Jan. 15 write-in votes probably won't count

This Resolution was Passed Last Night (4.00 / 6)

by the Kent County Democratic Party:

Resolved: The Kent County Democratic Party believes that a 15 January primary that chooses no National Convention delegates and gives Michigan voters a very limited choice from the Democratic presidential field is not in the interest of Michigan or the Michigan Democratic Party.

Therefore, the Kent County Democratic Party strongly encourages the Michigan Democratic Party and its Chair Mark Brewer to opt out of the 15 January primary and return to a DNC-sanctioned Caucus on or after 5 February 2008.

I put it forward.  Passed after some lengthy debate by a voice vote probably around 80% to 20%.

I urge y'all to write letters and go to your County Party meetings.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM UTC

Edwards quit on us. (4.00 / 2)

Why should we chase after him?  Are we Hosea?

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 13:21:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because we broke the rules (4.00 / 3)

tried a powerplay, overplayed our hand and failed.  And frankly, after w, we need a president who is willing to play by the rules.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 13:30:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plessy v. Ferguson was a rule (4.00 / 1)

Lets not oversimplify this.  I am not willing to blindly follow a "leader" whose only response to my question is, "its a rule".  No cloture on filibusters of civil rights bills in the U.S. Senate used to be a rule.  No interference with private property through strikes and picketing used to be a rule.  No tampering with freedom of contract through child labor laws or eight/ten hour day laws used to be a rule.

The two separate questions are (1) "does the rule make any sense?", with an ancillary "is it impossible to change the rule because of entrenched self-interest?"; and (2) why did Edwards walk away from our State when Clinton and Dodd did not?

I like some parts of Edwards, and would certainly support him over any Republican candidate.  But your guy walked away from us, and "its a rule man" is no response. 

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 14:07:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your comment doesn't make sense (4.00 / 4)

Where did segregation come into this?

Yeah, it's dumb that Iowa and New Hampshire go first. There's a process in the Democratic Party to try to change the calendar, and Michigan made a strong effort to do that. The result? Nothing for Michigan, but Nevada got moved up to be an early state.

Will that affect much in the end? Probably not. But it came as the result of the rules set in place by the party. In 2012, we'll have another chance to try again.

You have to respect the process. It doesn't always get you what you want, but the processes and institutions we follow are what keep us together. If you want to violate the rules, make a statement, and make some noise, fine, but don't act all surprised when you're punished for it.

Picking up on your civil rights example (which kind of came out of nowhere), yeah, segregation was a "rule." There were people who accomplished a great deal to end it through civil disobedience. They accepted the consequences of their actions, but knew that whatever punishment they received was worth it because they were right.

You might believe that it's worth it to lose all our delegates and have candidates be taken off the ballot to make a point. That's your belief. The difference, though, is that I'm pretty sure Dr. King didn't have a fit and complain about people "walking away from him" in his Letters from a Birmingham Jail.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the success in the civil rights movement came from people like Thurgood Marshall, arguing before the Supreme Court and following the processes in place. Sometimes, you have to work at it for a long time, but there are ways to fix problems.

Wow. I so did not want to be dragged off on that tangent... Terrible analogy to what's happening now.

As for the notion that Edwards and the others "walked away from Michigan," frankly, that's just stupid. George W. Bush walked away from Michigan when he refused to meet with the Big Three. Bill Clinton walked away from Michigan when he helped enact NAFTA. John Engler walked away from Michigan when he ran off to run NAM after ruining our state.

Edward and Obama and the others made a political calculation for what was best for their campaigns. Do you think that means they don't care about Michigan? That's ridiculous!

I'm glad to see that you would still support Edwards over a Republican. But for the folks that are canceling their contributions to Edwards or Obama, or who are vowing not to vote for them in a general election, or who are just saying that they've lost your support just because of this: Get over yourselves!

Is Michigan's political ego worth sacrificing the best chance we have had in decades to elect a Democratic president?

---

by: Fitzy @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 15:20:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obviously I touched a nerve (4.00 / 1)

If you think that King and others were stoics that simply accepted their punishments, I politely suggest that you review that period again.

And in case you have lost sight of the context of this discussion, I am not whining about the consequences of one's actions - Edwards and Obama supporters are.  The logical consequence of pulling one's name off of a ballot, thereby telling me as a voter that you do not care about my vote, is that you will not get my support.  The DNC is not forcing Edwards or Obama to take their names off of our ballot, as evidenced by the fact that Clinton and Dodd are still on.

"Edwards and Obama and the others made a political calculation for what was best for their campaigns."  Exactly!  Now they need to accept the consequences of their acions, without whining.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:32:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why don't you think about it this way... (4.00 / 1)

perhaps you shouldn't be spending so much time looking at your navel.

Perhaps those who pulled their names off the ballot are thinking about the voters who live in states that follow the rules...

And by my math, those folks far outnumber the people who live in the state of Michigan.

Move the damn primary...it was a stupid move and it is time to admit it.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 20:24:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure that's it (4.00 / 1)

I'm a navel gazer because we disagree about something.  That makes sense because you are the acknowledged guru on intellectually measuring the blogosphere.  Of course Edwards, Obama, Richardson, et al are brave visionaries who are standing up for those intrepid souls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Fine.  The ballot refugees' actions are positive statements about other states, but under no circumstances can their actions be seen as saying anything about our state.  Got it.  Thanks for pulling me out of navel gazing, neanderthal status.

I'm sorry that you, and others, cannot vote for your preferred candidate in the primary.  Clinton is not my first choice either.  I'm sorry that the chance for MI delegates to attend a useless, automaton drinking party (the Convention) is in danger.

