NYT & WaPo Mis-Report on Florida & Michigan, Ignore DNC's Errors & Hypocrisy

by Deb Cupples |  This Saturday, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee (Rules Committee) will decide whether to count Florida's and Michigan's primary votes. That committee stripped 100% of those states' delegates, because their legislatures had moved their presidential primary elections to dates earlier than the DNC's rules allowed. 

Given what happened to American media's credibility after journalists enabled the Bush Administration to sell the Iraq war to us taxpayers five years ago, one would expect America's journalists to think twice before unquestioningly transcribing anyone's talking points. 

Perhaps that's just too much to expect.  Parts of a factually flawed article from today's New York Times follow:

" But the legal analysis, based on party rules and contained in a 38-page memo to the committee, says the committee can either seat only 50 percent of the delegates or seat them all but give them only half a vote, which amounts to the same thing....

"So the committee is in a box in trying to figure out how to respect the voters in Florida and Michigan, who were not responsible for this potential disenfranchisement, while still honoring voters in 48 other states where officials followed the rules."

First, Florida Democrats were not responsible for moving the primary date: Florida's Republican-dominated legislature did that (as explained here and here).  Thus, Florida Dems are not responsible for rules violations and should not have been punished.  Period.

Second, three other states blatantly violated the rules (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) -- yet they didn't get punished at all.  Thus, the New York Times was incorrect in implying that 48 states had followed the rules (50 states minus Michigan and Florida).

Rule 11(a) of DNC's delegate-selection rules provides that Iowa could not hold its caucus before January 14, New Hampshire could not hold its primary before January 22, and South Carolina could not hold it's primary before January 29.

As we know, Iowa's caucus was on January 3 New Hampshire's primary was on January 8, and South Carolina's primary was on January 26.

In short, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina violated Rule 11(a).

The automatic penalty for those states should have been a stripping of 50% of their delegates to the national convention [pursuant to Rule 20(c)(1)(a)].

So, why didn't Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina lose at least 50% of their delegates? 

Because the DNC's Rules Committee gave those states a waiver after the violations occurred.  TalkLeft explains why those retroactive waivers likely violated the DNC's own rules.

The upshot: Florida's and Michigan's primary votes wouldn't count, while naughty New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina got free passes.

Let's revisit Florida, which held its primary on January 29, though Rule 11(a) prohibited Florida from holding it before February 5.

Rule 21(c)(7) provides that if a state violates the primary-timing rule, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee could choose to not strip any delegates if the Committee found that the state's Democratic leaders had taken good-faith steps to stop its legislature from the moving of the primary to an un-allowed date.

As noted before, Florida's Democratic legislators are severely outnumbered by Republicans and simply cannot block or pass any legislation.  It's been that way for years.

Florida's Dem leaders did try to stop Republicans from moving the primary date -- they just failed because of they were outnumbered.  In April, TalkLeft explained what happened at the infamous hearing that resulted in the DNC's stripping of all of Florida's delegates:

"The DNC Staff did NOT recommend a punishment.

"Florida, through its Dem Party Chair Karen Thurman, then presented its case for why it was in compliance. . . . 

"Thurman argued that the DNC Rule 20.c.7, 21.a and 21.b provided Florida Dems with a safe harbor for its plan. Thurman argued that success in reversing the GOP primary plan was not required by the rules. And indeed they do not.

"Thurman then recounted the story of the Florida primary legislation. Thurman presents a compelling case of the Florida Democratic Party's efforts, including the introduction of amendments to the Republican legislation....

"Just with those facts, the 100% stripping of the Florida delegates was indefensible and frankly, obscene.... So how did it happen?

"Ralph Dawson moved for moving beyond the express punishment of 50% loss of delegates to a 100% stripping of delegates. The reasons for this proposal were unstated by Mr. Dawson. The next comment, from an unidentified DNC member was ridiculous and proof positive that this was a kangaroo court intent on stripping Florida of its delegates. The comment called for proof that ALL Democratic elected officials in Florida had fought against the GOP legislation. Aussman pointed out that this apparatchik was simply wrong in what he said."

Looking beyond the DNC's talking points (and the media's poor coverage of this issue), it seems obvious that the DNC is dead set on not counting 100% of Florida's votes -- despite the following facts:

1) Florida's Dem leaders couldn't stop the moving of the primary date;

2) All of the presidential candidates' names were on Florida's ballot;

3)  Florida had a record-high voter turnout for its primary, though we Floridians were told that the vote wouldn't count;

4) None of the presidential candidates campaigned in Florida, so none have any greater advantage than any other candidate.

Let me back up.  First, Obama did (accidentally) campaign in Florida, in that some of his cable TV ads had run in Florida before the primary.  No other candidates' ads did run.

Second, as Florida State Senator Peter Deutch pointed out in April, Sen. Obama doesn't want to count all of Florida's votes, because he thinks voter turnout would have been higher if voters hadn't been told that the votes wouldn't count.

Obama's campaign even opposed re-votes in Michigan and Florida, which were possible a few months ago and which DNC rules allowed. 

