GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SCANDAL, FOR THE COMMUNITY
"And the election was so close from second to third we owe it to the community to give clarity," Buchanan said. Flanked by family and friends, Buchanan made it official. He wants a hand recount off all 61 precincts, citing that close finish and the error in Precinct 25."We want to make sure ."[2]
Been waiting with bemused interest to see what Jack Lessenberry had to say about the impending demise of the idea of a new Michigan primary. Not that I hang on Jack's every word and take it as gospel, but I like his style of writing and his sense of history on Michigan politics. He's been around. Seems to be a man of integrity. And he can certainly crank out the words in a way that shows he doesn't equivocate his views based on popular opinion or give you the sense that he is in love with his own writing, as some Michigan columnists seem to do.
First of all, let's paint Jack's frame of mind on the main players. His dislike of Hillary Clinton just leaps off the page at you. When you title a column "Hillary Rodham Nixon", well, you could really stop right there, but Jack takes the knife and seems to relish twisting it as hard as he can.
One of the best TV reporters in this town, a man with many years experience, told me, "That was truly Nixonian." And that's exactly what it was. Somewhere in the cosmic muck, whatever passed for Richard Nixon's soul had to be quivering in ecstasy. Yes, Tricky Dick - who spent his early career learning and refining the art of character assassination - has a disciple. Someone just as ruthless, unlikable and nasty as he always was.
Whatever else this campaign has done, it has revealed the real Hillary Clinton. Yes, she is intelligent. But she is also virtually impossible to like, especially if you look at what is really there.
He is not a fan of Jennifer Granholm. (awww, c'mon Jack - she has good policy) The day he met Obama, he had cynically set himself up for disappointment, based on his experience with the governor.
That was when Jennifer Granholm was running for governor. I was all excited till I went out to breakfast with her - and found, to my dismay, almost nothing of substance.
But he loved Barack Obama-
When the meeting was over, someone called and asked me what I thought. I was mildly surprised by my answer:
Yes, I said simply. Yes, he just might be all that.
In person, Barack Obama is even more charismatic than on TV. He is tall, lithe, coordinated. He is thoughtful and funny at the same time. His enormous appeal seems to be built on a combination of intellectual and social intelligence. One of the people present was, I knew, a Hillary Clinton supporter. Obama clearly sensed that, bore in, tried to win her over.
I asked him a question about the nation's decaying infrastructure; would he, if necessary, support something like a new WPA, the federal program that put the unemployed to work during the Depression? Obama responded with a sophisticated plan for a program that would assist states and communities to do just that, by using a pool of matching fund money.
His program made sense, but what impressed me more was that he had clearly studied the issue, assimilated the knowledge, and was able to call it forth without seeming like a policy wonk.
Jack is clearly an Obama supporter. He has no love for the Democratic establishment here in Michigan, and he has no problem saying so. "Corrupt party hacks" is how he put it.
What the Obama forces seem to want is A) either for Michigan not to be seated at all or B) for the delegates to be divided equally without a new vote. Sorry, that would be just plain wrong. As wrong, that is, as Clinton's earlier attempt to suddenly have the meaningless and illegal primary count. I have roundly beaten up on Hillary Clinton and her campaign plenty in this column.
So now it's time to give the local Obamaites a slap. If they want to win this nomination, and the general election, their candidate needs to be prepared to compete anywhere and everywhere. Barack Obama's candidacy this year has already shattered all the rules and expectations. So now is the time for him to come into Michigan and campaign like a tiger. Senator: Show us why we should vote for you, and for the future. Defy the odds, and get in here. You've been doing what they said you couldn't do since Iowa. Michigan, more than anywhere else in the nation, needs a new vision.
If you can't take on heavy hitters the likes of Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick and Jennifer Granholm (yes, that's sarcasm) how do you expect to knock off John McCain and the full Darth Vader power of the United Republican Dirty Tricks Machine in the fall?
Besides the benefit to Obama of introducing himself to Michigan voters now, in the spring (as opposed to playing catch-up after the convention), this would benefit the state as well with renewed enthusiasm for the Democrats in general, not to mention jobs (albeit probably temporary), money from advertising and visitors to the state, the national media spotlight in June... we gain much more than we lose.
