Michigan's Dem Establishment is Boxing Without Gloves, Why Are Activists Wearing Theirs?

by: skarefamena

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST

I believe that Jack Lessenberry is closer to the truth than most Michigan Democrats would like to admit.   Michigan's Democratic establishment is playing hardball and using brute force to prevent a fair fight in Michigan.

I don't think Senator Levin planned it that way at the outset, or that Levin, Granholm, Dingell, and Brewer had a "secret meeting" to decide their strategy.

These are all savvy politicians.  They know what they want, and they know how to get it.  They know that this is the most important election in decades.  They know this is the biggest opportunity for Democrats in decades.
 
They know just as well as any of us does what the difference is between a caucus and no caucus in Michigan, and seating the delegates as they stand or not seating the delegates at all.
 
They know which candidate they support too.   They have done the math and picked their pony.   What they've ultimately chosen is good for them, but that's no good for Michigan or the Democratic Party.

You tell me which candidate you support, and I betcha I can tell you what you think about a caucus in Michigan.  You tell me what you think about a caucus in Michigan, and I'll tell you which candidate you support.

This ain't rocketscience.

I promise, I will not be boycotting Clinton if she wins the election by the Michigan Margin.   I'm a Democrat, and another Republican president could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

But you can bet the farm that other folks will boycott!  This has the makings of a true disaster for the Democrats.  If Florida 2000 haunts us to this day, how are we gonna feel if the Clinton operation pulls off this ham-fisted delegate rob in Michigan, and it makes the difference between President Democrat and President McCain?  They always say, "Democrats always manage to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory" ...

The only near-fair solution is a showdown in Michigan and Florida. So long as the Democratic establishment in Michigan is not boxing with gloves on in this election, why should the voters, why should I?
 
We should be demanding a caucus, and we'll only be getting a caucus when Democratic activists say, "Either we caucus or heads are gonna roll!"

The Argument for a Michigan Caucus

by: skarefamena

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 18:46:26 PM EST

ARGUMENTS:

(1) Michigan deserves to have clout in this election. So long as our delegates do not count, Michiganders do not have clout.

(2) Our 128 delegates could be decisive. The race for delegates is expected to be very close at the time of the convention, with both candidates near, but not at, a majority. Michigan could tip the balance.

(3) Michiganders deserve to see the primary candidates up close and hear the candidates debate the issues that matter in Michigan, like the health of the Great Lakes and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Michiganders will not have this opportunity if January's results stand.

(4) Michigan voters deserve to be able to choose between all of the candidates. Most of the candidates names were removed from Michigan's ballot, and "Uncommitted" won the "youth vote," the "black vote," and over 40% (200,000) of the overall votes.

(5) Michigan deserves to have our delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention. As it stands, the DNC will reject the delegates distributed at Michigan's January 15 Primary because Michigan advanced the date of our Primary in defiance of DNC rules. They will restore our delegation's voting credentials if and only if we hold a caucus.

(6) Whichever candidate wins the nomination, they must win Michigan to win the presidency.  The opportunity to campaign in Michigan prior to the nominating convention would strengthen the nominee with Michigan voters.

Michigan primary in the Wall Street Journal

by: yvette248

Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:50:49 AM EST

Okay.... I hate to be the one to say I told you so, but......

In spite of the many, many posts by some here that Michigan "didn't matter" in the primary elections, Michigan (and Florida) is on THE FRONT PAGE of The Wall Street Journal.

In a primary season full of odd twists, consider this one: Florida and Michigan, which currently don't have a single vote at the Democrats' August convention, could determine who is elected president.

With the Democratic nomination essentially deadlocked after this week's Super Tuesday primaries, and no clear resolution imminent in a series of smaller contests this weekend, party attention is turning to the unusual situation of the two big states.

The story goes on to say how risky (i.e. "stupid") the idea is to continue excluding two of the most powerful swing states over "rules" that are no longer in the party's interest and could hurt either democratic nominee this coming November.

But the alternative of sticking with the status quo and excluding the two states is equally risky. Michigan is a reliable Democratic state with big African-American and union populations. Florida is a toss-up state that the Democrats hope to win this year. "It's in the party's interest, if they want to win in November, to stop this thing," says American University political scientist James Thurber.

It also appears that (like I've been saying all along) not only the DNC but both candidates have assured Michigan that their candidates would be seated this summer. Analysts agree that sticking with the status quo would be political suicide.