In terms of self-serving strategy, this makes sense because Hillary likely would have won a majority of Florida's 211 delegates and possibly a majority of Michigan's 157 delegates in a re-vote.

As you likely know, one reason that Obama isn't keen on counting Michigan's primary vote is that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot (DNC rules did not require this).

Reportedly, the DNC had asked the candidates to remove their names from Florida's and Michigan's ballots.  Florida's ballots were already printed, so all candidates' names remained, but four (including Obama) removed their names from Michigan's ballot.

If any candidate's name wasn't on the ballot, how could one fairly count that state's votes?   One couldn't.  It's that simple. 

The DNC knew this, yet asked candidates to remove their names from Florida's and Michigan's ballots.

This was a bizarre move, because the DNC's own rules allow for an appeal of the Rules Committee's delegate-stripping decision. 

Because Obama removed his name from Michigan's ballot, fully counting that state's votes would be unfair -- even if Michigan won an appeal.  That was the obvious result from the outset.

In other words, the DNC knowingly attempted to undermine its own appeals process by persuading Obama (or any candidate) to remove his or her name from Michigan's ballot.

The big question: what was happening behind the scenes that made any DNC "leaders" intentionally seek to disenfranchise two states?

Where are we now?  In two days, the DNC's Rules Committee will decide whether to let some, all, or none of Florida's and Michigan's votes count.

This is icy-cold comfort, given how bizarrely the Rules Committee has executed the DNC's rules thus far.

Make no mistake: the DNC still doesn't want to fully count Florida's and Michigan's votes.  That is evident in DNC's hiring of lawyers to do a "legal analysis" that happens to conclude that no more than 50% of Florida's and Michigan's votes can be counted.

TalkLeft has a pdf of containing Florida's and Michigan's written appeals and the seemingly deficient "legal analysis."

Despite Obama's publicly stated desire  to not fully count Florida and Michigan, Obama's campaign (and the DNC) want public relations points for attempting to re-enfranchising Florida and Michigan.

Sorry.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't fool all the people all the time -- unless most media outlets mis-report the facts.

Incidentally, the New York Times isn't the only major paper that got it wrong. Today's Washington Post states:

"Sen. Hillary Rodha Clinton's prospects of persuading Democratic officials to override party rules and recognize all delegates selected in the Florida and Michigan primaries suffered a setback yesterday after lawyers for the party ruled that no more than half of those delegations could be legally recognized."

To ordinary folks who rely on the Washington Post's or New York Times' account, it may seem that Hillary wants the DNC to "override" its rules. 

To folks who've actually looked at the rules and researched what really happened in Florida, it's obvious that the DNC would actually correct its past failure to follow its own rules by letting 100% of Florida's votes count.

Furthermore, the only way for the DNC to truly be in sync with its own rules would be to strip Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of 50% of their delegates.

I hope that media outlets who've gotten the story wrong so far will rectify that soon.  If they don't, then the DNC and Obama's campaign likely will get away with fooling millions of people.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Comments

[BJWhite]

This is the first time I've read that the DNC asked the candidates to remove their names from the Michigan and Florida ballots.

Florida seems like a slam dunk; the ballots should be counted as is since the Florida democrats had nothing to do with changing the primary date.....but Michigan?

Dodd and Gravel kept their names on; Kucinich missed the deadline. I'm not going to vote for Obama (I have hundreds of other reasons why I think he shouldn't come within a mile of the presidential office; Clinton is still the most qualified, probably even over-qualified,candidate), but I would like to know if you can give Senator Clinton's rationale for saying 'no' to the DNC request?

[BJWhite]

I should add that I still believe the votes should be counted. 100%...voter's votes should always be counted...just curious about the Clinton reasons.....

[Deb Cupples]

Hi BJ,

I don't know what Hillary's rationale is. As I argued above, the DNC had appeals procedures; thus, there was always a chance that MI and FL might count.

That's why I don't think it was proper for the DNC to ask ANY candidate to remove his or her name from either state's ballot.

If the request is improper (as I think it was), then why should anyone grant it?

[Danny]

I'm not voting for Obama either, not under any circumstance. Hillary will win this nomination battle because Obama will be horrific as a general election democrat running against McCain. Disasterous that is what Obama will be.

Have you seen the news? Another friend of 20 years Obama's other Reverend friend - Mocking Senator Clinton? It's sickening and Obama and his wife are front and center a part of the problem not the solution.

[Deb Cupples]

Danny,

Thanks for the tip. No, right now, I can't bring myself to watch it. A few days ago, I watched Olbermann repeatedly stab Hillary with a pitchfork, and I need a few more days to recover for my stomach to recover from that one.

:)

[leftd]

Great! The so called "Party of the People" took us back to Jim Crow! The DNC are Scum and should suffer the MAXIMUM consequence! I'll never register as a Democrat a day again in my life...

[Deb]

Hi Left D,

As it happens, someone called me today from the Florida state Dem organization, which is connected to the DNC. I told the woman that I WILL NOT donate until the DNC gets new leadership, partly because of the DNC's handling of Michigan and Florida.

She said that she could take feedback, so I asked her to record the name Donna Braziel as a negative in my mind (and Karen Thurman as a positive).