If it looks like a thief...

[wlotus]

I am doing the math, and something is not right, here. Why were the delegates from Iowa (33 delegates to Obama), New Hampshire (9 delegates to Clinton), and South Carolina (27 delegates to Obama) counted in full, when their contests were held outside of the window designated in the RBC rules? And I still do not see how it is fair to give any of Clinton's Michigan delegates to Obama.

I am not misinformed or spreading untruths. I am pointing out discrepancies.

Documentary proof of RBC “stop Hillary” corruption found
Posted on June 11, 2008 by plukasiak

A document filed as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Read the rest...

Addendum: There are further explanations from the author here and from another reader here.

Comments

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Iowa doesn't hold a primary; it holds a caucus. Had MI and FL held caucuses (which they had the option to do), they wouldn't have been penalized for early primary dates. NH and SC (along with Nevada, IIRC) had permission to hold their primaries before 2/5/08, and as such, they did not violate any rules.

The Court ruled against Florida in the 10/07 suit, finding a political party has the right to establish rules for its primary/caucus votes and has the right to penalize states which do not follow them.

Obama has not been given any of Clinton's MI delegates. The issue in MI is that, because Obama removed his name from the ballot (along with Edwards, Biden & Richardson) because of MI's primary rules violation, the option of "uncommitted" got about 250,000 votes- those are the delegates that went to Obama.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

The document in the article shows which states have caucuses and which have primaries, and in all cases, there were specific dates they were not exceed when holding their caucuses/primaries. If they did, they were to be penalized. In every case except Nevada, they held their caucuses/primaries earlier than the rules, yet they were not penalized.

So, once again, why were FL and MI penalized for not following the rules, when the others were not?

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

I believe the Court ruled in the Florida suit the "days" were working days- weekends and holidays wouldn't count as "days" in this case. This is a pretty common practice.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Also, please note that no where in that article does it mention the suit was lost by Florida, which is a rather important point.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

The article starts out by stating Florida was considered "non-compliant" (which, to me, is the same as saying Florida lost the suit), then talked about Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire not being penalized when they held their caucuses and primaries earlier than the rules allowed them to. It all looks very suspicious to me and just confirms my reasons for leaving the party.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

I have no beef with you leaving the party, as I hope you know. One should vote their conscience. I'm still kicking myself for voting for Gore in 2000. Also, I never much liked Howard Dean- but that's a personal thing.

However, I don't find anything in the article stating Florida was considered non-compliant; and the fact that they quote documents from a failed lawsuit to back up their claim is somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Actually, in reading the legal docs, I found I was mistaken. The suit was not ruled upon- it ws dismissed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which can be read, along with the Order granting the MTD, the Complaints and other documents related to the case here (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Nelsonv.Dean.php).

However, what is significant about the excerpt from the Plaintiff's exhibit shown on the page you link does not show the title of the document- they do provide a link to the entire page. The title is Tentative 2008 Calendar of State Democratic Delegate Selection Dates. So, those dates were not binding on anyone- the DNC or IA, NH, NV or SC. You can see the whole page here.

(http://www.glcq.com/election08/not_allowed.jpg)

[aamusedinatx.livejournal.com]

In the case of IOWA, they petitioned for a move up of the date. It was reviewed by Dean and the national party in October of 2007 and approved. You can read here (http://iowademocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1116916/pid/315102) for those details.

In the case of SOUTH CAROLINA, again they petitioned, formally for a move up here (http://www.scdp.org/news/newsreleases/51/) and were approved.

Nevada's website is impossible to navigate and so I cannot answer in regards to that state's caucus.

In August of 2006 the Democratic party issued it's recommendations see their press release here (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php) on the agenda and time line for 2008.

Recommendations and approved schedule does not set things in stone when states had over 2 years from that time to petition earlier start dates. Which, obviously, Iowa and South Carolina did. I will not assume Nevada did as well. I don't assume but it has been stated by election officials that Michigan and Florida did not bother. The states simply set their own dates for their own reasons. To my knowledge neither Michigan or Florida petitioned formally to move up their primary date.

Having spent, oh, 20 minutes rooting out this relevant information, which answers your question. I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The answers are out there, when one looks further than the surface for them.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the information, which I looked for and did not find.

I do not appreciate the condescension and will not tolerate it in my blog. But this time I won't delete the comment, just so I don't get accused of not trying to truly understand facts. (And since when do I fucking care what other people think, these days? Hmmm.)

Yes, ma'am, I am pissed.

[aamusedinatx.livejournal.com]

I accept that you are pissed. I thank you for unscreening my comment in spite of that.

You are reading condescension where there is none. My question was as broad as yours and you were not the target. I posted the exact same query at RiverDaughter's blog.

When it comes to politics I take the long-view and I deal in facts, not emotion. I won't respond in your blog again regarding political issues or other issues.

thank you for your time.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I deal in facts as well, including the fact that there are people with valid, justifiable emotions attached to the other side of the discussion. Emotions like the ones that drove you to decide that rather than simply not participating in this issue, you won't participate in any aspect of my blog.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Re: your addendum.

You might want to read this (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Nelson-ORDER12-14-07.pdf). It's the Order allowing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in the Nelson, et al. v. Dean, et al. suit. It pretty concisely explains why the actions of the DNC vis a vis Florida did not violate the rules. It also makes a point of explaining the DNC took unprecedented action to help Florida come in to compliance with the rules, and Florida opted not to take them up on it.

The court documents in this case are interesting reading- if only because they give a pretty good picture of how the rules work.