Conflicts of Interest: WaPo Article on the Dingells

by: kelster

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 14:31:55 PM EST

Today's WaPo article on Rep. John Dingell and Debbie Dingell is a little more nuanced than the title:

Dingells and GM illustrate limits of congressional conflict-of-interest rules

Worth a read.

Impressions from the Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting

by: emptywheel

Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:43:59 AM EDT

I got a press pass to the RBC meeting and will be posting some impressions throughout the day.

The events started, for me, last night; I ended up on the same flight down as Senator Levin and Congressman and Debbie Dingell. Debbie and I talked a lot about today's meeting, the negotiations leading up to the primary and since, and what will happen as we move foward.

Debbie talked a lot about the efforts she and Gettelfinger, Kilpatrick, and Levin have made to resolve the issues--many of which haven't been reported. Likewise, I was able to share the perspectives that I've been hearing here.

Mostly, though, we talked about what we're going to do to unify the party, both in CD15 but also in the state as a whole. I think both Debbie and I are looking forward to this being over, so we can work on winning MI for whichever candidate gets the nomination. (I took a YouTube today on this theme, but I've got to go edit it before I can post.)

More impressions after the break. 

"The Rules"

by: XavierLA

Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:29:28 PM EDT

The discussion of the rules and the December 2007 decision by the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee to strip Michigan and Florida of 100% of their convention delegates does not do justice to the complicated and nuanced nature of "the rules" and eschews any discussion of a decision improperly rendered or an innacurate interpretation.

Reading the various challenges that have been posted on MichLib during finals week forced my hand and I felt compelled to review the primary documents--the DNC Charter and Bylaws.

The Charter of the Democratic Party

Article 10, Section 4

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women.  The delegates shall be chosen through processes which: [snip]
(h)  notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Section:
(iii) permit unpledged delegates consisting of:
1) the President and Vice President of the United States, if Democrats,
2) the Democratic members of the United States Senate and the Democratic
members of the House of Representatives,
3) the Democratic Governors,
4) former Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States,
5) former Democratic Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate,
6) former Democratic Speakers and Minority Leaders of the United States House of
Representatives,
7) former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee,
8) such delegates shall not be permitted to have alternates and such delegates shall
constitute an exception to Subsection (b) of this Section 4.

I studied Computer Science in high school, and the definition of "shall" in programming is:

Describes a feature or behavior that is mandatory for an implementation that conforms to this document. An application can rely on the existence of the feature or behavior.

Davis, California -- where my mother attended college -- makes the distinction between "shall" and "may" quite clear:

"Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

The United Nations Environmental Programme defines it as:

As negotiating language, shall creates an obligation for action for the addressee. It is binding.

But enough on the word "shall."  These examples only serve to explain that the original decision by the Rules & Bylaw Committee decision to disqualify unpledged delegates violates the Charter, which makes their attendance as delegates a mandatory "feature" of the convention.

TOP SECRET CLINTON CAMPAIGN PLAN REVEALED!!1!

by: XavierLA

Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:43:28 PM EDT

What if I was to tell you that deep within the bowels of the Arlington headquarters of Sen. Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign there is a room.

In that room, there is a folder.

In that folder, there is a top-secret plan...a plan to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August by going to the Rules & Bylaws Committee and asking for just that.

But this isn't like any other top secret plan.  Because this plan is not a secret at all.

In fact, as far back as September 2007, those instrumental in the challenge to the oversized influence of early-voting states have been making very public statements to that effect.

What if I told you that the recent hullabaloo coming from Obama supporters, may have more to do with the "potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall," then it does with the shocking-nature of the information "just recently confirmed" about the Clinton campaign's strategy.

What if I were to point you to the following information all of which proves conclusively that challenging the RBC decision is nothing new?

Sen. Hillary Clinton, February 2008:

...I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, January 2008:

I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.

Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, December 2007:

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Sen. Carl Levin, December 2007:

The threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat. They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs.

Debbie Dingell & Sen. Carl Levin, September 2007:

In the face of New Hampshire's decision to violate the DNC rules and your silence concerning that decision, and given our strong feelings about the need to reform our nominating process to make it fairer, Michigan's Democratic leadership decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary...

New Hampshire's gun remains at our candidates' heads and they fear the repercussions to their campaigns in New Hampshire if they don't sign the New Hampshire pledge -- dramatic proof, if any more were needed, of the disproportionate impact of the New Hampshire primary.

