Let's Revote in Michigan and Florida

By NEWT GINGRICH
February 15, 2008
Wall Street Journal

Democrats are headed for a trainwreck in campaign '08 that threatens to produce a tainted Democratic presidential nominee and, worse, a divisive and delegitimized presidential contest.

Recall that when Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries in defiance of Democratic Party rules earlier this year, the party bosses decided to punish them by unseating their delegates. The Florida and Michigan primaries were turned into beauty contests.

At the time, it seemed like a good move since everyone assumed that the Michigan and Florida delegates wouldn't really matter in the nomination battle. The conventional wisdom was that one Democratic candidate would emerge early in the contest, and arrive at the convention with a comfortable margin of delegates for the nomination.

But the one constant in campaign '08 so far is that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Instead of a sprint, the Democratic race has turned into a slog. And it's now looking more and more likely that the Democratic presidential fight will not produce a clear and decisive winner.

So here's the run-away train careening toward the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August: If the delegate count of both campaigns is still close by the time of the convention, Florida and Michigan's combined 366 delegates will suddenly become very relevant. Instead of uniting behind a nominee, the party will be at war with itself over whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. And Democrats know from hard experience that chaotic, contentious conventions and the nominees they produce (remember Chicago in 1968? San Francisco in 1972?) do not bode well for success in November.

One of the great ironies of this election season is that the very mechanism created by Democrats to avoid contentious conventions like those in Chicago and San Francisco promises to create further chaos in Denver this year.

Superdelegates are really "politician delegates." Superdelegates are technically uncommitted party insiders who can vote for whomever they choose. They were created by the party that prides itself on supposedly representing the common man to be the palace guards of the Democratic establishment. Bill Clinton is a superdelegate, as is Al Gore. They are Democratic Party insiders whose purpose is to put down insurgent campaigns and protect the interests of Democratic politics as usual.

The closeness of the delegate count has set off a furious race between Sens. Clinton and Obama for the superdelegates. But any attempt by either campaign to win with these party insiders what they couldn't win with the voting public would destroy not only the prospects of the "victorious" candidate, but the prospects of the Democratic Party itself.

So the Democrats are caught in a double-bind: Disenfranchising the voters in Michigan and Florida while allowing party insiders to pick the party's nominee has all the makings of a Democratic civil war.

You might think that as a Republican I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do. All of us do. A tainted or "stolen" Democratic nomination has the potential to delegitimize the election itself and its outcome. And tainted victories produce hobbled administrations. Much as I might have agreed with the outcome of the 2000 general election, the rancor and vitriol it produced created divisions among Americans where none naturally existed before, irreparably damaging the Bush administration.

Contrary to the political consultants' handiwork and the mainstream media's mythmaking, America is not a nation fundamentally divided between red and blue. We are surprisingly united on the core values that make us Americans and the practical solutions to the challenges we face. We need an election process with the integrity to produce a nominee who can lead this natural majority.

The question is: How?

Giving the Michigan and Florida delegates to Sen. Clinton -- particularly in light of reports that she bent the Democratic Party rules against campaigning in both states -- is a recipe for even more chaos.

On the other hand, leaving the Florida and Michigan delegates unseated runs the risk for the Democrats of alienating two big states they want and need to win in November.

The answer, for the integrity of the process, is a do-over: Hold the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries again.

The voters -- not the party insiders -- have the moral authority to choose the nominee. Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida should get that chance. Then in November, we'll have a fair fight. And I'll be honest -- it may not help the chances for a Republican victory in the fall. But it will help something even more important: the integrity of our political process.