Both state parties said they were assured by the campaigns that the delegations would be seated when it became clear who the nominee was. Sen. Clinton would almost certainly argue for including the delegations on grounds they are important states to the party.

Sen. Obama then would be in the uncomfortable position of seeking to disenfranchise them. "If it gets that far, then Obama has to look Michigan and Florida in the eye and say, 'I don't want you in my convention.'

Okay, now that I've had a little fun..... more seriously now. It is par for the course for people to have a multitude of opinions, especially on a blog. But those opinions have to be recognized as just that: Opinions. Stating for a fact that you know something - without the understanding about politics to go with it - is not the best way to have an informed electorate.

The people who ARE knowledgeable about national elections have been saying all along that Michigan will be seated in this summer's convention. Even common sense would tell you that a candidate cannot be elected the President of 48 states.

Exactly how this thing is going to play out, no one knows for sure. I for one am hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket!

The Daily Show on Michigan's primary

by: yvette248

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 20:15:00 PM EST

Jon is interviewing David Gergen right now on the Daily Show. He is totally trashing the Democrats for being stupid enough not to campaign Michigan and Florida - two of the states Democrats absolutely NEED to win the election (along with Ohio and Pennsylvania).

His quote:

"On the scale of 1 to stupid, how stupid is Dems not campaigning in Michigan and Florida?" 

Gergen's response: "I don't know. Sometimes Democrats eat their own." 

Leave me alone Brain and Phil, this is Jon Stewart's quote, not mine.

That's Saul, folks! Part Deux

by: LiberalLucy

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:23:11 PM EST

It just keeps getting better and better and yes, even better.

First the Michigan Republicans under their fearless leader, Saul Anuzis, sent out the wrong press release declaring Sen. John McCain as the winner of yesterday's primary. (hat-tip to Nazgul for picking it up) Wow, that must have been embarrassing.

Immediately after "hitting the wrong button", their words not mine, they sent the correct press release congratulating Mitt Romney. the actual winner.  Too bad, the damage was already done.

Then the Detroit Free Press picked it up. (add egg to face here) Are we past the point of embarrassing yet?

And then, the heavens opened up and the Tubes of the Internets shone down on all of us because CNN.com posted this beauty -  

Now that my friends, must be the Republican Faux Pas of the year.

Of course, this only January 16th and last I heard, Bush, Bishop, DeVos, Drolet and the rest of the mighty mighty Republican WindBags have no plans on stopping the Michigan 2008 BS Tour, all led by dear, darling Saul. All together now...

"That's Saul, folks!" 

Clinton Campaign on Michigan Victory

by: XavierLA

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 00:01:58 AM EST

"Tonight Michigan Democrats spoke loudly for a new beginning. You spoke out for an economy that would honor the middle class, not punish it. You spoke out for a president who will fight to create good paying jobs at a time when so many families are struggling to make ends meet. You spoke out for an end to the war in Iraq. You spoke out for a quality, affordable health care system that works for all Americans.

"For that, we thank you.

"Your voices matter. And as president, Hillary Clinton will not only keep listening, but will make sure your voice is always heard."

Dingell says the Primary was worth it

by: yvette248

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:33:35 PM EST

Ok, I'm almost afraid to post this here due to the heat of public opinion regarding our primary problems.

Yet, according to Debbie Dingell, it was all worth it. Could she be right?

"That was what it was all about," General Motors Corp. executive Dingell said of why she and other political leaders in the state pushed Michigan's primary up early despite the $10 million price tag, plenty of angry Democratic voters and threats of serious repercussions from the national parties.

"Everybody loves to bash the domestic auto industry," said Dingell, who is the wife of U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn. "But they come here and can see the technology, and then suddenly they see that the domestic manufacturers are making better products than anybody else. That is what happened."

The shift to Michigan also brought a shift in candidates' messages. While the war in Iraq was at the forefront in earlier primaries, Republican candidates wooing Michigan were forced to shift their focus to job losses, manufacturing and the state's unique-in-the-nation recession.

<!--startclickprintexclude-->

 http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/POLITICS/801150457 

Setting The Bar

by: Stareagle

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 14:52:35 PM EST

Hillary Clinton needs to top 80 percent of the Michigan vote today in order to claim any kind of victory.

I know that sounds really high, and the Clinton supporters are going to go crazy, but I think it's reasonable. I'm not the one who put her into a no-win situation like this. 

