What The?

Posted by on . 8 comments.

Someone will have to explain this to me, in words that I can understand:

In a statement, House members from Florida said they were committed to working with the DNC and state officials to find a solution to ensure that their 210 delegates take their place at the convention. However, “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

Without a re-do, there’s no way the Florida delegates take their place at the convention, right? Isn’t that the one thing that everyone is agreed upon?

So if the House members from Florida oppose “any redo of any kind”, how do they hope or plan to “find a solution to ensure that their 210 delegates take their place at the convention”?

AP says that the “statement was issued by Rep. Alcee Hastings” (who is an impeached and removed federal judge). It’s not clear from the story how many House members he speaks for, although he is Senior Democratic Whip in the house.

Comments

  1. Dave K says:
    March 12, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Explanation: Florida should be seated with the results “as is”. No mention of MI was made because only one name was on the ballot. However, all the names were on the ballot in FL and campaigning (without personal appearances) was conducted.

  2. matt says:
    March 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    4th or 5th time for this comment at least. and no matter how many times you repeat it, it’s not valid.

    the florida party ignored very clear DNC rules, as did MI.

    “campaigning (without personal appearances)” has no bearing.

    didn’t you claim to be a delegate? shouldn’t you be smarter than this, or at least be able to make better arguments?

  3. Dave K says:
    March 12, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    LOL.

    1) “4th or 5th time for this comment at least.”

    Apparently you believe that if a comment has been “used” it has no more meaning. In fact it still has just as much bearing and relevance to a question “whenever” it’s related to the subject (as in this case).

    The question raised was to explain the posted statement. I explained what that statement is basically saying. It sounds like you actually believe that DNC “rules” override the “citizen’s rights” to have their votes counted. No, who cares about that right? Not a very good stance to take for someone who aspires to know “something” about “anything” like yourself… BTW, political “rules” are about as far from steadfast as you can get under “any” circumstances.

    2) “campaigning (without personal appearances)” has no bearing.”

    If that were the case the Obama supporters wouldn’t be trying to say that “no campaigning was done” in the state as one of their arguments. They are twisting that fact because campaigning “was in fact” conducted… It has bearing on this specific post because it is why the argument is being made for seating the delegates “without a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

  4. matt says:
    March 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    “It sounds like you actually believe that DNC “rules” override the “citizen’s rights” to have their votes counted.”

    no, it doesn’t. i was crystal clear on this in my comment here which you had to have read because you commented next. don’t do this again.

    they need to re-vote, whether by mail or in person. period.

    a campaign without appearances is absurd.

  5. Dave K says:
    March 12, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    “a campaign without appearances is absurd.”

    So people are incapable of formulating an educated opinion without the candidates making a personal appearance in their state???… That, my friend, is “absurd”. As hard as it is for you, “please” try not to do that again (be absurd that is)…

  6. Dave K says:
    March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    You said you “admit my mistakes” yet you haven’t yet acknowledged the fact that comment 5 is right on target. Is it on the front page?

  7. matt says:
    March 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    you couldn’t find the target if i stapled it to your forehead.

    your whole argument boils down to yeah, florida broke the rules, but let’s let their vote stand, and michigan broke the rules, but they need to re-vote. and you hang your hat (and yourself) on the thin reed of whose name appeared on which ballot.

    it’s not only inconsistent, it’s self-serving and betrays complete ignorance at how the situation in both states played out. they were both warned in plenty of time, and they both ignored the DNC. they can’t be treated differently because they put names on the ballot differently.

    as an official delegate, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  8. sarabeth says:
    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    I think the biggest argument against treating the original Florida vote as valid is that the voters were told the voting wouldn’t count. Many people stayed home. It’s an invalid election. And no amount of repetition of talking points by Hillary and her supporters changes that.

    Maybe the voters who stayed away because they were told the voting was irrelevant deserve a chance to have their vote counted too?

    Having “all the names were on the ballot in FL and campaigning (without personal appearances)” means diddly squat under the circumstances.

    you couldn’t find the target if i stapled it to your forehead.

    Yes, but you might try stapling it to his ass; he seems to live in there.