RBC Selectively Enforced Its “Rules”
By LisaB on June 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM in Current Affairs, Delegates, Democratic National Convention, Democrats, Disenfranchisement, Florida, Michigan
The saga of the Florida and Michigan would-be delegates to the Democratic National Convention took an interesting turn today.
As most people probably know, both Florida and Michigan moved their primaries forward in defiance of party rules. As a result, FL and MI were stripped of their delegates and much hilarity ensued, with the RBC finally meeting to determine how, if at all, the delegates from FL and MI would be seated at the convention. More hijinks.
What you may not know is that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also moved their primaries up in defiance of the “rules.”
Read the rest ->
As reported at The Confluence, (lots more detail there), these three states were allowed to move their primaries up, but not before certain dates.
Iowa was NOT supposed to go before 1/5. The caucus was held 1/3.
New Hampshire was NOT supposed to go before 1/22. The primary was held 1/8.
South Carolina was NOT supposed to go before 1/29. The primary was held 1//26.
The above information is from a document submitted as part of the lawsuit over delegate seating. The document clearly shows that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were also “noncompliant” in the matter of scheduling primaries/caucus.
So, there were five states that moved up their delegate selection process in defiance of written rules stating when those primaries could be held. And according to the “rules,” (rule Rule 20 C 1 a, to be specific) ANY state that moved its selection process up beyond an acceptable date is supposed to have 50% of its delegates stripped.
And yet only two states had delegates stripped. How does that work?
60% Off at $84.00: 
OR buy the DVD version for 40% off at $20.99: 
DVD Version: 
- An account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.