All that being said, this isn't going to happen. This is going to be decided by some DNC rules committee, maybe a floor fight at the convention. And for all of those who like to bring up the rules - well, OK, let's play by the rules. As of now, the rules state that we will not be seated unless we hold a new nominating primary or caucus by June 10th. There is no provision for a "50/50" split as it stands. The DNC will probably vote to change those rules to avoid catastrophe - but right now it is an argument that doesn't hold water.
Denying this vote doesn't punish the party leaders at all. Going to primary Carl Levin? Get Debbie Dingell out of politics somehow? They were the two masterminds originally behind this. Granholm is termed out. Brewer, you get to go through the unions, and good luck with that. If you want to punish Hillary, well, a victory for Obama here would do that quite nicely.
Your choice, but it looks like the establishment is going to choose for you today.
Meanwhile, James Carville, a Democratic operative and Clinton supporter, said on CNN that he had been calling deep-pocket Democrats and pledged to come up with $15 million to help pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida. He challenged Obama supporter David Wilhelm, a former DNC chairman, to match it.
"I'll guarantee $15 million and have the Obama people put up $15 million," Carville said. "And let's go to the polls come June 7. I've got fund-raisers that are lined up ready to go. I think the Democratic Party is going to look absolutely absurd if they don't have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote."
We passed the point of "absolutely absurd" long ago, but the Ragin' Cajun does make a good point about fundraisers - and this has been over-looked by all the people wringing their hands over the cost of this.
Stop and think about how much money this would bring in. To the party, to the candidates, to the states. Record amounts are being raised all over the country for this presidential election. Do these cheap-ass Democrats actually think this is a money-losing proposition?
Really wish you guys would do this in private. And lower your voices. The neighbors are about ready to call the cops.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.
"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.
"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said.
Um, Howard? Love ya and all, but this IS about winning the presidential race, and it is your problem. It's everyone's problem. And I'll bet if you'd just check your records, some of "our money" that you speak of probably came from people in Michigan and Florida.
If we are going to do this, we need you guys to stop fueling the fire of this little feud you got going on. Remember there are voters caught in the middle. Show us some respect.
OK, that's twice. Apparently the Guv has had a change of heart following the results from last night's primaries. It's a bit surprising because she had used some pretty strong language arguing against the idea - but maybe the looming possibility of a convention fight is starting to weigh on everyone's mind.
In an interview today with Traverse City Business News Publisher Luke Haase, Michigan Governor Granholm pointed to possible negotiations and an eventual caucus to resolve Michigan's Democratic presidential delegates.
Granholm said a second Michigan primary would cost $10 million, a burden Michigan taxpayers should not bear.
"How do you pay for it and how would you do it in a way that both parties - Obama and Clinton - would accept the outcome? It would have to be negotiated with Democratic National Committee, which they would have every incentive to do, because right now in this delegate count there are two big holes - Michigan and Florida.
Granholm made it clear her first choice would be to find a way to seat the delegates from the January 15 Michigan primary, but acknowledged the fact that Barack Obama was not on the ballot creates a fairness issue.
"It could not be a primary because a primary is publicly paid for, and the taxpayers would not spend any more tax dollars on a primary. So if there's anything it would have to be a caucus, but we'd have to have a way to pay for it without taxpayer dollars."
Will the circus come to Michigan? I was being a bit flip when I suggested it a while back, not thinking about all the ramifications, but I still maintain that it's a good idea. Publicity for us, money for us, candidates talking about our issues, momentum for down-ticket races, the works.
What the heck, let's do it. Make the DNC cough up some money to help.
UPDATE : The Detroit News has a big story on this today, including reactions from all your favorite (or not-so favorite) Michigan Dems.
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 following are key arguments that I believe support a Michigan Presidential Caucus.
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.
A good turn out for uncommitted was in my wildest dreams. I hoped for 15% - the minimum needed to make the national radar.
But, 40%. WOW! It's a message. It's a win.