Michigan's Issues: Really on Display in Primary?

by: TomChoske

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST

DID YOU VOTE TODAY???

by: yvette248

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM EST

Did you vote today? If so, how did it go? How many people were there? Were there any problems/surprises or overheard conversations at the polling station? Let us know what is going on across the state this election day.

In Royal Oak

I voted for Hillary Clinton at 9 a.m. today. There were about 3 people voting when I got there. They did check my id, and I requested a Democratic ballot. I was Democratic ballot #24, and there were 40 republican ballots before mine. 

That concerns me so early in the morning because although Precinct 16 does tilt republican, I don't think its typically by that much of a margin. I really hope Dems come out to vote today! 

TPM's Mitt for Michigan Ad (Democrat style)

by: chanupi

Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST

TPM gives us the ad we have been waiting to see.  This spells it out clearly:

Following the Great Orange Satan's orders I do here approve of Mitt Romney.

Fraudulent Anti-Clinton Leaflet Spread Throughout Grand Rapids

by: XavierLA

Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:47:41 AM EST

The patriotically-themed, seemingly professionally produced leaflet I held in my hand at first appeared to be the work of the Michigan Democratic Party, who I presumed was attempting to get out the vote for Tuesday's primary. I'd found it on the windshield of my car, and the same leaflet was on every car in the parking lot outside of an afternoon basketball game...

"Attention Michigan Voters!!," the leaflet proclaims. "Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Independent...THIS AFFECTS YOU!!!"

Although the leaflet features the Michigan Democratic Party logo, it is unclear who is behind this latest tactic.

Making no mention of that fact, the author of the leaflet states that "voting 'uncommitted' gives your candidate a fighting chance this summer...you don't have to be registered as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Ask for a Democratic ballot at your polling place." What the document does not say, however, is that "voting 'uncommitted'" is, effectively a sabotage vote against Hillary Clinton...

The Great Michigan Primary Debacle of 2008 -or- The Ron Paul Spam-Bot Has a Point

by: kpominville

Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:47:14 AM EST

In the middle of all that fun, the Michigan Democratic Party went and broke National Party rules about not infringing on the "importance" of Iowa and New Hampshire and decided to have our primary before February 5th. In response, the National Democratic Party has announced that they will not seat any delegates from Michigan at the National Convention.

If that happens, it means that Michigan will have no say in deciding who the Democratic candidate will be.
 
Also, because we moved our primary before Feb 5th, Barak Obama and John Edwards both inexplicably decided to pull their names from the ballot in Michigan completely, essentially handing Michigan over to Hillary on a silver platter. 

So here we are... Michigan's primary is going to be January 15th, this coming Tuesday, and Michigan progressives are still unsure who to vote for.  

Even if my vote does count the only major candidate I have to choose from is Hillary Clinton and she is not my first, second or even third choice. Any vote I cast for Kucinich or Dodd would essentially be nothing more than a protest vote.

So essentially there is a game of chicken going on between the Michigan Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party. So far the National Party has given no indication that they intend to back down from their stated intention of refusing to seat our delegates and all we have is the assurance of the Michigan Party leadership that they "wouldn't dare" refuse to seat our delegates at the convention. 

If I do go vote in the Democratic Primary...

...and if I vote "uncommitted" because my preferred candidate, John Edwards, is not on the ballot...

...and if our delegates get seated at the national convention... then there is still no telling how the delegates I send there are going to vote. It could end up going to Mike Gravel for all I know.

What is important to me is to use my vote to its greatest effect. Normally that is simply voting for my candidate of choice but this situation has created quite a conundrum for me.

I could go vote for Hillary but I have been saying all along that she is my least favorite candidate and as long as there are other candidates out there whom I would rather vote for, I do not think I should go contribute to handing my state over to their competitor.

I could go vote for Dennis Kucinich, who I agree with on most issues and who I think would be a great President. Normally I would think that supporting Dennis would be the best use of my vote, but given the situation with the Democratic delegates from Michigan, it would be a gamble.

So...why not go vote in the Republican primary? At least they are guaranteed half of their delegates at their national convention. I may not be a Republican but I can take advantage of Michigan's open primary system to possibly have some positive effect on them.  

If I go vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul, and he has a strong enough showing in Michigan to at least get a few delegates, then it may send a strong message to the Republican Party that Ron Paul's anti-war message resonates with their base and it might move them ever-so-slightly to the left, away from the edge of fascism and totalitarianism they are currently teetering over.

