Denying Vets & Active Duty Votes In MI and FL

by durendal, Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST

Sen. Obama has made it clear he has no wish for the voices of voters in Florida and Michigan to be heard. OK, as a Michigan resident who voted in our state's primary I'm starting to understand my vote means nothing to Sen. Obama or the DNC.

It's a real eye opener and it is disgusting. And to deny those that have served or are currently in our Armed Services is perhaps an even more grievous affront, lacking any shred of decency.

I never wore the uniform but my late father was active duty for 26 years, career military - he always voted and corresponded with his elected officials in his home state of Pennsylvania. The old man served in two wars but I remember him sending his ballot in - even when we were stationed overseas.

To not allow those that served or those who are currently serving
their voice is a terrible affront upon the dignity of those that have sworn to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic - with their lives if need be. It is truly beyond the pale.

In Michigan, the flag is flown at half mast when we lose one of ours in uniform. It is a stark reminder of those that have paid the ultimate price. We have had 148 casualties, since the beginning of the war, not counting those wounded or whose lives may never be the same again. And Florida has lost 170 service members as of this date.

If Sen. Obama and the DNC is are dead set on stilling my voice and other Americans in both states FL & MI, there's probably nothing I can do about it. Shame on you though if you do not at least count the votes of those who are serving and have served our country so honorably. One simple phone call, Senator.

http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx




Tags: vets, active duty, Obama, Michigan, Florida (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 45 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Denying Vets & Active Duty Votes (2.00 / 5)

Thoughts?


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST

Great Diary (2.00 / 5)

Thanks for writing this.  You're right to call out the DNC and Obama for disregarding the voices of the voters in Michigan and Florida.  How can we ask citizens to join the Armed Forces and then betray them by not counting their votes?   This is an injustice that needs to be fixed, or this will surely hurt us in the Fall.


by izarradar on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST

Re: Great Diary (2.00 / 2)

Thanks izzarradar. I remember even as a kid my dad taking about the importance of voting. He really believed that his duty was to protect and defend the constitution. I remember when we were stationed oversear and on his way to Vietnam, he told me I was now the man of the house and to take care of my mom & sis. God, we were glad when he returned safe and sound. He was a die hard Dem, too.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great Diary (2.00 / 3)

My Dad was in the U.S. Army for WWII, and he also was a life-long Democrat.   To overlook almost two million voters just goes against everything I've been taught to believe our Party stands for.  


by izarradar on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Should Be on the REC LIST Folks (2.00 / 2)

My family are all back home in Michigan and the thought that their votes won't count pisses me off beyond words.

Several of my uncles wore our country's uniform in 'nam too.  Count them among our vets who won't get a say in this election than's to BO's BS.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets L (2.00 / 2)

I think Obama could care less.


by monstergrrl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:31:31 PM EST

Re: Denying Vets & Active Duty (2.00 / 2)

I can't say that but I hope not. The same for the DNC.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I think he cares (2.00 / 2)

He cares that the votes aren't counted, because he would lose both states.


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I think he cares (2.00 / 0)

We'll soon see, OtherLisa.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Denying Vets & Active Duty Votes In MI and (2.00 / 4)

why does obama want to disenfranchise the troops? if anyone deserves to vote, they do. i'm just a civilian, and obama says don't count my vote here in FL, but i understand that.

what about the troops? supposedly, he has a lot of support among the armed services. why doesn't he want them to vote?


by campskunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:33:08 PM EST

Here is Karen Thurman's Press Release (2.00 / 3)

karen thurman is the chair of the florida democratic party.

"It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

caucuses won't cut it, obama. count the troops' votes.


by campskunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:36:36 PM EST

Ahem (2.00 / 1)

.. speechles.
Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 3)

I think they should dedicate the first debate to those vets and active service military and present their exit Iraq plans, as well as the reforms they want to implement in the military and name those military leaders who back them and who they admire, and let those have a choice in which will be our candidate. Obama isn't being very smart in not supporting a revote in Florida, it isn't in his best interest or in the party's. If he wins it should be transparently clear that he didn't have to game the system to keep his current lead.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:37:33 PM EST

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 1)

If he wins it should be transparently clear that he didn't have to game the system to keep his current lead.