TagTag | Email Email | Print Print |
Comments
By Little Miss Nobody USA @ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:44 PM
Sorry, I forgot to click the Notigy Me button and the message was sent twice.
By Little Miss Nobody USA @ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:40 PM
MARCH 31, 2008
LADIES OF AMERICA,
IS THIS A MAN THING OR WHAT?
First they disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida; Now they want do not want to Allow Voters their right to vote for the candidate of their choice in 10 more States.
In this morning’s Rocky Mountain News (3-31-08) there is an article titled “Calls for Clinton to exit race anger women supporters.” Well, maybe it’s time the women came out in mass and supported Hillary, just to show the men of the nation that we, as women, do count. Let them hear our voices at the caucuses, the ballot boxes and the State Conventions coming up throughout the United States. Maybe SOME ONE should organize a MILLION WOMEN MARCH FOR DENVER IN AUGUST FOR UNITY, SOLIDARITY, AND PEACE. The men have it, why not women?
I don’t know about you but I am getting the very distinct feeling that “Men” don’t think women are their equals. Maybe it’s the idea that a woman would not have the intelligence, integrity, nor tenacity to lead the United States as President.
Is this a man thing or what? Now because the woman is some what behind in the polls, delegate vote and popular vote, PEOPLE ARE SECEAMING FOR HER TO DROP OUT. Look at the old time party politicians; Patrick Leahy, who last week became the first leading Democrat to openly call on Clinton to abandon her bid and back Obama; Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, and all the others on talk shows; DROP OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY. WHOSE PARTY? THE MEN’S PARTY OR THE GOOD OLD BOY’S PARTY? EXCUSE ME!
Well, the last time I looked we, the women of the United States, were given the right to vote for the candidate of our choice. Not a candidate dictated by our husbands, fathers, not brothers, ministers nor political “leaders.”
JUST SHUT UP AND DO AS YOUR TOLD! GET BEHIND THE MAN. Don’t divide the party!
Are we, the women, not a part of the party also? Why should the woman step down, Let the man step down. The final ballot has not been cast.
I don’t know about you, but my place in this life has never nor will it ever be “ behind the man. I deserve to stand beside a man. I am a worth while intelligent person that has the right to make a choice for myself for whomever I chose.
I don’t believe that the male population of the United States ever thought she could or would be a serious contender. The thought as far as I can determine was and is “ Let her play at running for president. When we get tired of the game, we can always pull the rug out from in under her. Then she can go home to the kitchen. Just placate her and it will all go away.”
When I was a working mother, I had to work twice as hard, try twice as hard and endure ridicule for work the work I did. I was told I was a stupid woman (nice terms) and “I should go home and have more babies and take care of them. Stay in the kitchen where I belonged.” What it was that men wouldn’t recognize, that is exactly what I was trying to do. “I was taking a “man’s job” so that he couldn’t support his family.” Well what about mine?
Women have endured discrimination, intimidation and sexual harassment in the work place for years. And it is still there in a lot of jobs.
I am enclosing part of a speech that Hillary Clinton made in New Delhi, India:
QUOTE “I want to talk with you today about what I consider central to a good common future that we can create together and that is--the importance of ensuring that women are invested in their own lives and able to participate fully in our national lives. Women represent over half the world's population. And yet in country after country, they lack access to education, to health services, to jobs, to political and civil rights. Where women lack access to education, health care and economic opportunity, children tend to be less educated, less well nourished and families tend to be both larger and poorer. Where women are illiterate, experience has shown that the environment is often poorly managed and democracy remains fragile. One lesson the experience of the last several decades teaches us is that where women prosper, countries prosper.
But the education of women has even greater benefits for societies. Education helps us understand and tolerate differences and so holds out the promise that we can live together more harmoniously. Education helps us comprehend the unsettling changes in our lives today and helps us better manage those changes. Education is as important to peace as it is to prosperity.
But what is it that we must do to bring women fully into our national lives, among other things, we must be able to attend school and learn, not just to be literate but to acquire the knowledge and skills--of medicine, of engineering, of management, of computers and so forth-that will contribute to the prosperity of their families and nations. Women must have access to health care, especially the care they need as expecting or new mothers. Wives, together with their husbands, must have access to family planning services to enable them to make voluntary, responsible and informed choices about the size of their families. And, children--girls as well as boys--must have access to preventive and curative medical care that will enable them to grow into healthy adults.
I recognize that discussion of such problems as education and health care for girls and women is viewed by some as "soft," labeled dismissively as a women's issues belonging, at best, on the edge of serious debate about all the problems we confront on the cusp of the 21st century. I want to argue strongly, however, that the questions surrounding social development, especially of women, as discussed at the recent social summit in Copenhagen, are at the center of our political and economic challenges. Governments, business and citizens must recognize and act upon the truth for the betterment of nations and our global family. But even assuming you would agree with my argument, what is to be done to bring about strategies for such development? That is a question that deserves far more analysis and discussion that I can offer here today, but let me suggest there are five key commitments needed to achieve this worthy goal of social development for women.” END QUOTE
MY NAME IS Little Miss Nobody USA AND I ENDORSE THIS MESSAGE
By Little Miss Nobody USA @ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:40 PM
MARCH 31, 2008
LADIES OF AMERICA,
IS THIS A MAN THING OR WHAT?
First they disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida; Now they want do not want to Allow Voters their right to vote for the candidate of their choice in 10 more States.
In this morning’s Rocky Mountain News (3-31-08) there is an article titled “Calls for Clinton to exit race anger women supporters.” Well, maybe it’s time the women came out in mass and supported Hillary, just to show the men of the nation that we, as women, do count. Let them hear our voices at the caucuses, the ballot boxes and the State Conventions coming up throughout the United States. Maybe SOME ONE should organize a MILLION WOMEN MARCH FOR DENVER IN AUGUST FOR UNITY, SOLIDARITY, AND PEACE. The men have it, why not women?