Maybe Florida will join us if we have to take our case for the seating of our delegates to the Democratic convention in Denver. And maybe Nevada will insist on maintaining the number two position assigned to it. Maybe one or more of our Democratic candidates will join us. In any event, there cannot be one set of rules for New Hampshire and one set for every other state. We are determined that Michigan not be bound by rules that are not effectively enforced against other states.

"We're going to fight for all of our delegates," Ms. Thurman said. "The disenfranchisement is on their hands."

Now, if I had told you about this top-secret "nuclear option" the Clinton campaign didn't want you to know about, I wouldn't be a good Clinton supporter--it is a secret, after all.

....But of course if I told you about this secret plan, you'd probably just think I was lying.

AP: No Democracy for Democrats in Michigan

by: philgoblue

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 19:44:04 PM EDT

The AP report:

Michigan Democrats are expected to decide Friday against holding a do-over presidential election, The Associated Press has learned.

The state party's executive committee is expected to hold a meeting by phone to vote on a statement saying any kind of election to replace the results of the January 15 primary no longer is possible, according to Democratic leaders who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions so far have been private....

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton supported holding a second election so the delegates could be seated, but rival Barack Obama feared problems [meaning, squashed all attempts at democracy in Michigan -- pgb].

State Democrats now hope the two campaigns can agree on a way to split Michigan's 128 pledged delegates so they can be seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver....

The state Democratic Party already has pushed back the date for choosing national convention delegates to April 19, hoping the matter can be resolved before delegates are chosen.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and four top Michigan Democrats who have been trying to work out a way to get the delegates seated are expected to put out a statement Friday after the executive committee vote.

In the statement, they're expected to say the DNC is committed to seating Michigan's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders....

A sad day for Michigan Democrats.  We've lost an opportunity to reunify the MDP through a mulligan primary or caucus (blame: Obama), because this unity was harmed by the January 15 strawpoll powerplay (blame: Hillary, Granholm, D. Dingell, Levin and Brewer's weakness).  And what will be the harm?  Unenthusiastic activists, unmobilized voters who didn't get a chance to get excited by a primary campaign and hear the Democratic brand, and fewer memberships and donations.  And this all leads to an opening for McCain to win Michigan (remember Kerry won by a mere 3% and for all McCain's faults, he isn't George Bush), harms our chances of retaining the State House, and prevents any coat-tail tidal wave at the county level because of low Democratic turnout.

Someone must stand up in opposition to Brewer-Dingell.  Anyone listening?

Clinton; Obama campaigning for - but not in - Michigan

by: Hazen Pingree

Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:10:46 AM EST

"It was significant," said Michigan Democratic activist and GM Foundation head Debbie Dingell, who attended Wednesday's speech and toured the plant with Obama. "When he talks about these issues, he demonstrates that he gets it."

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Head to Michigan to Campaign

by: philgoblue

Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:04:11 AM EST

Michigan Liberal Snarkachedelic News, 6 February, Wednesday:  Fresh of dueling wins on Super Duper Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caught midnight planes from New York and Illinois and headed to the next key battleground state -- Michigan.  While there is a Louisiana primary, a Nebraska caucus and a meaningless Washington caucus (their actual primary is in two weeks), both candidates will spend most of the next three days concentrating on the Great Lakes State as Michigan's voters seem about to pick the nominee and probably the next President of the United States in their caucus on Saturday.

Hillary under 60%, loses 70% of black vote, on MLK birthday primary

by: David Boyle

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 21:07:24 PM EST

    See DetNews, the pithily-titled Michigan blacks reject HI[sic]llary;
HuffPo, Michigan Results Reveal Some Dangerous Trends For Clinton,

...the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator. ...
    Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary....

...Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
    Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. ...
    A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. ...
    Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. ...
    It is hard[] to believe that Clinton will get very far claiming Michigan handed her a meaningful victory Tuesday night. When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.

    I hate to disagree with Eric B., but despite his post title, Clinton, Romney cruise to bigger than anticipated margins (Open thread), I, not to mention DetNews, HuffPo, & Nation above, don't think Hill did too good. At. All.