Gaming the system = sticking to the agreed-upon rules? Let's preserve a smidgen of intellectual honest. You can argue for a re-vote, but don't pretend that the status quo is somehow a violation or modification of the rules -- in fact, the exact opposite is true.  


by RP McMurphy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 5)

"Gaming the system" is by definition pulling something off by finding the loopholes in the existing rules...which is something Obama has done successfully, quite aside from the FL/MI issue. "The rules" do not require stripping all delegates from states that break the schedule--that was a decision the DNC made last year, that it did not have to make, and that turns out to have not been very smart. The Republicans handled this much better...allowing the early states half the delegates and allowing some campaigning would have made much more sense than trying to totally freeze out two large states. The notion that we could hold a convention with only 48 is unbelievable--neither party has done that since there were only 48 states.

Of course, the reason for the candidates' respective positions is obvious when  you look at pledged delegates: counting MI and FL fully, it's tied; without MI and FL, Obama has a sizable lead.  Each is arguing self-interest; but, as someone said on "Democracy Now" a couple of weeks ago, Obama is arguing bureaucracy ("rules are rules") while Clinton is arguing democracy ("count the votes").


by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliantly stated. (2.00 / 2)

Well said, Alice in FL.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 1)

"Gaming the system" is by definition pulling something off by finding the loopholes in the existing rules

Obama didn't find a "loophole" (and what's a loophole, anyways, besides some facet of the rules that one uses to one's advantage?), he's simply sticking to the rules that both he and Senator Clinton agreed to.

"The rules" do not require stripping all delegates from states that break the schedule--that was a decision the DNC made last year, that it did not have to make, and that turns out to have not been very smart.

Well, the decision to do so, fully within the powers of the DNC, was made some time ago and agreed to by both campaigns.

Each is arguing self-interest; but, as someone said on "Democracy Now" a couple of weeks ago, Obama is arguing bureaucracy ("rules are rules")...

"Bureaucracy?" More like "fairness" in abiding by the established and agreed upon rules.

...while Clinton is arguing democracy ("count the votes").

Counting "elections" in which neither candidate was allowed to campaign and one's name wasn't even on the ballot is a strange notion of "democracy."


by RP McMurphy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:05:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 1)

Obama gamed the rules by taking his name off the MI ballot. The rules as stated:

The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The candidates are allowed to visit Michigan to raise money and can send their spouses to campaign, but they can't run advertisements, hold rallies or do most of the other things that would help give them a leg up on their opponents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859. html

Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden dropped off the Michigan ballot as one in October in order to curry favor with Iowan voters, who were incensed at Michigan for stealing their thunder, and also to hurt Hillary by leaving her alone on the ballot which would make her beauty contest win in the state less of a triumph while hurting her in the Iowan primary.

Here is Crooksandliars with video of Chuck Todd and David Schuster discussing the less than altruistic reasons why Obama dropped from the Michigan ballot:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09 /obama-edwards-richardson-pull-out-of-mi chigan-primary

And then there is this:

Iowans are by and large straightforward people. Given that, it should come as no surprise that to the average Iowan, the Michigan ballot situation seems pretty cut and dried: Democratic presidential hopefuls who honor their four-state pledge and support the nomination calendar won't be on the Wolverine State's ballot. As with most things in life, and especially politics, the situation is more complicated.
Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do? diaryId=1264

h/t McCamy Taylor @ DU


by jen on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rules (2.00 / 1)

As the great President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today... Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets & (1.33 / 3)

But to deny those that have served or are currently in our Armed Services is an affront that is far beyond decency.

