Mark Terry

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Why I'm To Blame For The Michigan Democratic Party Being Censured...

December 1, 2007
If you follow politics at all, you're probably aware that a number of states have moved their primaries up, or tried to: Michigan, Florida, Nevada...

I live in Michigan. I'm a Democrat. 

Here's part of the recent news on this:

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5.

Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.


Well, anyway, the article goes on and mentions that many of the Democratic candidates have pulled their names from the ticket as a result, etc, etc.

I will say that if the Democratic National Committee wanted to alienate Michigan's democrats for the next year or so... or forever ... and assure that the state, which currently has a Democratic Governor, becomes landlocked (so to speak) by the Republicans, they've certainly done a fine job of it. (Way to go, assholes!)

Here's why I'm to blame:

Back in the last Presidential Election, a Democratic pollster called to ask who I would be voting for in the Michigan Primary. To say that I wasn't polite would be an understatement. I was blunt, to say the least. And look, I'm a registered Democrat and proud of it, even if most of what critics have to say about the Democratic Party is true (incompetent, unfocused, unorganized...). I just don't find the Republican Party remotely palatable and I could go on about that, but when a political party has to tack on the word "compassionate" as an adjective, it suggests to me that they're anything but.

Anyway, this poll took pace sometime after the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries and the caller asked who I would vote for. I said, and this is pretty close to a direct quote:

"It doesn't matter because they won't even be in the race by the time they get here."

The pollster then tried again. "Yes, sir, but if you were to vote today, who would you vote for?"

"No," I snapped. "You don't get it. By the time of the Michigan Primary, the presidential candidates are pretty much chosen."

It went on like that. And it was true. Look, I voted for John Kerry. Why? Because John Dean had his meltdown long before I had a chance to vote.  I might have voted for Dean, but hell, he was through long before my chance to vote for him arrived.

And frankly, I'm essentially undecided, as of today, who I would vote for. Maybe Clinton, maybe Obama. In truth, I rather like Richards, and have followed his impressive career for a very long time. And in a period when the U.S. is mired in international messes, one after another, I think a guy who was the Ambassador to the U.N., etc., would be a good candidate.

Do I think he would make it to the Michigan Primary? Hey, whoever wins Iowa (the Ethanol Gas Tax State) or New Hampshire (The We Have No Known Economy State--I mean, what the hell do people in New Hampshire do, anyway?) is 99% likely to be the candidate.

Which is why I think we need to start thinking about a National Primary, where they're all done on the same day (yes, but what the hell would the media do for the rest of the year????). Or, if that's too bizarre for people, eliminate the primaries and caucuses in general and throw the power to select candidates back to the Party Conventions, which now nobody pays attention to and are pretty much rubber stamps for the people who made it to the end of pre-election anyway.

Cheers,

Mark Terry







Labels: , , ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Melanie Hooyenga said...

I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading your blog (yes, this is prompted by the blog a couple days ago) so THANKS for all your insight.

I'm also originally from Michigan & my parents are among the few Democrats on the west side. Thanks for putting this is a more understandable format.

3:21 PM  
Blogger Mark Terry said...

Thank, Melanie! And you're right, the west side of the state tends to be Republican country.

3:30 PM  
Blogger Spy Scribbler said...

I don't much like Clinton. But she seems to be who I like the most, although I'm still entertaining fantasies of Gore.

I do like that she at least gives lip service to health insurance problems, and has for a long time.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Mark Terry said...

SS--
Clinton's healthcare plan is as close to workable as we're likely to get. She learned a lot from her experiences on this before. It doesn't alienate business or insurance companies.

None of the other Democrats or Republican runners have anything resembling a workable healthcare plan.

On the other hand, given what we see of Congress, it probably doesn't matter. Fixing healthcare and insurance would require Congress to have some guts and making hard choices and I just don't think they have the balls for it.

12:07 PM  
Blogger Aimlesswriter said...

I agree! They all should be on the same day. I'm in NJ. By the time they get here its useless to vote.
Also a democrat, I don't like any of them. Not Clinton, I don't see her as honest. However, if she had left her husband when he cheated on her she would have had my vote in a second! He molested an 18 year old child (yes 18 year olds are children-six months earlier she was only 17!) and she stays because "she loves him"? Bah!
Ok, stepping down from the soap box now.
My kids want Ron Paul who looks pretty good but he's a republican ...eh.
Biden has possiblities....
Spy? Shall we write in Gore?

4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you mean HOWARD Dean, not John.

2:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home