I don’t know about you but I am getting the very distinct feeling that “Men” don’t think women are their equals. Maybe it’s the idea that a woman would not have the intelligence, integrity, nor tenacity to lead the United States as President.
Is this a man thing or what? Now because the woman is some what behind in the polls, delegate vote and popular vote, PEOPLE ARE SECEAMING FOR HER TO DROP OUT. Look at the old time party politicians; Patrick Leahy, who last week became the first leading Democrat to openly call on Clinton to abandon her bid and back Obama; Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, and all the others on talk shows; DROP OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY. WHOSE PARTY? THE MEN’S PARTY OR THE GOOD OLD BOY’S PARTY? EXCUSE ME!
Well, the last time I looked we, the women of the United States, were given the right to vote for the candidate of our choice. Not a candidate dictated by our husbands, fathers, not brothers, ministers nor political “leaders.”
JUST SHUT UP AND DO AS YOUR TOLD! GET BEHIND THE MAN. Don’t divide the party!
Are we, the women, not a part of the party also? Why should the woman step down, Let the man step down. The final ballot has not been cast.
I don’t know about you, but my place in this life has never nor will it ever be “ behind the man. I deserve to stand beside a man. I am a worth while intelligent person that has the right to make a choice for myself for whomever I chose.
I don’t believe that the male population of the United States ever thought she could or would be a serious contender. The thought as far as I can determine was and is “ Let her play at running for president. When we get tired of the game, we can always pull the rug out from in under her. Then she can go home to the kitchen. Just placate her and it will all go away.”
When I was a working mother, I had to work twice as hard, try twice as hard and endure ridicule for work the work I did. I was told I was a stupid woman (nice terms) and “I should go home and have more babies and take care of them. Stay in the kitchen where I belonged.” What it was that men wouldn’t recognize, that is exactly what I was trying to do. “I was taking a “man’s job” so that he couldn’t support his family.” Well what about mine?
Women have endured discrimination, intimidation and sexual harassment in the work place for years. And it is still there in a lot of jobs.
I am enclosing part of a speech that Hillary Clinton made in New Delhi, India:
QUOTE “I want to talk with you today about what I consider central to a good common future that we can create together and that is--the importance of ensuring that women are invested in their own lives and able to participate fully in our national lives. Women represent over half the world's population. And yet in country after country, they lack access to education, to health services, to jobs, to political and civil rights. Where women lack access to education, health care and economic opportunity, children tend to be less educated, less well nourished and families tend to be both larger and poorer. Where women are illiterate, experience has shown that the environment is often poorly managed and democracy remains fragile. One lesson the experience of the last several decades teaches us is that where women prosper, countries prosper.
But the education of women has even greater benefits for societies. Education helps us understand and tolerate differences and so holds out the promise that we can live together more harmoniously. Education helps us comprehend the unsettling changes in our lives today and helps us better manage those changes. Education is as important to peace as it is to prosperity.
But what is it that we must do to bring women fully into our national lives, among other things, we must be able to attend school and learn, not just to be literate but to acquire the knowledge and skills--of medicine, of engineering, of management, of computers and so forth-that will contribute to the prosperity of their families and nations. Women must have access to health care, especially the care they need as expecting or new mothers. Wives, together with their husbands, must have access to family planning services to enable them to make voluntary, responsible and informed choices about the size of their families. And, children--girls as well as boys--must have access to preventive and curative medical care that will enable them to grow into healthy adults.
I recognize that discussion of such problems as education and health care for girls and women is viewed by some as "soft," labeled dismissively as a women's issues belonging, at best, on the edge of serious debate about all the problems we confront on the cusp of the 21st century. I want to argue strongly, however, that the questions surrounding social development, especially of women, as discussed at the recent social summit in Copenhagen, are at the center of our political and economic challenges. Governments, business and citizens must recognize and act upon the truth for the betterment of nations and our global family. But even assuming you would agree with my argument, what is to be done to bring about strategies for such development? That is a question that deserves far more analysis and discussion that I can offer here today, but let me suggest there are five key commitments needed to achieve this worthy goal of social development for women.” END QUOTE
MY NAME IS Little Miss Nobody USA AND I ENDORSE THIS MESSAGE
By suefornewt @ Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:10 PM
I'm sick of these primaries being decided by delegates that may decide to cast all their votes toward a single candidate, or split them haphazardly. Delegate votes should be be based on who wins their district, not some political decision of their own on who has the best chance. I GUESS I KEEP THINKING THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE ULTIMATELY IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVT. and our votes should reflect that power!
By Bro_Bri @ Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:47 AM
With respect to the "irony" of Bill Clinton being a Super Delegate...does this fact lean toward impropriety? I can understand quasi commitments of "non-committed" super delegates but being the husband of one of the candidates might be cause for recusation because it spanks of conflict of interest.
By John Ansell @ Monday, February 18, 2008 2:03 PM
Does anybody find it ironic that Bill is a superdelegate? Think about it for a second. Remember back to his little feet stomping tantrum in Las Vegas and how the culinary union vote will count more than others? How unfair that would be? Now I see he's a super delegate?
By Retired Chief @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:33 PM
This whole mess stinks of a not so subtle form of disenfranchisement
By TuxLady @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 8:46 PM
Newt is right to say that this affects us all. Republicans need not be smug about this. These are fellow Americans whose voices deserve to be heard.