But back in my navel gaxing days, I found a few objective facts in there.  (1) candidates were free to make their own decisions about whether to stay on our ballot.  (2) candidates pulling their names off of the ballot was not foreseeable, as none of them suggested they might do it until very recently.  (3) Michigan made its decision about the primary quite awhile ago, giving all candidates notice.

Now, please help me with this as I am new to this "thinking outside the navel", but I think the above facts mean that the responsibility for pulling off the ballot actually rests with the candidates.  If they are brave visionaries, fine.  If they are cowards, fine.  If it was just a good, practical decision, fine.  But in the final analysis, I have NEVER had my vote mean ANYTHING in any presidential primary/caucus in my entire voting life becuase it has always been over before it got to Michigan.  So just exactly how are we any worse off in our current position? 

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 13:24:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You really need to take it down a notch (0.00 / 0)

You started this whole thing off by making claims about people's motives and potential biases...and when it comes back at you all you do is whine about it.

Perhaps it is your over the top reaction to this situation that is clouding your ability to engage in logic...

Or maybe you are just staring at your navel.

Oh yeah, and way to avoid the larger point (which of course you meant to do).

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 17:04:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained (4.00 / 2)

Ever hear that old saying nothing ventured nothing gained?  Mark Brewer, Debbie Dingell, Jennifer Granolm and Carl Levin truly do believe we need a change.
I know you must be a real savvy guy, to question our Democratic leaders, but aren't you willing to risk a little to gain something?  When the going gets a little tough, do you think we should just cave in?

---

by: ebba debba @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 14:33:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question Authority (4.00 / 2)

I thought one of the things liberals were supposed to be known for was the ability to question authority. The MDP questioned the DNC's authority, so why can't we question the MDP's?

---

by: Hildy Johnson @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 18:19:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

let's revolt so that HRC's votes don't count (4.00 / 2)

Is there a provision in the election law that could invalidate the votes for Clinton?

I mean this is total crap.  You have an election where nobody is "participating".  All of the majors except Clinton have withdrawn and the GOP is playing stupid.
The Clinton machine is taking total advantage, exploiting a loophole which will grab her all of the delegates(which techinically shouldn't be seated) and we the voters are left dangling like useless dingbats.  And yet Clinton will demand that our delegates get seated even though they were exclusively selected by a totally corrupted process. 
And this will encourage me to volunteer in the Fall because why exactly? Because the state might switch to the GOP?  It's stupid gimmicks like this that will cause the state to switch to the GOP, not because us in the grassroots refuse to help out in the Fall. 

Whoever had the dumb idea of the 1/15 primary date sounds like they were being played like a fiddle by the GOP. 
Any vote on 1/15 should be rendered null and void.  It ran afoul of the DNC rules, was a petty move against Iowa and NH, and was a very, very poor tactic to try and garner increased candidate attention on our ailing state.

---

by: Gaspare @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 13:46:22 PM UTC

well... (4.00 / 1)

Whoever had the dumb idea of the 1/15 primary date sounds like they were being played like a fiddle by the GOP.

That would be Senator Levin...surprise!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 13:59:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton says removing her name would be "foolish", surprise (4.00 / 1)

http://talkingpoints...

oh, the plot thickens

Strangulation, I mean triagulation is quite the strategy.

---

by: Gaspare @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 16:12:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I say we sue the state (4.00 / 4)

As far as I am concerned, the state of Michigan just disenfranchised me...

Not only will my vote not count towards my party's nomination, even if I write in a candidate, the vote won't count.

I am seriously considering taking the state of Michigan to court on this issue (and also the issue of the $12 million list generation at the expense of the taxpayers).

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 13:58:05 PM UTC

Call the MDP (4.00 / 2)

I just saw a facebook group yesterday which was created with the purpose of lobbying the MDP to support the caucus.

http://www.facebook....

---

by: BrianDStraw @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 14:21:01 PM UTC

Ron Paul (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats I know who can't bring themselves to support the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton, will instead be voting for Ron Paul.  It's time to come together as a party.

---

by: northernlib @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 14:27:45 PM UTC

Just curious... (4.00 / 2)

who exactly is Brewer, Dingell and Levin supporting for the nomination?  It looks like Granholm is going to suppport Hillary... I'd like to know if the other three who concocted this mess are also in that camp as well.

---

by: MichiganDem @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 16:04:01 PM UTC

don't know, but Clinton says removing her name would be "foolish" (4.00 / 1)

http://talkingpoints...

Sounds like we are being played, a righteous revolt is in order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: Gaspare @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 16:15:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought Brewer was supporting Edwards. (4.00 / 1)

I believe Dingle and Granholm will endorse Clinton, unfortunately, but I have no inside info.  I know that Mark Schauer has endorsed Clinton.

It definitely feels like the fix is in.  The powers that be are going to foist another candidate on us, just like in 2004.

---

by: extradish @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:00:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sue the State? (4.00 / 2)

Not a bad idea...I think I could sign on to that.

---

by: petrolcide @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:01:24 PM UTC

Anybody who is serious about suing to block the primary. . . (4.00 / 2)

. . . ought to give me a call.

-mark grebner
(517) 351-6682

---

by: Grebner @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple solution (2.50 / 2)

MDP needs to set up a caucus just like in prior years.  RUn it on Feb. 5th.

The voters should go after the throats of the in Michigan politicians who used this cheap (easy to do) tactic for their own person gain at the loss of part cohesion.  Michigan's elected officials will do anything that's easy that they think will help them win future elections ... scum buckets.

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:14:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ms. Dingell ain't no Queen of Sheba (0.00 / 0)

And somebody tell that Dingell lady she ain't the Queen of Sheba.  Talk about arrogance ... yowsa

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 21:16:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]