    With comments like the Mich Lib one recently about needing a Caucasian fella on the ticket (Why? I'd vote for an Obama/Sebelius ticket, no white guy there), I think it is good to be sensitive, racially and otherwise, when making comments, maybe. And with the Daily Kos observations today, John Kerry:  Kicking ass, defending the right to vote, and flying to Nevada (on John Kerry's fighting the Clinton attempt to disenfranchise largely Latina/o workers' vote), and Say Goodbye to Howard Dean, (about the DNC entering the legal fray against the Clinton disenfranchisement attempt, and the likelihood of the Clintons booting Dean, in favor of Terry McAuliffe, if they win), it looks not just like a Michigan Dem struggle against Granholm/Brewer/Dingell's complicity with disenfranchisement, it looks like a national battle, of the reformers against the unworthy Establishment. I hope we'd all be on the side of the reformers.

    (While the DNC can't per se oppose the Clinton campaign, it's nice to see them at least opposing a Clinton initiative. Maybe Dean knows that not only will he be booted if the Clintons return to power, but decency itself will be booted as well.)

    --The message, as always, is, be active and take back your party. Find replacements for the people I mention above who need to be replaced. Run yourself if you have to. Be inclusive to minorities and to people in general. Promote the right over the wrong, and progress over stagnation. Keep the dream alive. MLK would expect no less of you.

More National Attention - Yay!

by: kelster

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:59:49 AM EST

Today's WaPo features an article titled: All Revved Up Over Michigan's Place in Politics: Today's Primary Is Now Secondary, And Debbie Dingell Is In Quite A State.

Thus, in the most wide-open presidential election in a generation, confusion and disillusionment reign supreme in a state already full of both. While Republican candidates devote advertising money and time to win their remaining delegates, Democratic voters have been ignored (save by Dennis Kucinich, the one candidate to break from the pledge). Edwards and Obama supporters have been told to vote "uncommitted" to support their candidates, though there's no guarantee of whom uncommitted delegates will support -- if they're even seated at the convention.

It's actually not a bad review of the history of how our primary came to be so screwed up...  but at the same time, it's one of the more sexist things I've read in quite a while.

Now, I don't think that Debbie Dingell & Co. did our state any favors by playing politics (literally!), and their arrogance borders on breathtaking.

At the same time, I was irritated to read things like this

So it's understandable when Dingell walks into the UAW hall and begins to rant.

or this

Later on she bellows, "We want them talking about our jobs! We want to see them talk about manufacturing!

oh, yeah - and this

It is apparent over the course of a week that she can speak about the primary at only one speed, no matter the venue. There's no soft beginning, no slow crescendo. You simply get Debbie Dingell, Angry or Angrier or Angriest -- a point where her voice is strong enough to destroy whole star systems.

"You tell me what kind of power it takes to have a candidate take their name off the ballot!" Dingell screams.

Granholm bashes "uncommitted"...while not committing to Michigan

by: David Boyle

Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 19:39:27 PM EST

"She's committed to us. We are going to stand behind someone who stands behind us."

"Their choice is to be committed for uncommitted? Or to be committed to someone who has stood for us?"

, and DetNews, Clinton cruising over 'uncommitted' (which despite its title, queries

But will she capture a large enough percentage to avoid embarrassment Tuesday?

    Gov. Jennifer Granholm said this morning at a Clinton rally in Southfield that her candidate "is committed to Michigan."    
    "Her opponent in this state apparently is 'uncommitted,' which is not an opponent," Granholm told reporters after speaking to 100 Clinton supporters at the Westin Hotel. "That is why we are encouraging voters to get out and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is not uncommitted to Michigan, which the other candidates apparently are."    
    Clinton opted not to campaign in Michigan because she made a pledge to uphold the party primary calendar, which is tilted to early races in Iowa and New Hampshire.

   There are multiple truth problems with JG's words here, including the fact that, uh, Clinton pledged not to campaign in Michigan (as noted above)! so that Dennis Kucinich, whatever his other problems, is more committed to Michigan than Clinton, cf. George Bullard in DetNews, Re Michigan, at least Kucinich shows up.
    As well, like it or not, Gravel and Kucinich are opponents of Clinton, too, so JG is inaccurate by not mentioning them as opponents, mentioning only "uncommitted" as an opponent. (Cheap rhetorical trick?)
    Last but not least, Granholm (who USED to say that Michigan Liberal is her favorite blog--is that still true??--, so that she may read here frequently) may have borrowed the "committed/uncommitted" wordplay of yours truly on 1/9/08, "Ironically, then, if you are COMMITTED to change, you may have to vote UNCOMMITTED on 1/15." ...I wonder how much she might owe me for "copyright infringement"! No wonder the writers went on strike...

