Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Full Letter from Michigan Dems to DNC Members SLAMMING Them for Hypocrisy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BobbyVan Donating Member (502 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:20 PM
Original message
Full Letter from Michigan Dems to DNC Members SLAMMING Them for Hypocrisy
http://thepage.time.com/full-letter-from-michigan-dems-to-dnc-members/

Full Letter from Michigan Dems to DNC Members

Michigan Democrats Release Letter to DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee

WASHINGTON — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and DNC Member Debbie Dingell, released a letter today that they sent to member of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. The text follows:

May 22, 2008

Honorable Alexis Herman
Mr. James Roosevelt, Jr.
Co-Chairs, Rules and Bylaws Committee
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Co-Chairs Herman and Roosevelt:

We are writing to urge the Rules and Bylaws Committee to support the request of the Michigan Democratic Party that the entire 157-member Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention be seated with full voting strength.

The members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee are familiar with the sequence of events that have brought us to the present situation.

As a result of the hard-fought deliberations and recommendations of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling, in August of 2006 the Democratic National Committee adopted a new rule on sequencing presidential primaries and caucuses. Under this rule, the so-called pre-window states could each hold their presidential primary or caucus in January 2008, with the rest of the states following in February or later. The rule dictated that the pre-window states hold their primaries in a specific order — with New Hampshire coming third — and no earlier than designated dates between January 14 and 29.

While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the pre-window contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the process. We notified the DNC that we would abide by the new calendar and its sequence provided that other states did the same. To be clear – the key issue which the new rule resolved was the sequence of the pre-window states, not just the number of pre-window states.

But at a press conference in Dover, New Hampshire last August 9, the New Hampshire Secretary of State indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified in the DNC rule, clearly defying the sequence and timing the Rules and Bylaws Committee had set. Michigan Democratic leaders wrote to Governor Dean asking if the DNC intended to enforce the rule against New Hampshire, but the DNC refused to act or even to answer our letters for months.

The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. On December 3, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. Michigan requested a waiver and was denied. When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation.

How do we move forward and put all of our energy into winning the White House in November? We all agree that winning Michigan is crucial to that goal.

At the request of the Governor of Michigan, the four of us have worked to find a solution for many months. We looked at a number of options to “redo” Michigan’s primary vote, including a privately-funded state-run primary; a party-run primary; and even a vote-by-mail primary. We had extensive discussions with the Clinton and Obama campaign organizations and with the DNC staff in the course of considering these options. Unfortunately, for differing reasons, none of the “redo” options came to pass.

So we developed the following settlement recommendation to the Michigan Democratic Party.

The Clinton campaign has taken the position that the results of Michigan’s January 15 primary should be honored and that Senator Clinton should receive 73 pledged delegates in accordance with the vote she received. The Obama campaign has taken the position that the January 15 primary results should be ignored and that Michigan’s 128 pledged delegates should be seated but evenly divided 64/64 between the two candidates.

Both candidates have a basis for their argument. The January 15 primary result was flawed because Senator Obama took his name off the ballot. He interpreted the DNC injunction and his pledge to New Hampshire that he would not campaign in Michigan to require him to take that affirmative step. As a result, we did not totally agree with the Clinton campaign’s position that the pledged delegates should be apportioned 73/55 (Clinton/Obama) in strict accordance with the outcome of the primary.

At the same time, we also did not accept the position of the Obama campaign that the primary should be totally ignored and the pledged delegates should be evenly apportioned 64/64 between the two candidates, given the fact that almost 600,000 Democrats voted in the January 15 primary, 55% of whom voted for Senator Clinton and 45% of whom voted for Uncommitted or other candidates.

As a result, we recommended to the Michigan Democratic Party that the pledged delegates be apportioned 69 to Senator Clinton and 59 to Senator Obama. That approach splits the difference between the 73/55 position of the Clinton campaign and the 64/64 position of the Obama campaign. Our recommendation was based on our belief that both candidates have legitimate arguments about the Michigan primary.

This 69/59 approach was overwhelmingly adopted by the Executive Committee of the Michigan Democratic Party – which like the Rules and Bylaws Committee has members who are strong advocates for both candidates – as a position that can unify our party and put this issue behind us.

To that end, both of our presidential candidates have made clear that they want Michigan’s delegates to be seated without penalty.

Senator Obama recently said, “If I am fortunate enough to be the Democratic nominee, I can guarantee you that the Michigan delegation will be seated and they’ll have a full voice at the convention.” Senator Clinton said just this week, “If we care about winning in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send the message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know that Senator McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them.”

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama understand that penalizing Michigan would needlessly and pointlessly wound their candidacy. If you vote to penalize Michigan, you will keep this issue alive, distracting from the real issues in the campaign. You would also be penalizing our candidates and our party, and ultimately our nation, because you would be weakening our nominee’s chances of winning Michigan, a state that is critical to our winning the White House in November.

We believe that the Michigan Democratic Party’s consensus proposal can unify our party and allow us to move forward. We urge the Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt it. To penalize Michigan would legitimize the selective enforcement of our party rules, would fly in the face of the statements of both candidates, and would jeopardize our chances of carrying Michigan and winning the Presidency. For all of these reasons, we must insist on Michigan’s full delegation being seated at the Democratic National Convention with full voting rights.

Sincerely,

Senator Carl Levin Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger DNC Member Debbie Dingell

cc: Members of the Rules and ByLaws Committee
Governor Howard Dean
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Barack Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. lol @ 59/69 split. Hillary wants and needs ALL of their delegates. There's always 2016, Hillary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. 69/59 is reasonable and Obama would still win, handily. Nothing will ever be "fair" or "just"
but I can settle for reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticalAmazon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Not if Hillary Clinton is involved, that's for sure. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sorry, sour grapes, especally in that quantity are not part of my diet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. if they vote to penalize MI, they are following the damned RULES. The only assholes
who would keep this issue "alive" after this weekend are those who insist on propping up Clinton for whatever nefarious reason.

Carl Levin, that includes you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. "The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Um, no. Some states got waivers, they followed the rules and got exemptions according to the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:29 PM
Original message
MacAuliffe was right in 04 cut them in half
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. MacAuliffe was right in 04 cut them in half
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wileedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. My personal hypothesis is that is what Dean always intended to do
Take away the full amount at first, and then give them half - as is consistent with the rules - before the Convention as an 'appeasement' going into the GE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary has stated that under Repug rules, she'd be the winner...
Well, the Repugs cut their delegates for FL in half. Since she wants to play by Repug rules, divide the delegates in half and award 50% to Hillary and 50% to Obama. Case closed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticalAmazon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Perhaps we should just put Karl Rove in charge of the DNC, if our goal is to make Hillary happy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDoorbellRang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. MI voted to jump the line in August. NH set it's date in November
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-22-michigan-primary_N.htm

I'm trying to understand how they can blame NH for this with a straight face?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The rule has nothing regarding when the decision to make a change occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDoorbellRang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. NH moved theirs ahead BECAUSE MI moved its primary up to Jan 15th
Of course they deserved a waiver. The dates the changes were made identify the culprit in the case -- MI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashrob123 Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Essentially their defense to moving it up is
they did it first?

I'm ashamed to be from Michigan.

Their compromise sounds reasonable, not going to happen though. At best they will get 50% of their delegates and then maybe that apportionment can happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canucksawbones Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. and remember
Hillary doesn't like this particular plan.

Will she throw Levin under the bus.

GK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. MI and FL are rogue states who need to sit down and shut up.
They have made fools of themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. June 3rd cannot come soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC