The Democrats used to be the Party dedicated to making sure “every vote counts” -- even when it meant a fight.
The Party’s website notes, “A fundamental tenet of our democracy is the right to vote and to have that vote counted.” The Party worked to pass legislation to insure that voting systems are reliable and secure, and quotes from party leaders over the last eight years certainly attest to the mantra that “count every vote” is a cornerstone of the Party's agenda.
“I believe this is a time to count every vote and not to run out the clock. This is not a time for delay, obstruction, and procedural roadblocks. As I've said, I believe it's essential to our country that there be no question, no cloud ... We need to be able to say that there is no legitimate question as to who won this election.” (Al Gore, 2000)
“And the principle again is a very simple one: When people cast votes, the votes should be counted.” (Al Gore, 2000)
“He will be the president legally, but he does not have moral authority, because his crown did not come from the people. It came from the judges.” (Rev. Jesse Jackson, 2000)
“In America, it is vital that every vote count and every vote be counted.” (John Kerry, 2004)
“I want you to know we will continue to fight for every vote because every vote matters in our America and we will honor each one of you who stood with us and who stood in line to change your country.” (John Edwards, 2004)
“In a democracy, votes must count and every citizen’s vote must be properly counted.” (John Bonifaz, general counsel, National Voting Rights Institute, 2004)
“All I’m asking the Republicans to do is count every vote!” (Howard Dean, Press Conference in San Diego, July 18, 2006)
“The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen - they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted.” (Barack Obama, Howard University Convocation, Sept. 2007)
What a difference four or eight years makes.
Now Howard Dean and the DNC are denying Democrats in Florida and Michigan a voice in voting for their Party’s next nominee for President. Dean and the DNC cite that FL and MI voters are being penalized because those states broke the rules. Obama supporters focus not on the voters and their right to have a voice in an election, but instead accuse Hillary of wanting to make new rules in the middle of a game.
Yet, according to the “DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention”, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also broke the rules of this "game". However unlike FL and MI, those states have not been penalized. Seems if we're playing a "game" by the rules, then the rules should apply equally to every state or they should not be applied at all. Otherwise, what the DNC is sanctioning is a double standard. And if that's the case, I need to ask myself, "Why would a Party that aims to unify and to be a voice for all Democrats persist in a double standard?"
The problem with the "game" analogy is that this election season is no "game". Our country is facing very serious problems: a war in Iraq, a home mortgage crisis, skyrocketing health care costs, and continuing needs to invest talent and resources into our educational systems, just to name a few. The challenges are many, and our country needs a leader who can deliver the changes to move us forward. Selecting the nominee that the Democratic Party will put forward to be that leader is no "game"; it is a serious job; it is task we undertake cognizant of its impact on our country, our world, our today, our tomorrow; it is a charge that demands the voices of voters from all of America.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Howard Dean and the DNC are are throwing aside the cornerstone Democratic principle of “Count every vote”. They are silencing the voices of Democrats in FL and MI because of a rule that is not even being consistently applied.
And what of Obama's reluctance to recognize FL and MI, of his judgment that the FL election was merely a beauty contest? Obama speaks of change and of the importance of insuring that every "vote..be counted".
• Are Obama's previous calls that every "vote should be counted" just words, just pretty rhethoric for a speech?
• Is Obama afraid of how the voice of the voters of FL and Mi might change the dynamics of this campaign? Might lessen his lead? Might change the perceptions of superdelegates concerning this contest?
Just why would a candidate for President of the United States want to ignore the voices of the voters from two of those states? Seems instead a candidate for President would want to be listening to the voices of all Americans, would want to fight for the right for every American to have his or her "vote..be counted."
But then, what do I know? Just one thing, I guess, what a difference four or eight years make!
Make every vote count…
Black Sheep Democrats say Count Every Vote!
and keep counting….
Rule One: Count Every Vote
And raise your voice to say, let’s “Count every vote”
Petition for Florida and Michigan
and
Petition to seat our delegates
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama's down in the sewer tactics
Obama and his campaign are now engaging in what can only be called a smear campaign on Clinton. They are throwing out falsehood after falsehood in the hope that the press will take one of the items and run with it.
In the past few days, the campaign has falsely accused Hillary of misleading voters on areas, such as:
• Obama's religion
• Hillary's stance on NAFTA
• Hillary's work in relation to the Family Medical Leave Act
• Hillary's 35 years of experience
• Hillary's desire for the voices of Democrats in FL and MI to have their voices heard as a part of the nomination process
Obama has also continued his accusations that Hillary is not being truthful enough with voters in terms of disclosure. Let's see Hillary has 20 years of tax returns and 11,000 pages of schedules from the White House years in the public domain now. Obama has released ONE year of tax returns and no schedules from years in the senate or the dates on which he attended TUCC church services, even though those have been requested by the media......So tell me again, who is not being transparent?
Talk about your kitchen sink approach Hillary was accused of a few weeks back. This tactic of Obama's is more like a down in the sewer approach....and interesting that it's coming from the candidate who said he was above all the "slash and burn" politics.
For more information on the accusations that have been made by Obama and his campaign and on how they stand in opposition to reality, see:
The Fact Hub
We need a Democratic candidate who stands for reality, not rhethoric.
We need someone who is ready for action, not just full of false words.
In the past few days, the campaign has falsely accused Hillary of misleading voters on areas, such as:
• Obama's religion
• Hillary's stance on NAFTA
• Hillary's work in relation to the Family Medical Leave Act
• Hillary's 35 years of experience
• Hillary's desire for the voices of Democrats in FL and MI to have their voices heard as a part of the nomination process
Obama has also continued his accusations that Hillary is not being truthful enough with voters in terms of disclosure. Let's see Hillary has 20 years of tax returns and 11,000 pages of schedules from the White House years in the public domain now. Obama has released ONE year of tax returns and no schedules from years in the senate or the dates on which he attended TUCC church services, even though those have been requested by the media......So tell me again, who is not being transparent?
Talk about your kitchen sink approach Hillary was accused of a few weeks back. This tactic of Obama's is more like a down in the sewer approach....and interesting that it's coming from the candidate who said he was above all the "slash and burn" politics.
For more information on the accusations that have been made by Obama and his campaign and on how they stand in opposition to reality, see:
The Fact Hub
We need a Democratic candidate who stands for reality, not rhethoric.
We need someone who is ready for action, not just full of false words.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Is The DNC following it's own rules?
The DNC stripped MI and FL of any votes in the primary process. Yet in reading through the DNC's "Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention," some diparities arise. Rule 11. A. sets out specific time frames prior to Super Tuesday during which Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may hold their primaries, saying...
"the Iowa precinct caucuses maay be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February"
"the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February"
"the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February"
Given that, here's the reality:
Iowa - caucuses held Jan. 3, 2008
33 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 11 days)
New Hampshire - election held January 8, 2008
28 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 14 days)
South Carolina - election held January 26, 2008
10 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 3 days)
So Florida and Michigan were not the only states to break the rules; Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also broke the rules. If the DNC is as committed as it says to following the rules as it says it is, then why did they give IA, NH, and SC a pass, while penalizing only FL and MI?
Secondly, the "Delegate Selection Rules" specifically note what the consequences are for those states who might break the rules in C. 1. a, stating, "the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation."
Would this rule apply not only to FL and MI, but also to IA, NH, and SC...If one (or two) states have to adhere to the rules, why not all of the states?
Delegate Selection Rules
for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
"the Iowa precinct caucuses maay be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February"
"the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February"
"the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February"
Given that, here's the reality:
Iowa - caucuses held Jan. 3, 2008
33 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 11 days)
New Hampshire - election held January 8, 2008
28 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 14 days)
South Carolina - election held January 26, 2008
10 days before the first Tuesday in February (which breaks the stated rule by 3 days)
So Florida and Michigan were not the only states to break the rules; Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also broke the rules. If the DNC is as committed as it says to following the rules as it says it is, then why did they give IA, NH, and SC a pass, while penalizing only FL and MI?
Secondly, the "Delegate Selection Rules" specifically note what the consequences are for those states who might break the rules in C. 1. a, stating, "the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation."
Would this rule apply not only to FL and MI, but also to IA, NH, and SC...If one (or two) states have to adhere to the rules, why not all of the states?
Delegate Selection Rules
for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
'A More Perfect Union' or Just More Words?
One person’s response to “Remarks of Senator Obama: A More Perfect Union”,
presented March 18, 2008
Obama says:
“And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.”
....SO NOW Obama IS admitting that words are not enough; that it takes someone who is versed in action to really make a difference.
Obama says:
“What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.”
...AND TELL US again, what has Obama accomplished in the area of civil rights?…Oh right, his website says he worked as a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law.
Obama says:
“…We've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.”
....WOULD THAT BE WORDS from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, like….
• “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run”?
• “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
• “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t!”
Obama says:
“Just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed”
...ACTUALLY, NO, if my pastor or priest used such racially degrading words, I wouldn’t be attending that house of worship any more.
Obama says:
“..a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America”
...KIND OF LIKE when Michelle Obama declared this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud to be an American?
Obama says:
“But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”
...WASN'T OBAMA ignoring the issue of race as a divider in the country when he sat through sermons in which Jeremiah Wright made racially divisive statements?
Silence gives consent…and he did nothing public to register his disapproval until the issue was brought forward in the press. He did not step forward to be a leader within his congregation and encourage them to work toward building feelings of racial unity.
• Yet, Obama says he wants to be the great uniter for our nation, seems like another case of "just words"...where's the action?
• Added to that, what does that silence say about how Obama would react as President if circumstances led to increased racial tensions?
• Would he remain silent then?
• Would he hesitate to say anything against someone from his community, someone who he holds dear…no matter what that person was saying?
Obama says: “It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.”
...AND FOR THOSE who may say, he’s the ONE who has been sent to save us all from this racial stalemate….including Obama, who seems to want us to infer that….think again.
Obama has lots of words, but no history of action.
The action Obama has shown in this campaign has been…
• to divide the country more, rather than bring it together,
• to tear down the legacies of those who came before, like the work of Bill Clinton for the African American community, rather than to honor those who have worked to bring forward the agenda of all Americans who are downtrodden, that’s all Americans, not just those from the Black community,
• to be involved in a campaign – that once it became apparent could win in no other manner – is bent of using divisiveness as a means to winning a nomination and of crippling the Democratic party in the process.
Obama says: “Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’”
...FINALLY, WE AGREE. That’s right. People should be saying “not this time”.
“Not this time”, Obama – we won’t be fooled by your flowery rhetoric.
“Not this time”, Obama – we won’t be led by your words that ring more hollow with each deeper look into your life.
“Not this time”, Obama….
We were supposed to give you a pass on plagiarism because the paragraphs of a speech you presented as your own were “written by a friend.”
We were supposed to give you a pass on the NAFTA misstatements to Canada because those foreign government officials misunderstood or misreported what happened.
We were supposed to give you a pass on double-talk about your views on gun legislation, about a foreign policy advisor who admits what’s said on the campaign trail isn’t true, on connections to Rezko, and on and on.
Now, we’re supposed to give a pass on your silence because the person in question is “like a family member.”
“Not this time”, Obama.
There’s no doubt, we’re looking for “change we can believe in”…
but in order to believe..
we need EVIDENCE
of a day-to-day commitment (and that includes Sundays),
of a year by year recounting of results,
of a willingness to consider all walks of America as important, as equal, as in need…
“Not this time”, Obama - we won’t be fooled.
presented March 18, 2008
Obama says:
“And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.”
....SO NOW Obama IS admitting that words are not enough; that it takes someone who is versed in action to really make a difference.
Obama says:
“What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.”
...AND TELL US again, what has Obama accomplished in the area of civil rights?…Oh right, his website says he worked as a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law.
Obama says:
“…We've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.”
....WOULD THAT BE WORDS from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, like….
• “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run”?
• “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
• “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t!”
Obama says:
“Just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed”
...ACTUALLY, NO, if my pastor or priest used such racially degrading words, I wouldn’t be attending that house of worship any more.
Obama says:
“..a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America”
...KIND OF LIKE when Michelle Obama declared this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud to be an American?
Obama says:
“But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”
...WASN'T OBAMA ignoring the issue of race as a divider in the country when he sat through sermons in which Jeremiah Wright made racially divisive statements?
Silence gives consent…and he did nothing public to register his disapproval until the issue was brought forward in the press. He did not step forward to be a leader within his congregation and encourage them to work toward building feelings of racial unity.
• Yet, Obama says he wants to be the great uniter for our nation, seems like another case of "just words"...where's the action?
• Added to that, what does that silence say about how Obama would react as President if circumstances led to increased racial tensions?
• Would he remain silent then?
• Would he hesitate to say anything against someone from his community, someone who he holds dear…no matter what that person was saying?
Obama says: “It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.”
...AND FOR THOSE who may say, he’s the ONE who has been sent to save us all from this racial stalemate….including Obama, who seems to want us to infer that….think again.
Obama has lots of words, but no history of action.
The action Obama has shown in this campaign has been…
• to divide the country more, rather than bring it together,
• to tear down the legacies of those who came before, like the work of Bill Clinton for the African American community, rather than to honor those who have worked to bring forward the agenda of all Americans who are downtrodden, that’s all Americans, not just those from the Black community,
• to be involved in a campaign – that once it became apparent could win in no other manner – is bent of using divisiveness as a means to winning a nomination and of crippling the Democratic party in the process.
Obama says: “Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’”
...FINALLY, WE AGREE. That’s right. People should be saying “not this time”.
“Not this time”, Obama – we won’t be fooled by your flowery rhetoric.
“Not this time”, Obama – we won’t be led by your words that ring more hollow with each deeper look into your life.
“Not this time”, Obama….
We were supposed to give you a pass on plagiarism because the paragraphs of a speech you presented as your own were “written by a friend.”
We were supposed to give you a pass on the NAFTA misstatements to Canada because those foreign government officials misunderstood or misreported what happened.
We were supposed to give you a pass on double-talk about your views on gun legislation, about a foreign policy advisor who admits what’s said on the campaign trail isn’t true, on connections to Rezko, and on and on.
Now, we’re supposed to give a pass on your silence because the person in question is “like a family member.”
“Not this time”, Obama.
There’s no doubt, we’re looking for “change we can believe in”…
but in order to believe..
we need EVIDENCE
of a day-to-day commitment (and that includes Sundays),
of a year by year recounting of results,
of a willingness to consider all walks of America as important, as equal, as in need…
“Not this time”, Obama - we won’t be fooled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