    Now what is really interesting, is Jennifer Granholm's lack of commitment to staying in Michigan herself and doing her job, instead of running off to D.C. with Hillary, if she wins, and then leaving the Michigan mess to her new "Chief Operating Officer" (!! "Michigan Incorporated"??), and to John Cherry, whose, to be blunt, "charisma issues" might prevent him from becoming governor in a normal election.
    See Tim Skubick, the "Off the Record" video of his JG interview on 10/12/07, at c. 13:45-15:45 on the video. (Check WKAR if the above link doesn't work) TS asks JG repeatedly if she will pledge not to leave Lansing, and JG refuses again and again to answer, talking about "speculation", dodging the issue, and leaving a deep suspicion about her own commitment to Michigan. (She does say that fixing Michigan should take longer than a year and a half, and that she doesn't want to go to D.C. ...o.k., then why can't she pledge to stay in Lansing? Whom does she think she's fooling??)

    Repeatedly refusing to pledge to stay on the job in her own state, throwing (or even subtly massaging...) the election for a pal who can give her a cushy slot in D.C., and taking millions of taxpayers dollars to do it, plus the voter list graft, plus holding the DNC-rulebreaking election even after 4 Dem candidates correctly avoided it, plus Michigan's collapse in general...how committed is politician Granholm to Michigan, or staying in Michigan, or anything? Can she be believed when she mocks "uncommitted" voters like the great John Conyers and says voting Hillary is better?
    Probably not. If you vote, vote "uncommitted"...and commit to doing something about Granholm's, Dingell's, Brewer's, Anuzis's, McManus's, and Bishop's noxious dedication to doing the wrong thing re the 1/15 primary, and so many other wrong things as well. Thanks for your commitment to Michigan and to Michigan rank-and-file Democrats!

Let's Be Serious In Michigan: Vote Uncommitted, Not Mitt

by: philgoblue

Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST

This is a horrible idea dreamed up by a Californian. Democrats should vote in the Democratic Primary where something is at stake -- the media reports after the "primary." They can either read "Hillary On a Roll, Wins Michigan" or "Uncommitted Defeats Hillary, Clinton Can't Win Against Nobody." Supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama along with those angry at Granholm (trying to get a job in a possible, if now less likely, Hillary Administration) for strong-arming this through the MDP should VOTE UNCOMMITTED.

The main problem with Kos' scheme is that we Michigan Democrats need to worry about picking our own nominee, rather than attempt to have some small impact on their nominee. It's more imperative that we Michigan Democrats do our little part so that we do not end up with Hillary, our weakest candidate and least progressive potential president.

Every vote for Romney is also a vote for the headline "Hillary Wins Michigan, Controls Race."

So, think before you follow a bunch of out-of-staters trying to get you to vote for a Republican and instead

Debbie Dingell and Senator Debbie Stabenow Endorse Gary Peters for Congress

by: bfealk

Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:08:26 AM EST

On December 15, I took the video below of Debbie Dingell and Senator Debbie Stabenow saying why they are entusiastically endorsing Gary Peters for the U.S. Congress from the 9th Congressional District of Michigan.

If you would like to help Gary's campaign, please go to Peters For Congress. 

Wednesday Coffee Talk

by: BZP

Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:59:37 AM EST

Happy Hump Day. If you get a sec, be sure to check out the new BlogAd in the sidebar about the special election for Dennis Hastert's House seat. Enjoy your morning cup-o-links!

