Reply #84: This is covered at The Buzz blog of the St. Pete Times...response by Michael Steinberg [View All]

[madfloridian]

in the comments. Michael is now chair of the Hillsborough County DEC. He mentions that he was not at the time. Our DEC chair requested by email that people withhold money from the DNC. I guess many others did as well. Now I guess some wonder, so he answered.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/02/appellate-court.html

First the blog post itself:

"Vic DiMaio, a party activist in Hillsborough County, sued the Democratic National Committee over its decision to strip Florida of its delegates because its Jan. 29 primary was earlier than party rules allow.

Federal district court judge Richard A. Lazzara harshly dismissed the case in October, saying the suit was so flawed he wouldn't even let DiMaio amend it and try again. He said prior court rulings had made clear that political parties, as private entities, can set their own rules in selecting presidential candidates.

Now the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta is saying, not so fast. It wants to hear more after reading written pleadings. Federal appellate courts don't always take oral arguments.

"It doesn't tell me we're going to win," said Michael Steinberg, a Social Security lawyer who serves as chairman of the Hillsborough County Democratic Executive Committee and is respresenting DiMaio. "It tells me that they're going to make some sort of precedential ruling."

One of the comments questions about the lawsuit coming from the DEC chair.

Steinberg's response in the comments:

The lawsuit was filed in August, 2007. Both the DNC and the FDP were named. It asked the court to declare whether the actions of the DNC were constitutional. If they were, it asked the court to direct the FDP to comply with the DNC's directive to conduct an alternate primary election or caucus.

When the appeal was filed, all national polls indicated Clinton was a lock for the nomination.

The purpose of the lawsuit was to establish a precedent for future elections. We assumed that in this election, one candidate would be the presumed nominee and the Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated at the convention despite the earlier ruling of the DNC.

If this suit was filed last week, or the appeal was filed last week, your argument would have more merit, but both were filed long ago, well before I was elected chair of the HCDEC.

Hopefully the outcome of this case will not determine the Democratic nominee, but if it does, it was not initiated or appealed for that purpose.

Michael Steinberg

In my mind, I can not separate that the purpose was NOT to determine the nominee, especially now that it is going to be heard. In my mind, simple though it may be....there are party rules for doing that.

So if the lawsuit does determine the nominee in any way...it simply means to me that the nominee will not be a legitimate one in my mind. I have been angered by this all day.

There is a very important article at The Nation today. It goes into a lot of detail about Dean's contributions to the party. It is stuff those of us who supported him have always known, just haven't seen in writing.

What he has done in FL and MI is to try to restore when two of the largest states starting leapfrogging...for their own purposes...mostly selfish ones.

It took courage for him to take this stand, and it was necessary. It is probably what he will be remembered for unfondly, more so than the fact that the party organization into the 50 state strategy has brought big results...and is in part responsible for the large turnouts.

I don't think there is any way to gauge the true anger that will erupt if a ruling is made that determines the nominee by negating party rules. Florida was one of the first states to be under the control of the New Democrats and the Blue Dog Democrats. We still are. People like me are looked upon as insurgents, as fringe. Yet that is just a lie to keep us in our places.

This is not a wise move.