The fact is that on some issues Ron Paul is even farther to the left than any of the Democratic candidates. Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican side even talking about the Constitution and the Legislative branch's responsibility to check the power of the Executive branch. He is bringing some small measure of sanity back to the Republican Party and he deserves to be supported by progressives for that reason alone. If I want to move the discussion in the direction that I want it to go, then I have to support the people talking about the subjects I want to talk about, no matter what party I find them in.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I actually wrote an article not that long ago entitled "Why Ron Paul is Unfit to be President".  I agree with him on some issues, like Congress' responsibilities in declaring war and how we should not be putting military bases on foreign soil all over the world and how wars of aggression are wrong. However, Ron Paul also thinks that corporations should be allowed to police themselves and he believes that the best educational system is home schooling. Those are pretty clear reasons to oppose him, which is why I did until recently.

Rob Kall wrote an interesting endorsement of Ron Paul over at OpEdNews recently where he made some good points. Even if Ron Paul got elected President, the only things he would actually have the authority to change would be those matters of war and peace where I do agree with him. He would not have the authority to do any of the other stupid things he wants to do. As Commander in Chief he could pull our troops out of all the bases around the world and save us billion of dollars. However, getting rid of the IRS or FDA would require an act of Congress and he wouldn't be likely to get that much cooperation from either the Republicans or Democrats on that.

If I went and voted in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney, and he won, he would continue both the occupation of Iraq and conservative policies of disaster capitalism. At least with Ron Paul, he would end one of the two worst mistakes in modern American history.

So as I see the situation;

Since I can't vote for the candidate I want...

And since there is a good chance any protest vote I make within the Democratic Party will be a complete waste of time...

...the best use of my vote this week may actually be to go vote in the Republican Primary for Ron Paul. At least I could do my part to push the Republican Party, and therefore the entire political discourse in America, to the left.

With all the disgruntled Democratic voters who may flood the Republican Primary this year, the outcome could be very interesting.

Perhaps it is Providence.
Perhaps the Great Michigan Primary Debacle of 2008 is really an opportunity in disguise.

Perhaps this whole mess is an opportunity for Michigan Progressives to use their votes for something even more important, saving America by saving the Republicans from themselves.  

MI Progressives: Pick your President

by: Progress Michigan

Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST

Iowa and New Hampshire have had their say -- who will you vote for?

It's decision time for millions of progressives just like you. Which candidate deserves your vote to become the next President of the United States? And with the Michigan Primaries in question, this is a great chance to have your vote heard.

You can vote right now for your favorite candidate in a unique online poll of progressives across the country. Please vote here to pick your president:

http://www.PickYourPresident.org

As you vote at "Pick Your President," five of our progressive non-partisan partner organizations will be surveying their supporters as well in California, Colorado, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin (polling both Democratic and Republican candidates).

If you support a specific candidate -- and you know many people who agree with you -- it's time to rally them to the cause. Today.

By spreading the word about this unique online poll of progressives in Michigan and across the country, you can help your favorite candidate build momentum immediately. No matter which candidate you are backing, their campaigns are counting on you.

Obama 4 Paul???

by: Butch Snider

Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 23:44:50 PM EST

The full text of the e-mail is below the fold.

Rove on Obama (and Clinton)

by: yvette248

Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 18:43:53 PM EST

Okay kiddies. Enough barking at each other. Here is some raw meat that we can use to attack the opposition. Seems like Uncle Karl (aka The Brain) decided to way in on the democratic candidates. CNN is quoting him calling Obama "lazy". 

"Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate," Rove writes in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. "In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting 'present' on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates.

And in a rare move, Rove praises Clinton for her "humanizing" moments on the campaign trail, and calls Obama just "as calculating" as the New York Democrat.

 Is Rove flip-flopping?

Democrat Disgusted with Michigan Democrats

by: mattyjartist

Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM EST

Michigan certainly has made history. Its Democratic party leaders have earned Michigan first prize as Jackass State of America while the rest of the clowns in the party infrastructure stand around like zombies and clap.

In election year that has already generated record interest on both sides of the aisle, Captain Ahab Levin has sold the soul of Michigan Democratic voters in pursuit of his White Whale Early Primary.  Mark Brewer and the multi-talented Debbie Dingell, capitalizing on Levin's myopic madness,  jumped on his poor judgement as the perfect opportunity to engineer Labor's Primary Dream: a nearly completely controlled and closed caucus where independents and non-labor Democratic interests are shut out of the process.  

