Oh the democracy of it all. To listen to the members of the Rules and By-Laws panel at today's meeting of the Democratic National Committee, you'd believe that when it comes to respecting voters, their choices and election fairness, the Democrats are a stand-up bunch of rule makers: the very model of a modern democratic institution.

Oh how we forget. The year was 2007 – the same year that the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling set forth the rules now at the core of the delegate befuddle. The place was a courthouse in Washington DC. where independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader was suing the Democrats for blocking him from getting on the 2004 presidential election ballot in 18 states. Those being sued included Democratic nominees John Kerry and John Edwards, DNC officials and a group called the Ballot Project -- which, when it came to Nader's candidacy, might more accurately have been called the anti-ballot project.

"The lawsuit was to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and votes," said Nader last year. "Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices and a more open and competitive democracy." Somehow I doubt that those words are reflected in the guiding principles of the Party's Commission on Presidential you-know-what.

Amid the self-congratulation today, it'd be smart to take a moment to reflect: many of those established Dems who grouse today were grinning in 2004 when Nader's ballots were banished. So as you sew, so shall ye reap, some might say. And the panel members better hope no one was listening too carefully: after all the high-brow talk, the public may think that the Party stands up for all voters -- even the third party kind.

A version of this commentary (with help from Carl Ginsburg) first appeared on GRITtv. GRITtv with Laura Flanders plays on Free Speech TV directly following Democracy Now and online, at Firedoglake.com or GRITtv.org. Sign up for a video feed.

Comments (36)

1. Oh, boy....another Nader Cultist.

   Gee, Ms Flanders, you think maybe those Democrats were trying to save us and the country from...oh....I don't know...

   the last four years, maybe?

   Considering Ralph helped give us the FIRST four?

   (I await the Naderite attempt at guilt absolution, CRABWALK et al)

   Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 8:11pm

2. Considering Ralph helped give us the FIRST four?

   Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008

   so did you.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 8:42pm

3. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008

   I don't think Mask voted for Nader or Bush so that's not really helping.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/31/2008 @ 8:54pm

4. Posted by Cccomfo1

   i would not vote for nader.

   but he can run if he wants to.

   so can you.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 9:00pm

5. At least Ralph Nader believes it is wrong to kill Iraqis. Democrats and Republicans simply wrangle over the tactics used to kill them. Iron fist or silk glove, the result is the same.

   Posted by onthehelm at 05/31/2008 @ 9:08pm

6. Oh he can run all he wants to, he meets the qualifications for sure. The question of course is SHOULD he. And if his goal is to make things worse before he can make them better (and they call Obama Messianic!) then making sure Grandpa gets in is the perfect way to do so.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/31/2008 @ 9:10pm

7. cultists!

   CULtists!

   CULTISTS!

   CULTISTS!!!

   pant pant

   cultistsss

   cult-tistsss

   precious cultists

   Gore didn't lose precious, cultists took precious

   hates cultists, hates them

   Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 9:11pm

8. When the Democrats try to prevent their competition from participating in the political process, as they did to Ralph Nader in 2004, they go too far. Not only do they violate the rights of Nader and his supporters to speech, petition and assembly, but they also deny the rest of us a free choice of candidates in the election. This strategy of suppressing voter choice simply is not compatible with democratic principles - most notably those of political equality and representative government. That's why, apart from Democrats, only repressive regimes like Castro's Cuba and Putin's Russia tend to adopt the strategy. Sure, you can vote in Cuba or Russia, just not for a candidate of your free choice. Rather than scapegoating another candidate for their own political failings, Democrats should demand more from their party. It is no coincidence that Democrats not only acquiesced, but actively enabled George W. Bush's worst acts, including the war in Iraq, the surge, the Patriot Act, Roberts, Alito, and on and on. If Democrats simply opposed the Republicans' high crimes and misdemeanors, they wouldn't have to worry about another candidate coming along who does.

   Posted by Tom Jeff at 05/31/2008 @ 9:11pm

9. When the Democrats try to prevent their competition from participating in the political process, as they did to Ralph Nader in 2004, they go too far. Not only do they violate the rights of Nader and his supporters to speech, petition and assembly, but they also deny the rest of us a free choice of candidates in the election. This strategy of suppressing voter choice simply is not compatible with democratic principles - most notably those of political equality and representative government. That's why, apart from Democrats, only repressive regimes like Castro's Cuba and Putin's Russia tend to adopt the strategy. Sure, you can vote in Cuba or Russia, just not for a candidate of your free choice. Rather than scapegoating another candidate for their own political failings, Democrats should demand more from their party. It is no coincidence that Democrats not only acquiesced, but actively enabled George W. Bush's worst acts, including the war in Iraq, the surge, the Patriot Act, Roberts, Alito, and on and on. If Democrats simply opposed the Republicans' high crimes and misdemeanors, they wouldn't have to worry about another candidate coming along who does.

