Comments on: Dean: Michigan And Florida, Put Up Or Shut Up

By: SilverSeraphim

SilverSeraphim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:28:02 +0000

*”Cause obviously it won’y matter if Obama pours campaign money into the state…”

I am having a case of the dumb apparently. It’s been a long day.

By: SilverSeraphim

SilverSeraphim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:23:07 +0000

If I were a Dem in Florida or Michigan, I wouldn’t be pissed with Dean- I’d be pissed with the state party for screwing my vote over. Michigan and Florida agreed to the scheduling rules, *then* decided they weren’t fair. You break rules (that you KNEW and AGREED TO), you suffer consequences, (again, that you KNEW and AGREED TO).

And the state parties are NOT seprate entities from the DNC- they are cells of a whole, with the DNC as the head. So, yes, the DNC has the right to lay out some ground rules for running the primary process. And that includes when to schedule them.

And if the head does not take a firm hand with rogue cells, there will be chaos, and the party as a *whole*- which means the main DNC plus EVERY one of the 50 state cells- will be seen as weak, and a joke. And candidates who represent such parties do NOT get elected.

IF HIllary really has the support she says, and her win wasn’t the result of “that’s all there was”, then she shouldn’t be so squeamish about a re-vote. “Cause obviously it won’t matter if Oama pour campaign money and has his name added to the ticket, yes? It would just be an exercise in futility, right? ;)

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:12:49 +0000

Well thanks for the snide condescension Jim, that’s really swell! But fortunately, I’m already familar with politics. If you are interested in learning some manners just as Howard Dean ought to be, I can recommend a few titles. Let me know.

By the way, you left something out…it’s not just a party primary, it’s a STATE party primary. And the STATE pays for it to be conducted. You are essentially claiming that the party ought to be able to dictate the rules for the primary even though it’s the state that’s footing the bill.

And of course the party can TRY to do that. But then the state can tell them to get bent, which is what I am suggesting here. Here’s the thing: the states don’t exist for the benefit of the party, even though the parties like to think so.

So you haven’t answered the essential question, which is as follows:

Why should any state acknowledge the results of a party’s processes when the party shows no interest in the input of the people of that state.

Now if the given political party were to conduct a closed primary in private at their own expense, then I’d feel differently.

Oh and by the way, a primary IS an election. They’re called “primary elections.” They’re called primaries for short. So I guess it’s back to the books for you, huh Jim?

By: james

james — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:13:08 +0000

It is not an election, it is a PARTY Primary… the Parties determine the rules, not the government or the general public. A Primary is a process to choose who a particular party will place on the November election ballot. If independents or people outside of a party want a say they should have to start their own party. AMERICAN HISTORY & GOVERNMENT 101 I recommend it.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:59:05 +0000

What a dick! What does Dean think, he’s the fricken king? If I were Florida and Michigan, I’d reply like this:

The candidates who appear on our state’s ballot this fall will be determined in accordance with the views of the people of our state, not the views of the democratic party. Out of respect for our state’s right to be represented in choosing the candidates, we have to insist that the voices of the people of our state be heard and recognized.

If the democratic party is not interested in respecting the right of our state’s voters to be heard in choosing their nominee, then our state isn’t interested in having the democratic nominee listed on OUR STATE’S ballot.

And then I’d tell them that in 2012, they can pay for and run their own primary.