"Michigan Democrats:  One party, one vote (except when Jim Barcia and Dennis Olshove are looking over their shoulders)."

Clinton's backdealings lock up delegates

by: maytak

Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST

Though Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, her back door dealings have already seem to have secured her a position in the White House, barely trying.

Just like the general election where the electoral college is the only vote that matters, the primaries have a similar system that parallels the electoral college in process. It's call the delegates and superdelegates.
Here's an explanation of what they are and how they're selected. They aren't voted for at all:

And here is the list of delegates who have already committed to a candidate even BEFORE the primaries:

Clinton's campaign co-chair is Terri McAuliffe, who works and is very influential in the DNC. He was able to lock some of the DNC for Hillary anyways. What is your opinion of this?

Michigan Primary -One Week Out

by: northernlib

Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 23:20:25 PM EST

Yesterday, the final attempt to cancel the January 15 Primary was rejected by Grand Rapids Federal District Court.  We now know for certain the primary will go ahead and it, rather than a February caucus, will select Michigan's delegates to the national convention.  The gamble not to seat them now rests with the DNC and it becomes a very difficult lose-lose choice for Dean & Co..  Michigan is forcing real CHANGE in the primary.  Ironic, isn't it?

Today, New Hampshire's warm January drizzle has caused Obamarama to fizzle.  Mama has shown Obama she can smack back.  We now have a clear two horse race with Hillary back in the drivers seat and Obama now forced to add some substance to CHANGE.  On to Michigan!

For Richardson and Edwards this week's story is far bleaker.  Richardson heads back to New Mexico in the morning to either call it quits or attempt to retool his campaign.  For Edwards, Iowa and New Hampshire have been miserable defeats.  He must now pull off a dramatic comeback in South Carolina or he's done.

But Michigan is next.  The date we have long waited for.  It appears likely now that turnout will be very strong and Clinton will capture at least 2/3rds of the Democratic vote, effectively winning a Supermajority in Michigan.  The anti-Clinton vote appears to be split between Uncommitted, Kucinich, Ron Paul, John McCain, and some now even some going to Clinton herself.  Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin, and Jennifer Granholm will be popping the bubbly next Tuesday.  The Obama and Edwards campaigns have turned down any financial support for proponents of the Uncommitted vote.  Look for Clinton surrogates to descend on Michigan over the next week while the lady herself moves on to Nevada and SC.

One thing to unite us all tonight is the embarrassing loss of Mitt Romney to John McCain.  Let's hope Michigan Republicans finish off Ken Doll Romney a week from today, hopefully with a first place finish for Ron Paul.

Why I'm Voting "Uncommitted" on Jan. 15th

by: ypsi-blue

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 13:01:02 PM EST

I'm not a Democrat. And frankly I am put off by the bickering and back-biting that has characterized the Party's battle over the primaries.

I understand the perspective of Michiganders who want their voices heard early in the nomination process. Jobs, a green revolution, rebuilding our infrastructure, protecting workers' rights to join and organize unions, peace, instituting fair trade policies, and ending tax breaks for the Dick DeVos' of the world and giving working families a tax cut are all Michigan issues.

I have been tempted to just throw my hands up and say boycott the primaries. Your vote doesn't count anyway. The Party won't seat those delegates, or will it? And does a two-way race between Sen. Clinton and Rep. Kucinich really reflect what's happening not only in the Democratic Party but more broadly in the country?

But the fact is the president should not belong to a single party. The next president has to be president of all of us. And the fact that Sen. Clinton has decided to thwart the party's rules to gain a delegate advantage suggests she is interested in being the president of the Democrats.

I think Sen. Barack Obama has been right. Sen. Clinton's experience and strong bonds with the national party's machine have both entrenched her in special interests, on the one hand, but more importantly on the other, it means that if she wins the nomination we can expect four years of her butting heads with Republicans on personality issues, while universal health care, ending the war, alternative energy policies, and workers' rights languish.

So that's why I will be going to my precinct, say I am voting Democrat, and voting "uncommitted" on Tuesday Jan. 15th. If you support Edwards or Obama, that is the only way to send a message for change, a message to the Party to get its act together, and take a step forward away from the grinding partisanship and personality bickering that would be the hallmark of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

From  Michigan Class Notes