by Deb Cupples | I don't know whether some journalists lack analytical skills, embrace laziness, or just plain intend to mislead their readers. At yesterday's New York Times blog (The Caucus), Katherine Q. Seelye wrote the following:
"After those states [Florida and Michigan] held their primaries in violation of Democratic Party rules, the party cracked down on them and said their delegates would not have a voice at the national convention in Denver. Then in May, the rules committee agreed to let their delegates have half a vote each." (NY Times)
What Ms. Seelye wrote is true: those states' primary dates did violate the DNC's rules, but Ms. Seelye omitted the mitigating circumstances with respect to Florida -- instead, treating that state as though its Democratic leaders had done something wrong and deserved punishment.
Florida's Democratic legislators (who answer to the national party) were not at fault for moving the state's primary date, because Florida's legislature is completely controlled by Republicans. (Details are here and here)
Perhaps Ms. Seelye was on vacation without TV and Internet access when debate repeatedly raged over Florida's mitigating circumstances. Sad as it is, the lack of understanding is not surprising, because the New York Times misreported on the Florida and Michigan issue at least once before (back in May).
Ms. Seelye continues:
"...Senator Barack Obama, the party’s presumptive nominee, has asked the credentials committee to let the two states have full voting rights at the convention after all.
"The request is likely to be granted since it comes from the all-but-certain nominee, who now controls the party apparatus.
"The move was not unexpected. No nominee could afford to alienate the delegates, and voters, from two such important states...." (NY Times)
What Ms. Seelye doesn't seem to understand is that Florida's and Michigan's delegates already were alienated when their votes were cut in half -- a move that Sen. Obama's campaign strenuously argued for -- and at the crucial time when those states' voters were trying to have a say who would become the Democratic nominee.
Giving those states' delegates a full vote at the August convention won't un-alienate them, because the nominee has essentially already been chosen.
Ms. Seelye continues:
"Moreover, Mr. Obama had essentially promised the two states that he would seek to restore their full voting strength, as we wrote on June 2 after the rules committee restored only half a vote to each of the states’ delegates. (NY Times)
"Why would their voting strength matter when it is clear who the nominee will be?
At the risk of sounding repetitive, the irreversible consequence was that the votes of Florida's and Michigan's voters were cut roughly in half at a point in time when the full strength of their votes actually mattered in the Democratic party's nominating process.
Ms. Seelye continues:
"Because, as Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said at the time, party conventions do more than pick a nominee; they also begin to establish the framework for the primary calendar in the next presidential election. And Michigan, for one, has been trying for years to topple Iowa and New Hampshire from their first-in-the-nation voting perches. Having full votes at the convention will give Michigan more power to pursue that agenda.
"At the same time, Mr. Obama’s 'request' to restore full voting strength to Florida and Michigan is likely to cause heartburn for party officials, who have struggled to maintain some authority over the primary calendar.
"By granting Mr. Obama’s request, the party will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the calendar next time because there will be no consequences."
No consequences? At the risk of sounding repetitive again, the consequence was that the votes of Florida's and Michigan's voters were cut roughly in half at a point in time when the full strength of their votes actually mattered in the Democratic party's nominating process.
Ms. Seelye continues:
"The credentials committee is to meet Aug. 24, the day before the convention begins in Denver, to determine who will be seated.
"In a letter today to committee officials, Mr. Obama asked that a resolution be passed to entitle each delegate from Florida and Michigan to cast a full vote.
"The party must be united in the fall, he said, adding, 'To that end, Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.'"
But Florida and Michigan were not full partners during the most important part of the Democratic nominating process, which occurred a few months ago.
At the risk of sounding repetitive yet again, the Democratic party (with Sen. Obama's support) cut Florida's and Michigan's vote strength in half at a point in time when the full strength of their votes actually mattered in the Democratic party's nominating process. That and the DNC reconfigured Michigan's vote totals in such a way that Sen. Obama received a few votes that had actually been cast for another candidate(s).
The only way to un-alienate Florida's and Michigan's voters is for the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee to find a fully operational time machine, go back to May 31, and fully restore Florida's and Michigan's vote strength.
I'm not arguing that this should happen (not that it actually can happen): I'm just saying that's the only way for Florida and Michigan to become "full partners" in the Democratic Party's nominating process.
Generous-looking gestures and clever phrasing cannot change the fact that Florida and Michigan were denied half of their vote strength precisely when their votes would have mattered -- and that Sen. Obama's campaign argued in favor of this result.
Memeorandum has commentary.
See also: "Unity" Shuck And Jive: Obama Opposed Counting 100% of Florida's Vote but Tried to Avoid Saying So
Comments