Now I will repeat myself: Republicans need not be smug because our party is just as broken, just not as obviously. In that regard, the Democrats are lucky--their bulging boil will burst, and the healing can begin.

Republicans have an entrenched power structure as well. Fact: the delegate count to date DOES NOT reflect the the popular vote totals. If our delegates were apportioned according to popular vote, Romney and McCain would be duking it out.

Everyone says we can't get rid of a two party system, and that might be correct, but I think we should at least level the playing field--for both sides of the aisle so that THE PEOPLE, not the politicians decide the next President.
By dcranes@cox.net @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:29 AM
This system seems flawed. Delagates may
have been required in Jefferson's day but
now it would be a simple matter to obtain
the public vote. Using an ATM type registration card for qualified voters would
simplify and strain out cheating. We have the technology. We can rebuild it. Better,
faster, stronger. I think this may be an opportunity to revitalize and simplifize.
Both parties have had problems with this
system. Maybe there is ground for a new consensus-and a change. Let the public vote be counted-as it now does not. dlc
By johninaz @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 1:41 AM
The democrats made this mess with Florida and Michigan. I say let them deal with it at the convention. They did this in case the voters picked a nominee the party insiders didn't want. Now that it may happen they seem to be worried about the backlash of actually trying it. With as much discontent on the GOP side this may be McCains only chance of winning.
By nanajan @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:16 AM
With Michigan and Florida having had open primaries, how can the integrity of those primaries not be in question if the independent and democrat voters that voted other than democrat in those primaries can now change their votes to for democrat? IMHO there is not real solution to the problem. Even before this screwup of pushing for early primaries, there was no integrity what with fraud and corruption running rampant. Why should it be of great concern now? Let the democrats battle it out. Maybe they will lose in Nov., need I say I am not a democrat? :)
Click Here to post a comment