• BFM: House Democrats pass foreclosure plan, Granholm calls on Senate to act. "The House is getting down to business, moving legislation that will help Michigan citizens who are facing foreclosure. Today, they passed a plan that address ARMs and provides help for those who have missed payments." The House press release can be found here.
• BFM: Schauer Fights Back. Again. "Don't mess with Mark Schauer. He fights back. He's a standup guy. That is why I like him so, and that is why the Senate Republican leadership works so hard to discredit him. He won't let them get away with their nefarious schemes."
• DetNews: Mich. in middle in elections quality. Media Mouse takes a look at the report in this post, which is also worth reading.
• Michigan Future: Lobbying continues on business taxes after death of state sales tax on services. Uh oh. There's already talk among the business community about "reforming" the MBT.
• Monroe News: State House Democrats aim to tighten recall regulations. "As a reaction to the growing list of harmful products, [ State Reps. Kate Ebli, D-Monroe, and Kathleen Law, D-Gibraltar] devised a plan that would require businesses to remove dangerous products from store shelves within a set time frame after a recall has been issued."
• Flint Journal: Activists seek hearing on drug lawsuit bill. "State Sen. John Gleason, D-Flushing, and groups concerned about the impact of harmful prescription drugs urged state Senate Republicans on Monday to consider legislation that would allow legal action against companies whose products kill or injure users."

• Great Lakes Guy: In Great Lakes, Testing and Uncertainty on Renewables. "Despite the mounting number of stories that reveal an inspiring - and profitable - 21st century change in thinking about wind turbines, mpg's, or even algae, there always seems to be something that brings the whole conversation crashing back down into the comfort zone of 20th-century-style-business-as-usual."
• The Conversation: From Sweden to Escanaba: Biofuels in the UP. It sounds like the Governor's trip to Sweden is already paying dividends.
• DetNews: Wind can help power Michigan's energy future. "That's why wind, along with energy efficiency, leads the way in a number of plans in the state Legislature to move Michigan into a smarter energy future that minimizes dirty and dangerous fuel sources, stabilizes and lowers electricity rates and reduces air pollutants like mercury and heat-trapping carbon dioxide."
• Flint Journal: Company to add jobs in Owosso. "Pyramid Peak Coatings has bought the facility and assets of the former Vaungarde Acquisitions site... The company plans to have up to 20 employees at startup in January, and 40 to 50 when it gets to full operation later in the year."
• Flint Journal: GM plant in Flint goes landfill-free. "Reducing waste is an important business goal for General Motors," said plant manager Tony Suggs. "It is good for our business and the environment. The process is a total team effort, involving all our employees and union partners IAM 2484 and UAW local 659."
• AP: Michigan Senate approves bill giving amnesty from service tax. "The bill gives amnesty from owing or collecting the service tax. People can get refunds from businesses that charged the tax. It's unclear if any businesses actually collected the service tax."

• Michigan Messenger: Dingell-Anuzis push presidential primary plan. Never thought I'd see those two names on the same side of an issue, but it's true. Go check out Kevin's article.
• Freep: There's an interesting little tidbit near the end of Christoff's column today: "Knollenberg's office confirmed this week that Wisecup isn't working for the Bloomfield Township Republican but declined to discuss why, saying it was a personnel matter."

• Saginaw News: Governor's husband urges vision. The News has a nice write-up on the First Gentleman's speech before a meeting of the Saginaw County African American Leadership Training Institute.
• BFM: State GOP Representative Profits - Taxpayers Pay. The headline says it all. Oh, and Kathy coins a new phrase: "wingnut welfare."
• Media Mouse: Report: Michigan Failing to Meet Health Goals for Children. "The report, which was compiled by the Michigan League for Human Services and Michigan's Children, concludes that Michigan has made 'limited progress' and 'will fail to meet many national standards for healthy children, families and neighborhoods' if more aggressive action is not taken."

John AND Debbie Dingell beaten in 2-day period. Wow

by: David Boyle

Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:00:14 PM EST

    After these Dingell dual disasters, Michigan can hopefully be persuaded to get new leadership faster (in the 15th District Congressperson position and the Michigan DNC Committeeperson position), shed the corruption, and get out of its mess faster. Sail on!!

MDP exec meeting by PHONE tonight; you're cut out. Act (FLASH: 4 Dems NOT on ballot)

by: David Boyle

Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 00:58:26 AM EST

  ...The state Democratic Party's executive committee will meet Tuesday night by conference call to finalize the decision to participate in the Jan. 15 contest. Primary supporters believe they have the votes on the committee to go forward, though there are likely to be some among the 80 or so committee members who argue to opt out of the primary, especially if the House fails to add the missing candidate names.

  Oh, a little private meeting, huh? And not on the regular Wednesday? Looks like somebody wants to cut out live, personal opinion and presence at that meeting.
  Bad idea.