None of the above got 40% of the vote here in Michigan.
Why?
1) Didn't like Hillary
2) Preferred another candidate
3) Wanted to protest the system
4) All of the above
My guess is that it's four.
And, there is a message: Don't take voters for granted. 40% is a rebellion too high to ignore.
HINT TO OUR NOMINEE: Please start talking about issues that Michiganders care about.
Do you give a damn about my right to organize? Do you support it?
What if I don't have a job? What will you do?
Will I have health care insurance in 2009? How will you help?
MESSAGE TO PARTY LEADERSHIP: Quit playing politics poker with plastic chips. The rank and file have our life savings and retirement funds at stake.
This dairy does not necessarily represent the views of the Blogging for Michigan editorial board. Cordelia Lear thanks the BFM editorial board for the opportunity to express her opinions without attaching strings.
Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle released the following statement on the Michigan primary:
"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."
With 95% of the precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton leads with 55% of the vote. Uncommitted garnered 40% of the vote; :uncommitted" delegates will be able to vote for any candidate at the convention, including Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, John Edwards, or Rep. Kucinich.
A Huffington Post OffTheBus exclusive has the details about a misleading anti-Hillary notice that is being posted throughout Grand Rapids.
The flyer apparently uses the Michigan Democratic Party header graphic (which says "Join the MDP") to promote voting for uncommittedin Michigan's January 15th presidential primary.
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...
It is unclear whether or not this flyer, or those distributing it, are affiliated with the Party -- or if their actions are sanctioned. What is clear is that this is a pathetic, and borderline fraudulent attempt to scare Michiganders into voting "Uncommitted" in the primary.
A call placed to the Michigan Democratic Party headquarters was not immediately returned. What is clear, however, is that these types of dirty tricks must be investigated by not just the Michigan Democratic Party, but by those campaigns whose supporters may be involved and the perpetrators must be held accountable.
These are floating around on an email and I thought they were worth sharing. With all the talk of who is responsible for three of the major Democrats not appearing on the ballot, these should answer some questions.
The people responsible for our incomplete ballot are...
The Free Press is reporting that Detroit officials are seeing a lot of spoiled absentee ballots because people are writing in the name of their favorite candidate. This is a no-no.
The only Democratic choices on the ballot are Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd (who dropped out of the race Thursday) and Mike Gravel. If you support Barack Obama, John Edwards or Bill Richardson, Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer is urging people to vote "Uncommitted."
"For the supporters of ... John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, I recommend that you vote uncommitted. If you vote uncommitted, and "Uncommitted" receives sufficient votes, delegates will be sent to the national convention who will be free to vote for whichever candidate they like, including one of those..."
Clinton fans won't like hearing this, but Brewer said her campaign could lose some of its luster if enough Michigan Democrats vote "Uncommitted," showing a lack of support for her candidacy.
(I keep giving my info, but receive no information back. Still, this issue is important enough to reach the front page. - promoted by djtyg)
(Posted on behalf of the Decline to Sign Campaign)
Hello Everyone,
As you may already know, various interest groups are pushing to put the so-called "Right to Work" issue on the 2008 ballot, which would greatly weaken workers rights in Michigan. States with right to work laws have lower pay, lower rates of employer provided health insurance and higher on the job injuries and fatalities. "Right to work" laws do not guarantee anyone the right to work. Right to work petition signature gatherers hope to obtain 1/3 of the signatures needed on primary election day (January 15th). We need 5,000 volunteers at targeted polling locations to encourage voters not to sign the petitions. Training will be provided.
Please volunteer to keep this anti-worker initiative off the ballot. Volunteer shifts are AM (7am-1pm) and PM (4-8pm). If you can help, email me your the following information ASAP:
> Name:
> Address:
> Home & Cell Phone #:
> Personal Voting Location & Precinct:
> Preferred Shift: AM or PM
Penelope Ann Tsernoglou - Decline to Sign Campaign
bounces@democracyforamerica.com
Everyone who votes in the Michigan Primary Election this January 15 will be required to declare whether they want a Democratic Party ballot or a Republican Party ballot.
