The Political Chase

More on Dems ‘no primary redo’ in Florida

More details surfaced today on the Florida Democrats “no primary redo” decision I discussed earlier.

Yesterday, “Democratic Party officials” (no specifics given) were “close to completing a plan” on a mail-in “redo” Florida primary. And according to those dedicated officials and fine public servants, details were to be finalized today, and “would most likely submit the proposal to Howard Dean” by the end of the week.

In fact, they progressed so well, the plan or agreement was formally announced by Dan McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). Nelson is a Clinton supporter, therefore one can surely assume McLaughlin is as well. (Emphasis added.)

“Unless Howard Dean changes his mind and seats the Florida delegation as apportioned by the January primary,” Mr. McLaughlin said, “this is the most fair and inclusive way to allow Floridians to have their voices heard.”

How telling was that?

Interestingly enough, all of the New York Times sources for the alleged agreement are on background with the exception of McLaughlin. he Times cites “Democratic party officials” and “several people involved in the discussions.” Hmm….why so covert?

So, some “Democratic official(s)” made a decision to publicly announce a plan, characterized as “the most fair and inclusive way” that: (i) will resolve a highly contentious national issue (significantly implies agreement); (ii) will be a substantial factor in determining the next President of the United States; (iii) will effect millions of lives, and McLaughlin is the sole person making the announcement?

Nope. Nothing strange or unusual about that at all.

These pols are not first-term county library trustees or directors. The spokesperson for the senior Senator from Florida should have more than enough experience and savvy to recognize announcing major Party “decisions” on very contentious and important national issues normally calls for more than one bloke at the podium. But that’s the point. There may have been a plan, but at best there was no consensus or agreement on the plan, other than among those with one self-serving objective.

Does anyone really doubt that an Obama or a surrogate would not be present for the announcement if Obama representatives had participated in the development or approval of the plan? Would Hillary Clinton not be there to bask in the glory of yet another successful peacemaking mission? Indeed.

Nelson’s meeting and McLaughlin’s subsequent announcement caused a dust-up with House members from Florida, and other Florida superdelegates. Terse statements, threats of lawsuits, and characterizing Nelson’s plan as “delusional” is in stark contrast to the spin McLaughlin laid on reporters during his formal announcement.

But after meeting with Mr. Nelson on Tuesday night, Florida’s Democratic members of the House of Representatives added a serious new wrinkle by announcing they were unanimously opposed to a mail-in contest. They did not elaborate, but released a statement that said, “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.” The statement also said the delegation was committed to working with state and national Democrats and the two candidates “to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.”

Allan Katz, a superdelegate from Tallahassee who supports Mr. Obama, said the plan was “delusional” given the tight time frame, the state’s lack of experience with mail-in balloting and its history of voting troubles.

“The likelihood of this being pulled off without lawsuits galore is, I think, very remote,” he said. “They have no chance of doing this right; only the chance of another election fiasco in Florida.”

The Times piece provides some much needed background and clarity to the rather ambiguous statement I discussed earlier today. It also arguably leads to one conclusion. There was no agreement, except maybe among those already in agreement (viz. Team Clinton). And “fair and inclusive” was applicable to only those included in Nelson’s meeting.

The piece does not indicate directly or indirectly whether views other than pro-Hillary Clinton views were represented or invited to Nelson’s meeting. But given reactions after the meeting and McLaughlin’s announcement, there is little else to conclude other than Obama representatives were not informed nor participants.

More importantly, there is a serious absence of collegial or post-partisan effort in this and many other similar matters. If a given candidate cannot or will not work collegially during the campaign, are we supposed to be so stupid as to believe and accept that the candidate(s) will be vastly different upon moving into the White House?

I firmly believe we are witnessing an accurate portrayal today of how the candidate(s) will govern tomorrow.