was being talked about … :)
How can I help you?
Blast Off!: keeping America’s Wang™ safe for democracy since 2004.
Create our own reality
Which is pretty much what lambert said.
And what’s with all the straw-arguments in the last paragraph?
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Aeryl
Rape reference? Surely not. Please quote.
The responsibility of the voters for their elected representatives is for everything those representatives do in the name of the people they represent, short of factual criminal behavior. That’s what the concept of “represent” means.
If the voters don’t approve of what their representatives are doing, recall them. (Not the Feds, but all state and local offices are subject to recall.) As far as I can discover there has been absolutely no attempt by anyone in either Florida or Michigan to try and organize a recall effort against the senior leadership of the state Democratic Party or Democratic legislators, the people who started this whole mess and who needed to take responsibility for cleaning it up.
Neither has there been any effort to organize an alternative party referendum, caucus or convention to elect delegates that do meet the Democratic Call requirements - that would have certainly lit a fire, as well as serving as an example of grass-roots democracy in action. Too much like hard work, I guess.
All I’ve heard out of either state is how it’s all someone else’s fault; Dean, Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, or Everybody else is doing it why can’t I?, or The
devilRepublicans made me do it. Cry me a river.There was no favoritism by Rules and Bylaws. FL and MI both were rejected, and it cost both of them 100% of their delegates. No other state was punished because all other states met R&B requirements or sought and received waivers that met the intent of R&B guidelines.
There is absolutely no equivalence to what happened to FL and MI and someone being the victim of a crime. That’s a completely false analogy. The rule breaking was done by DFL and DMI, on behalf of their constituents. The R&B punishments were harsh, and I agree harsher than they should have been, Donna Brazile is a jerk and a fool, but still well within the range of what is permissible.
And now, show me where I used rape as a metaphor, or said anything that could even possibly be construed as rape. The more I think about that, the more pissed off I’m getting; that was a terrible thing to say. Either prove that accusation or apologize.
I meant "Create" in a literal sense
As I wrote; get off the couch and make something happen, instead of complaining about how somebody else should do something. You’ll have to ask Lambert what he meant, I’m not sure, but I was riffing on his statement.
The last paragraph was snide, snarky and apparently unclear. Never mind.
I like the Fannie Lou Hamer idea...
Floridians? Cooking up anything for Denver?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Sinfonian, a question
Actually, what I thought originally was that it would be great to hear about the whole FL mess from somebody who had actual knowledge derived from living in the state.
But now my question is more pointed.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Floridians invading Denver?
Floridians? Cooking up anything for Denver?
In answer to your first question, lambert, hipparchia linked to most of my coverage above, which perhaps will help …
As for Denver, well, yes, there are some ideas floating around my pointy little haid. At this point, I’ll have to say “stay tuned,” because there are a number of variables that will determine the final decision … but suffice to say for now that I am planning to be in Denver for the DNC.
In what capacity, well, I just don’t know yet … in the meantime, how about some non-electoral Florida outrage for your ranting pleasure? ;)
Blast Off!: keeping America’s Wang™ safe for democracy since 2004.
BIO
listened rapturously, handed over their hard-earned money and then lifted their skirts. What were you thinking? What did you expect?
This is where I see a rape reference, and that is why your blaming the victim attitude really rubbed me the wrong way. It seems very much “well she invited the guy into her house, what else did she expect?”
And please don’t tell me, there’s no there, there. Everybody does this stuff, it is so ingrained in our culture, most of us don’t realize it. I am not trying to tar you as a rape sympathizer, I am just trying to point out something that you did, with no ill intent I am sure. This is about education and illumination, not trying to cast you as an evil white guy, mmkay:)
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
White guy, ingrained
Well. Thanks for the absolution of evil intent, but for the record I’m going to go ahead and go to trial; I’m innocent, not obtuse.
Context is all, so let’s have the full passage you found so offensive. I wrote:
No rape here. The protagonist is willing and eager, an active cognizant participant. The victimization is in the fraud of the useless widget, not in the mutual carnality. It could be argued, I suppose, that this housewife/salesperson construct is sexist, although I think we’re all past the “poor little housewife” stage and all agreed that housewives, however desperate, are fully functional and perfectly capable of making their own choices however wrong they may be. If my little analogy offends on the basis of misogyny, please be assured I had no such intention; feel free to substitute househusband and shorts, the message holds just as well.
My argument, Aeryl, is in two parts. One, the parties have committed a fraud; they’ve portrayed the primary process as an exercise in democracy. Two, the voters have bought it. Without bothering to read the fine print – which couldn’t be clearer that voters don’t much matter – these not-so-innocents have gotten them selves all worked up and breathing heavy, not for any good reason but simply out of self-induced lust for an illusion.
What did the voters expect, after giving money and working up a frenzy of enthusiasm? Actual power? Not happening. What were voters thinking? That their enthusiasm and expectations would be enough to dislodge the established hierarchy? Also not happening.
So while the parties are fraudsters, the voters are fools. Feel free to apportion blame as you see fit, but for my part I say shame on those who buy into so obvious a con; not just buy into it, but support and perpetuate it by their unbounded enthusiasm.
There’s an old axiom amongst con artists: You can’t con an honest person. The voters allow this process to occur, and pour huge amounts of money, time and enthusiasm into its perpetuation. At some point, they ceased being “victims” and became co-conspirators.
I believe that much of the outrage over FL and MI is because it has exposed the underlying fraudulence. It is the exposure, the inability to perpetuate the denial, that is discomfiting to voters; much more so than the actuality of the fraud itself. If they could just have the fraud continue smoothly, if they could just keep on believing that the love is real, that they’re not in actuality being used, then they can relax and be happy. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
There was no rape analogy, conscious or unconscious. I am a middle-aged male, but I am not an insensitive fool. Rape isn’t funny, or forgivable, or something to be bantered about. Rape is brutal, vicious, demeaning and contemptible, and never excusable. I didn’t use it as a justification, a metaphor or an analogy, and I’m not blaming the “victim” at all. I am saying it’s way past time for voters to wake up, deal with what’s happening, and make the changes in their own behavior that are required to force changes in party political structure and process.
If voters want to truly be part of the nomination process, they will have to seize that power; no one is going to hand it to them.