I agree -- which is why Democrats in both Florida and Michigan should've known better than usurp the DNC in an attempt to achieve greater influence at the possible expense of military (and civilian) voters. Also, it's very cynical of you to attempt to use "The Troops" as a political weapon -- and let's no kid ourselves, that's exactly what you're doing. Had Hillary Clinton (and others, as well) showed more of a spine in the Senate, a very large number of those troops wouldn't be overseas at the moment. So if your concern for "The Troops" is genuine, you ought not to be supporting the candidate partially responsible for their needless deaths.


by RP McMurphy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:56:55 PM EST

Your right to vote (2.00 / 0)

has always been protected and fought for by those you wish to deny.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is being cynical? (2.00 / 1)

I already stated that I understand my voice may not be heard. Bad enough.
But to deny those in uniform - do you agree with that?
In 2000, the State of Florida, the decision to not count ballots from those serving abroad which may not have been stamped within the time frame from overseas was ruled on as too extreme a remedy. All military votes were counted. They deserve that.

by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:19:26 PM EST

A Time to be Adults (2.00 / 1)

Let's level the no-spin, undisputed facts of this contest.

1. Roughly half the party loves Hillary

  1. Roughly half the party loves Barack
  2. Neither candidate can win on pledged delegates
  3. Superdelegate intervention is the only path for either candidate to win

That's where we are at.  Now, here's another no-spin, undisputed fact.

1. Neither candidate can win without support from the other candidate's followers.

I just wrote about attrition rates as high as 25% in some national polls.  It's time for us to come together as adults, and as a party, to pave the way forward.

What does that mean?

It means that this contest must be decided in a way that both parties feel is fair.  The only way to accomplish that is for Barack Obama to allow MI and FL re-votes.  It does not serve an Obama supporter's self interest to surrender MI and FL to McCain on the basis of short-term gains.  It does not serve Barack Obama's chances in the general election to leave half the party feeling as if they were treated unfairly.

Fellow Democrats supporting Barack Obama, I respect your choice.  I ask you to think for a moment about what's right, not about what's political expedient in the short term.  Call upon your candidate to do the right thing, and stop this stone walling.

Let's have a fair contest for everyone.


by bobbank on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST

Re: A Time to be Adults (none / 0)

You are aware that the issue has been settled, right?


by semiquaver on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The disenfranchisement (2.00 / 0)

of vets and active duty personnel's votes is not settled.  


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disenfranchisement (none / 0)

Sure it is.  Vets won't get their own primary, so since MI&FL aren't revoting, the matter is settled.  By the way, servicemen and all citizens abroad were eligible to vote in the "Global Primary", which had its own delegate allotment.  If you miss an opportunity to vote, is that really disenfranchisement?


by semiquaver on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (2.00 / 1)

Should he be running for something in Novemeber  voters in MI and FL please remember him fondly. He is the one who said  screw your votes the first time.


by coolofthenight on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:03 PM EST

Why should vets matter more than citizens? (2.00 / 0)

If this hits a chord, fine.

But Obama is denying citizens, all the citizens of these states, of the right to chose a nominee. Not just vets. Not just active duty people in Iraq. Everyone.

It is an incredible statement about his candidacy.

The world recoiled at apartheid. How is this so different?

One person. One vote. Obama!


by MediaFreeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:38 PM EST

Re: Denying Vets &amp (2.00 / 2)

Certainly I understand your strong feelings about our service people having a voice. And I agree with you!!!!! But you deserve to have a voice, too.
Don't stop asking for that voice and don't stop fighting for that voice!!!
by susanclare on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST

Re: Denying Vets &amp (2.00 / 1)

This whole mess should never have happened. Strange how 48 states played by the rules and two did not and have threatened to disenfranchise their voters and lose the election for the Democrats. Should we just trash all the rules and let everyone vote whenever they wish? Michigan and Florida have always been important states in deciding elections, why couldn't they wait till February 5th to vote? You can't blame this on the candidates. The blame lies on the greed of some powerful state officials who could not abide by the DNC rules and jumped the gun to make their states first in line to decide the election. And what poor timing that was, in an election so close that even the Idahos and Rhode Islands were important for each and every delegate. Michigan and Florida, blame your governors, state legislators and party officials for the damage they have caused to the candidates, the voters and the Democratic party. Learn how to run an election!


by victoryfordems on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (none / 0)