   Posted by Tom Jeff at 05/31/2008 @ 9:12pm

10. I absolve you MASK.

    (this is me flicking DragonSlayer Imperial Stout at you..flick, flick)

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 9:18pm

11. cccomfy:

    mask's an honorary canadian!

    he apologized for it and i hated to bring it up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 9:20pm

12. Gee, Ms Flanders, you think maybe those Democrats were trying to save us and the country from...oh....I don't know... the last four years, maybe? Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008

    And how did that strategy work out for the Dems?

    Why does Florida stand as the crucial state that cost Gore/Lieberman the election?

    One more time: Even having lost in Florida, Gore would have had enough electoral votes to win the Presidency if he had carried his own state.

    No candidate has ever won the Presidency without winning his own state.

    Or am I missing how Nader cost Gore Tennessee?

    Posted by Radscal at 05/31/2008 @ 9:20pm

13. not for being an HC, but for 2000.

    typokarma

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 9:28pm

14. No, cccom....frosty is right.

    I've admitted it...I voted for Bush in 2000.

    but 'lest CRABBY get all snotty, I accept what I did was wrong, and have tried to make it right (by supporting Kerry in 2004 and speaking out against the other Nader VANITY run in 2004 and this one).

    That's the difference....to use religious terms, I sinned, admit my sin, have repented and seek atonement.

    CRABBY and the Naderites still won't admit what they did, did it again in 2004 (fortunately only 0.34% of them), and want to DO IT AGAIN this year.

    I will never make that mistake again.

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 10:30pm

15. Flick

    flick

    you voted for BUSH! but it's Naders fault that you voted for Bush?

    gonna need a barrel of stout for this absolution.

    Look in the mirror, MASK, you caused Gore to lose, not a third party. Time to get of your high horse and do more than accept your sin.

    MASK caused the war in Iraq

    MASK got Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court

    MASK helped out after Katrina

    not Nader, MASK.

    And all the other people that voted FOR George W. Bush.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:17am

16. Don't you live in Florida oh Ye Hypocrite?

    did you live in FL in 2000? Cuz if you did, you put Alito on the bench.

    Man, this is just too rich.

    MASK voted for Bush, but he blames Nader for Bushs win. Classic neo-con logic. Have you been taking lessons from PONTIFLOGIC?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:20am

17. Considering MASK helped give us the FIRST four?

    Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:20am

18. Or am I missing how Nader cost Gore Tennessee?

    Posted by Radscal at 05/31/2008

    Or did MASK live in TN in 2000?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:22am

19. Why didn't the dems allot 3/5 of a vote per delegate? There is historical precedent.

    What a crock of Stimpy!! Hillary stinks!

    Rules are for the little people.

    flip flop

    rhymes with witch.

    Hillaries flunkies are workin that pontiFlogic!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:33am

20. Intellectual honesty seems to be completely contrary to modern american politics. Hill-Billary were how honest when agreeing along with the other Dem candidates to boycott Fla and Mich then claiming to have won and to deserve all the delegates?

    Isn't this pattern also the reason why the Dems voted to put the patriot act and the Iraq war on our dinner tables?

    They seemed to think they could give away the rights of other people (read Arabs and Muslims), without giving away their own rights. I believe there was a large number of non-jewish, non-gay, non-gypsy europeans in the '30s who thought they could give away others' rights. Might want to look into how that worked out for them.

    So it is, that Dems think they can fight against the rights of the disenfranchised to have a candidate of their own without eroding democratic rights for their own candidates.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I worked as a volunteer for the campaign to draft Nader in 1996, helped get him on the ballot and volunteered at campaign events in 2000 and was convinced by friends to vote for Kerry in 2004. This was the first time that I ever held my nose and voted for a major party nominee in the five elections in which I've been able to vote. It's also the first time I felt like I threw my vote away.

    I was also ready to fight hard for Nader's candidacy in '08 if the Clintons managed to steal the nomination. But, with Obama (as it would have been with Edwards) I finally have a Dem nominee I can whole-heartedly support.

    To get a true progressive candidate and to get rid of the Clintons and all those DLC DINO's, this is what we fought so hard for and I, for one, am quite proud of our efforts. Now, we need to support efforts to push these multi-hued dog DINO's out of congress. It's of no use for us to have a Dem majority if we elect Dems pushing Republican agendas, like free trade, corporate welfare, anti-union, pro-privatization policies such as the Clinton years brought us.