  What you can do about it...is somewhat up to you. It certainly includes contacting the MDP,

e-mail midemparty@michigandems.com,

and

phone (517) 371-5410

, to complain that it will be a closed-to-the-public meeting (OR to demand the meeting be delayed and opened to the public), and to ask for a February 9 caucus (or February 5th-or-later primary--if you're a huge primary fan) that will prevent the DNC from rejecting Michigan delegates.
  And whatever else you want: it's your opinion and right to voice it. --Just as rank-and-file Mich Dems are finding their voice and organizing an implementation challenge against the MDP's rulebreaking, and, I believe, unethical, manipulation of the delegate selection process.

  (See philgoblue's recent diary If You Want an Election and Not a Coronation You Must Act Today - Monday Morning Edition for more contact information, and info on how you can participate in the implementation challenge.)

  Do you really want Debbie Dingell and Mark Brewer and Carl Levin--working in collusion with Saul Anuzis and Mike Bishop, by the way--to risk throwing away your vote completely, in a DNC-rulebreaking primary (or January caucus) that also risks not getting ballots to our overseas soldiers on time? Forgive me, but I certainly hope you don't want that.

  Thank you for your efforts in keeping Michigan Democrats democratic. They are deeply appreciated.

  FLASH/update: see AP via DetNews, Senate refuses to restore 4 Democrats to ballot,

  Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot will include just half the Democratic candidates for president.
  The state Senate on Tuesday refused to take up legislation that would have restored the names of four Democratic presidential candidates to the ballot who withdrew earlier from the primary.
  Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, blamed Democrats for not being on the same page with each other. ...
  Bishop said some of the Democratic candidates threatened to sue if their names were restored to the ballot. [HA HA HA!!!] Republicans said election clerks couldn't afford to delay any further waiting for legislators to act or lawsuits to be settled. ...

Saul Anuzis hearts 1/15 primary in DetNews today. The Dingell-endorsed primary

by: David Boyle

Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 14:18:00 PM EST

...Now, a small, but vocal faction within the Michigan Democrat [!] Party is working behind the scenes to scuttle our chance to play a pivotal role in selecting the presidential nominees. ...
  It is time for Democrats in the Michigan House of Representatives to act and adopt legislation -- that passed the state Senate -- to once and for all set Michigan's primary for Jan. 15. ...

  So, Saul is working with...Debbie "blow up New Hampshire and Iowa [!]" Dingell against these pesky

  DEMOCRATS.

  Is there something wrong here?? ?
  (And Deb is saying there'll be a Jan. CAUCUS if no primary...does she ever learn?)

  See philgoblue's current diary for ways to save your own vote being counted at the 2008 Dem national convention with a Feb. caucus.

  (Brief info:

MDP: (517) 371-5410
midemparty@michigandems.com)

  Act now before it's too late and demand a February 5-or-later caucus! The vote you save will be your own!
  You can count on neither Saul Anuzis nor Debbie Dingell to protect your enfranchisement, I am sad to note...

DetNews: primary gutted, Dillon cites wastefulness, Dingell feverish

by: David Boyle

Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 02:39:46 AM EST

  Michigan lawmakers failed Thursday in their attempt to save Michigan's endangered Jan. 15 presidential primary. [Yes!]
  The Senate voted 26-9 on a bill to restore the primary in a way that could pass legal muster with a judge who this week declared the law establishing the primary unconstitutional. But Democrats refused to vote for a companion procedural motion to give the bill "immediate effect." And without that, the bill cannot become law until around March 1 of next year -- long after the proposed primary vote. [Go Dems!] ...
  The bill's sponsor, Sen. Michelle McManus, conceded that without immediate effect the primary is all but dead. She blamed Democrats and their union allies who want party caucuses, rather than a primary. [Ha ha Michelle McM! Gotcha!]
  Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, had urged his colleagues during Senate debate to vote to restore the primary.
  "If you don't support immediate effect, you have destroyed our opportunity to have a presidential primary on Jan. 15," he said. "Make us relevant in this (nominating) process." [Mike Bishop: Debbie Dingell's and Jennifer Granholm's GURU on this issue...]
  Bishop was hoping the House would pass the bill and return it to the Senate, where another vote on immediate effect then could be held. But later Thursday evening, House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, cast doubt that will happen. Dillon said the primary wouldn't be very meaningful if all of the Democrats, except Clinton, decide not to participate.
  "It costs us $10 million to have the election," Dillon said. "When the (top) Democrats pulled out, it hurt the quality of it ... I'm not sure it's worth $10 million to hold a primary that only involves one party." [ANDY DILLON FOR GOVERNOR!!!] ...
  Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the Democratic National Committee, worked feverishly to round up votes for the primary. And she said Thursday it isn't dead. [Feverish ol' Deb, failing fast...]
  "Not yet," she said. "We're still moving forward on the legal side and the Legislature may come back next week and could take it up."
  If the primary isn't held, Dingell said the fallback plan is to hold a Democratic caucus the same day as New Hampshire's primary, which will take place in early January -- although the date has not yet been set. [Why not Dec. 15? Scoop the whole country!]
  "I want the primary because I think it's the right thing," Dingell said. [Debbie Dingell--modern Gandhi, General Motors style.] ...