Like I stated, I've been told by Camp Obama my voice doesn't matter. I'll deal with that.
Why do you wish to deny those that have served or are serving they have no right to be heard?
by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets (none / 0)

Why do you keep saying "you"? Michigan and Florida screwed up and denied all of their citizens, including active and retired military personnel, their votes in the primary. If you live in Michigan or Florida, direct your displeasure to your state government and officials, the one's that made the decision to hold the primary earlier than the allowed date. Make sure they get the primary done right the first time or elect some new people to run your elections. Even Pakistan and Russia have rules, maybe only one candidate, but rules that govern their elections.


by victoryfordems on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rules (none / 0)

As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today... Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."

btw, IA, NH and SC all broke the same DNC Rule 11A;  how were they punished?


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. (none / 0)

Holy GOP argument Batman!

I know that Rush Limbaugh told Republicans to pretend to be Hillary supporters.  But when did Hillary supporters start pretending to be Republicans?


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST

Wow is right (none / 0)

Do you want to tell VoteVets or IAVA that those veterans in FL or MI should have no say in the democratic process?


by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow is right (none / 0)

Quit using the vets as a screen.  

You are borrowing rhetoric from 2004 Iraq debates.  MI and FL made a choice and the DNC did too.  Show me the diary you wrote about it in November of 07 when ALL the candidates agreed to support the decision.  Were you standing up for the troops then?


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Were veterans and active duty (none / 0)

military denied votes in 2004? Pray tell. This is a first in my lifetime.


by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Were veterans and active duty (none / 0)

No, I mean the whole "You are ____ the troops" is straight out of the GOP playbook.  It doesn't add anything to discussions, it just provokes patriotic feelings.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You sound just like John Bolton (none / 0)

stopping the recount in FL in 2000 to me.


by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:28:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You sound just like John Bolton (none / 0)

That is not the same at all.  It would only be the same if Gore and Bush had agreed to no recounts before the GE.  


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets & (2.00 / 1)

Oh, and while we're at it...what about vets that live in Mark Penn's "Insignificant states?"  Just call this what it is - a desperate attempt to get more votes counted so that Hillary might have a chance to win.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:09:45 AM EST

Re: Denying Vets & Active Duty (none / 0)

Is anyone wishing to deny their votes?


by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:19:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying Vets & Active Duty (none / 0)

The people in MI and FL voted, the votes just don't matter.  According to Mark Penn, this holds true for people in "black states" and "latte states."  The whole premise behind the Clinton chance at winning is convincing the SD's that the people who voted for Obama either 1. Don't matter (for one of the reasons listed, or many others) or 2. Have "buyer's remorse".  In either case, the whole thing is predicated on actively invalidating the power of the people's vote.

At least if Obama is guilty of anything, it is passive.  He isn't working to encourage a re-vote.  But he isn't basing the entire foundation of his campaign on rejecting the validity of particular groups or types of voters.

Clinton and her supporters don't get to ride the high horse when it comes to "the voice of the people matters."  After Iowa we heard that it was all about delegates.  Then we heard that some states don't matter.   And now we're hearing that the Clinton camp is the champion for populist democracy?  Give me a break.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Denying (none / 0)

"He isn't working to encourage a re-vote."

That's rich. By the way do you believe what your sig says? Just wonderin'


by durendal on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:37 AM EST

You CAN do something NOW--- we can start (2.00 / 1)

letting Dean know "from the right to vote, all other rights flow."

It is the primary requisite of a democracy, there is no democracy without votes counting.

Contact Dean now...and for those others of you if you don't get why people who have served this country and their families need to have their votes count, don't worry this isn't for you.

TELL GOV DEAN NOW HOW YOU FEEL...........

HE CAN'T get away with not counting Michigan and Florida's votes!

They are very concerned, let them know how you feel.

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000

AND Soon we can start talking about demonstrating in their faces, not even this country can ignore people who DEMAND that their votes be counted.  If nothing else, Fox news will report about it.  Cameras are cameras.


by chieflytrue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:21:09 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: