Google
 

Sunday, March 16, 2008

The Texas Caucuses and Clinton

No doubt we will all be hearing or reading a great deal in the next few days about the letter the Hillary campaign sent to the Texas Democratic Party.

"Therefore, it is our understanding that the results will be counted and delegates awarded based on a count of votes without any and without any certification by the Precinct Chairs or County and Senate District Chairs that they completed a thorough review of the eligibility of participants and delegate candidates.

. . .


We believe this is in direct contravention of the Rules, which require that the Party determine the eligibility of participants and that only the votes of eligible participants are counted. Moreover, if the Party's reason for not ensuring that only eligible participants are counted is based on the fact that the Party cannot complete the review process prior to the scheduled date of the County and Senate District Conventions, the campaigns can't possibly complete this review in a timely fashion. Credentials challenges are presently due March 26.

We believe that (1) it is a violation of the Party's Delegate Selection Plan and Rules for the Party not to ensure that the eligibility of participants was determined before their votes are counted; and (2) if the Party cannot complete this task in time to hold the next level conventions on March 29, those conventions must be postponed until such time as accurate presidential preference counts can be made based on a review of each and every sign in sheet to determine eligibility of participants and delegates.

It is a violation of the rights of legitimate participants to have their true vote count distorted by violations of the Party's Rules.

It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed and that the final official results of the precinct conventions are accurate and in compliance with the Rules.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Party explain to both campaigns what procedures will be followed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the precinct convention results and agree to postpone the County and Senate District Conventions until such time as that process can be completed."

It seems the Texas Democratic Party, despite clearly published rules requiring it to verify county convention delegates' eligibility prior to the county conventions taking place, refuses to do so. Also, you will notice that the Hillary's campaign described in detail the rules violations that allegedly occurred at many precinct caucuses on March 4, including sign-ins by people not eligible to vote at the caucuses, the assignment or selection of delegates ineligible to serve as delegates to the county conventions, failure to ratify or certify the selection of the delegates by the precinct convention that night, failure to allow voter sign-in and basing candidate support percentages on head or hand counts; all in direct violation of party rules, and basic tenets of participatory democracy at caucuses.

And, no doubt we will begin to hear the cries from the other candidate that he supports the process and that Clinton is simply trying to once again disenfranchise the voters:

“We don’t think that the record-breaking number of Texans who stood up to be counted on March 4th would appreciate the Clinton campaign’s attempt to disenfranchise them and silence their voices just because the outcome wasn’t politically beneficial to Senator Clinton” – said Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer.
So, the lines have been drawn and the hypocrisy will begin to fly, and, no doubt, the media will once again let Obama off easy.

Since when is it wrong to make certain that only those eligible to vote at the caucuses did so! Since when is it wrong to verify that clearly laid out caucus rules were followed the night of March 4! Since when is it wrong to make certain that the state Democratic Party complies with its own rules on selecting delegates.

If by "disenfranchising" Obama means we should allow ineligible people to vote for him at the precinct caucuses, then he is a hypocrite. If by "silencing" voices he means allowing ineligible people to serve as delegates for him to our Party's conventions, then he is a hypocrite. If he thinks Texas Democrats "appreciate" violations of the rules, then he is simply wrong.

Obama has long taken the position that we must follow the party rules and not change them during the campaign, even if it meant disenfranchising millions of voters in Florida and Michigan; and he still takes that position. And for the most part, that is one of his strongest positions. But, now, much the same as his position on the so-called super delegates, he doesn't believe the rules really matter, or that they should be followed. Somehow, to him, following the Texas Party rules will disenfranchise voters, when, in fact, those rules are designed, when followed, to enfranchise voters.

Just imagine what the media and Obamatons would be yelling if there was evidence that hundreds or thousand of ineligible voters showed up at the polls on March 4th and voted in the primary en masse for Hillary, and the State Party refused to ensure voter eligibility prior to certifying the primary results. We know what would happen.

The problem is, although nothing new to the Obama style of saying one thing but then saying the opposite if it helps you win, that the rules remain the rules. The rules in Texas have been set for a very long time now, and are no less rules because we are not Florida. The State Party must verify the eligibility of caucus voters and delegates prior to the county conventions on March 29, especially considering the alleged violations that occurred in many of the precinct caucuses. The party is now refusing to do that. Clinton is well within her rights to demand that the Party follow the rules, and should make that demand, as should Obama.

And, for the candidate - Obama - who continues to demand that we follow the rules and disenfranchise two entire states' democrat voters, even to the extent of refusing to agree to a re-vote, I say stop being such an obviously self-serving old-style Chicago machine politician, and agree to follow the rules even on those occasions when it may not help you win.

But, I predict the media, if it picks up this story, will once again crucify Hillary, labeling her as someone who will do anything to get elected; they will once again follow the Obama line, ignore the truth, that Hillary is simply trying ensure that the Texas rules are followed.

3 comments:

tom dresslar said...

Is solidarity you, Walter? This complaint lodged by the Clinton campaign seems a tad legalistic to me. Oh my God! They didn't follow Roberts Rules of Order. Of course, coming from the depends-on-what-the-definition-of-is-is crowd, this is hardly surprising. Is this the same Clinton who tried to disenfranshise caucus voters in Nevada? Funny, but she didn't say a word when thousands of California independent voters (as we know independents favor Obama) were denied the right to vote because of local election screw up. Talk about hyprocrisy. You can't have it both ways. If we're gonna play by the rules, then Michigan and Florida are out.

And, once again, the Clinton folks can't post a comment without dredging up the tired, inaccurate whining about the media. Please, please, please, give it a rest. As for Obamatons, that's real classy stuff there. I support Obama. I'm not a robot. I think for myself. I just happen to think he's what this country needs to get out of the darkness. I also happen to believe Clinton will take us further in.

Take care.

Tomobamaton

N8 said...

Tom,

There were over 2,000 reports of rules violations at Texas caucuses. We are not talking about minor details, we are talking about out of state volunteers being counted in the final tally, voter intimidation, assignments of the wrong number of delegates. These are things that can and should be fixed by the TDP. Voter disenfranchisement would be allowing the Obama consultant who flew in from New Hampshire to cancel out my vote. There were major rules broken at my caucus and any motion I made was vetoed by the majority Obama supporters.

To be fair, there were violations from both sides. I'll leave you with this example...having met Mrs. Crenshaw, this one really cracks me up - http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030608dnpolcrenshaw.3cf3d35.html

I would be willing to bet that there are enough volunteers from the campaigns to help the TDP verify all the signatures. This is data entry not rocket science. And it's about fairness versus bypassing the rules.

pdrez said...

Look, both of these candidates are opportunists. Whenever "following the rules" or benefits them, they will abide by this sentiment, when it does not they will not. It is as simple as that. Obama proclaims that the Texas vote should stand as is because it benefits him. In Michigan and Florida, he seems reticent to allow either a re-vote or counting the previous vote as is. Clinton ignores disenfranchisement accusations in Nevada, and evidently, California. So let us not bicker over the candidates we support. They are both playing the game as all politicians have before them. They want to win, and they will do what it takes.