You must state your preference to a poll worker and have it recorded in order to receive your ballot.
Voting absentee? Here's a typical application.
Notice the lower right hand corner
You must mark one of the boxes, or the application will be returned to you.
As always, who participates in the election is a matter of public record. Which ballot you asked for will not be publicly available. Post election however, Mark Brewer and Saul Anuzis will be given lists of who asked for ballots for their respective parties.
No surprise. The Democratic party's executive committee has said so.
The magic question is really "exactly what do we have?"
We have a primary election on January 15. On the democratic side there will be four names on the ballot: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.
Presidential hopefuls Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson withdrew their names from the ballot. Dennis Kucinich attempted to withdraw his name, but did not complete the required paper work correctly.
I disagree with Debbie Dingell when she says
The national media will be living here in Michigan, just like they do in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I think we're going to be ignored. Half the candidates are on record saying they don't want to be on our ballot. And, that translates to "I don't want your vote" in my book. If they don't want my vote in the primary, they've got a hell of a lot nerve thinking I'll go running to support them in the general election.
I'd say disenfranchised describes the situation. I firmly believe in Tip O'Neill's first rule of politics: "People expect you to ask for their vote."
And, I'm tired of hearing "he wants to campaign here" but it's the rules, or he had to sign the pledge. Please.
But, unlike some folks I'm glad Debbie and Carl Levin attempted to challenge the primary process. Iowa and New Hampshire don't speak for me. The presidential nominee selection process is FUBAR. It needs to change. If this debacle is what it takes to force a fix - so be it.
As to Mike Bishop and the Republican State Senate caucus refusing to take up the bill to put candidates back on the ballot - maybe our political lesson is that there was a reason why Andy Dillon insisted that some of the legislation associated with the budget needed to originate in the Senate.
Mike Bishop can't be trusted to count his toes in public as far as I'm concerned. But, that's another story. Thanks for making it more FUBAR though Mr. Majority Leader.
So I'm talking to a friend of mine yesterday, and she's telling me about how she called John Edwards' campaign and told them to take her off their list. "I made it clear, that if they're not coming to Michigan to campaign, then they don't need to bother asking me for money or support ever again."
Well they didn't like that, and they tried to tell her that he had made a statement about the pledge on his website.
"So I told her, don't talk to me about the pledge. He signed it, so I've a pledge of my own: I pledge not to give one dollar or one vote to any candidate who refuses to come to Michigan."
I love it. Shiawassee Democrats are such rebels. (Some Michigan Dems use the phrase "trouble-makers" to describe Shiawassee, but we just ignore that)
It's the principle of it. Remember the Jeff-Jack dinner? Didn't the Governor specifically say that Michigan would support the candidate who came to Michigan to talk about Michigan? It's not like we didn't give the candidates fair warning.
Maybe we're being the unruly child, but we're talking about Michigan now, aren't we? (Well, except for when we're talking about New Hampshire, but no one has ever accused my party of having big brains when it comes to staying on message.)
And am I the only one who thinks that Kucinich & Gravel missed a big opportunity by not immediately coming to Michigan right after Hillary signed? If nothing else, they would have raised a bunch of money just by showing us that they would put the people of Michigan before the demands of the DNC.
My first and foremost thought is, I don't care. I agree with Z that the most important thing for us to be thinking about is the Michigan budget. I'm not really concerned about any of the 2008 elections. (With the exception of the possible Right To Work For Less proposal, that we have the opportunity to prevent from getting on the ballot) And I'm not digging this "endless election" stuff, where we come off one and start talking about the next. I really want to concentrate on the policy stuff happens in between.
My second thought is, this is just a power struggle between the UAW-MDP bosses and the "establishment" Dems, and I'm not in love with either one. So I'm going to support the one that I think is best for the democratic process. That's an early primary.
And like I said in an earlier comment, I think an early primary would give the UAW a chance to sharpen its ground game going into the 2008 elections.
My only real misgivings about the early primary are that I'd rather change the rules than break them, and I'm more than a little suspicious of the motives behind it.