  2 tiny points:

1) I will likely advocate publicly for the recall, or removal from the DNC, of anyone who tries to hold a crazy-stalker-of-New-Hampshire early-January caucus;

2) as of yesterday's Senate vote; Debbie Dingell, Mike Bishop, and Saul Anuzis--and, yes, Jennifer Granholm--: Michigan Liberal bloggers like philgoblue, and courageous Michigan Senate Dems on Thursday, have kicked your sorry, treacherous *** re the early primary. And we will keep embarrassing you in public, the more you act like ***es.
  And learn to enjoy it, because that's what we're here for.

Repub Senate + Deb D: put Barack/John/etc. on ballot against will

by: David Boyle

Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 21:43:34 PM EST

  ...The legislation the Senate voted on Thursday aims to mak[e] the problematic clause separable from the rest of the legislation. That would allow the primary to be held even if that portion of the law is again challenged in court.
  The law would give party leaders until Nov. 14 to inform the Michigan Secretary of State whether they would proceed with a primary. It also has measures to try and make sure all major candidates from both parties would be on the ballot. ...

  On the ballot against their will, that is. Obama, Edwards, etc. Classy move. Clas-sy.
  Any Democrat supporting this should be recalled, I'm tempted to say. (Though one can't exactly "recall" Debbie Dingell, who is working hand-in-glove with the Repubs and Saul Anuzis on putting a gun to Obama/Edwards/Richardson/etc.'s heads, see my previous diaries...)

If You Want an Election and Not a Coronation You Must Act Today - Thursday Edition

by: philgoblue

Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 13:59:59 PM EST

AP: Court ruling could derail Jan. 15 Michigan presidential primary.
The ruling was discussed at Michigan Liberal yesterday.

But, it's not over, the forces of Hillary and Coronation and their Republican allies in the State Senate are still going to push for a new state-primary bill that returns us to 15 January and doesn't even get the MDP the voter rolls it wanted:

Debbie Dingell, a Democratic power broker who helped lead the push for a Jan. 15
primary [and is the biggest Hillary Clinton supporter in the state], said late Wednesday she was cautiously optimistic it could be salvaged and that extraordinary efforts to do so would be undertaken.

Debbie Dingell hearts Anuzis: involuntary servitude for Obama etc.

by: David Boyle

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 22:23:48 PM EDT

Political leaders of both parties are pushing for the state Legislature to place the names of four Democratic presidential candidates back on the Jan. 15 primary ballot, trying to undo the damage to Michigan's political clout when the candidates removed their names from consideration this week.
  Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell and state GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis both support the idea; Anuzis said today the Republican leaders of both chambers of the Legislature are on board. ...
  "We have to be prepared to play hardball," said Dingell, the wife of U.S. Rep John Dingell, D-Dearborn, and a prime mover in the bid to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire. ...

  That's just what Michigan's image needs: a white woman (person) who married into power, forcing an African American (Obama) and a Latino (Richardson), plus some others, to be forced to do something they don't want to do. 
  And cuddling up with "Super Saul" Anuzis to do it. Now isn't that special.

  Wasn't involuntary servitude abolished a long time ago??

  ...Why hasn't Debbie Dingell resigned from her position at the DNC, or been forcibly removed from it? She isn't happy there. And she clearly has no respect for the DNC, or maybe for anyone else either, maybe. (Except for her husband or General Motors--hard to tell the difference between them--, and Hillary, who could advance Debbie's career.)

  Yes, involuntary servitude got abolished a long time ago (that "Civil War" thing), but not everyone has noticed, I guess...