    The time to make a change is now! It's up to us to make it happen!

    Posted by ContraryBastard at 06/01/2008 @ 09:37am

21. Hillary:" victory is just around the corner".

    O-2055

    H-1880

    Obviously H has more than O.

    PontiFlogic algorithm with transverse MASKIAN string theory

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:38am

22. CB, didn't you know that in the USof A, the greates country on Earth, the center of freedom and democracy, home of the free, land of the brave

    only d's and r's are allowed to run for office?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:41am

23. flick

    flick

    We can never know about the days to come

    But we think about them anyway

    And I wonder if Im really with you now

    Or just chasing after some finer day.

    absolution, absolution

    Is making me late

    Is keeping me waiting

    (apologies to Carly)

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:46am

24. end resian posts

    lead into "White People Cryin..."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:48am

25. Crabwalk, my mistake. American democracy is a way to count dollars, not votes.

    If only there were a machine that could recalculate votes into dollars. Die-Bold!

    Posted by ContraryBastard at 06/01/2008 @ 09:50am

26. Mask deserves a lot of credit for admitting a mistake, and fooled once, won't get fooled again. You have full standing as far as I am concerned mask. We've all made mistakes, it takes a bigger person to admit it and move on. Now its time for Obama to clean house and send gramps back to Sedona where he hangs out.

    Posted by mrsanfran at 06/01/2008 @ 1:29pm

27. Posted by mrsanfran at 06/1/2008

    No argument there, MRSANFRAN. the problem is that MASK has been blaming Nader for Bush's win this whole time, when MASK voted for Bush.

    and he has been blaming me for "costing Gore the election" when in fact my vote did no such thing, MASKS did.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 4:15pm

28. Posted by crabwalk at 06/1/2008

    CRAB, Bush won my state by more than 300,000 votes. If me and 600 other Bush voters had switched to Gore....no difference.

    If 600 Florida Nader voters had switched to Gore or "vote traded".....there wouldn't have been the last 8 years.

    I've apologized and tried to make amends (as best I can) for what I did in 2000.

    You want to keep repeating the mistake, with no apologies, in fact with apologia...as well as a cult-like following for a man who predicted "virtually no difference" between a Gore Presidency and Bush one...

    and if ANYBODY thinks they can make that case without looking like the most delusional fanatic....go for it.

    Posted by Mask at 06/01/2008 @ 8:21pm

29. If I had voted for Bush, I would wear a mask too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2008 @ 07:00am

30. And if 600 dems that voted for Bush had voted for gore, or if 600 Jews had not voted for Buchanon by mistake, or if 600 other "third party" voters had not voted for another 3rd party candidate, or if Gore had ran his campaign like he wanted to win or... or... or

    Cryin'

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2008 @ 07:02am

31. Maybe MASK could explain to us how different the dem congress has been than the repub congress when it comes to their treatment of Bush policies.

    Have they impeached him?

    Have they stopped the war?

    Did they stop Alito and Roberts, or even put up a small fight as "the opposition party"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2008 @ 07:05am

32. From Wikipedia:

    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. ... The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. ... On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. ... Clarence Thomas ... argued that ..."something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution."

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/02/2008 @ 1:09pm

33. Nader sucks!

    Posted by edwriter at 06/02/2008 @ 5:13pm

34. Nader sucks!

    Posted by edwriter at 06/2/2008

    You got something against progressives with a record of achievement?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2008 @ 11:12pm

35. Again, why the focus on Florida? Isn't it obvious that Jeb was going to keep his promise to Duhbya to deliver Florida to Bush/Cheney no matter what it took?

    600 votes? Seriously? Tens of thousands of Florida's citizens were denied their right to vote (oh wait, the Supreme Court declared in Gore v. Bush that voting wasn't a right after all). Yet we argue about 600 people who voted for the actual American hero who was running?

    Gore/Lieberman were such weak candidates that they allowed the election to get close enough to permit the Bush/Cheney campaign's dirty dealing to install them in the White House.

    Posted by Radscal at 06/03/2008 @ 01:36am

36. The Democratic Party is the single largest organization standing in the way of social progress in the U.S.

    Period.

    The Republicans don't pretend. They are just the plain enemy. The Democrats tell you they are going to solve all of your problems. 10, 20, 30, 40 years later? Ah, no. Same problems, different day, in fact worse problems.

    Keep on voting, keep on believing, they are like a vampire sucking the blood out of each succeeding bunch of 'believers' to stay alive.

    Bottom line, they are run by a bunch of liberal billionaires who have different financial interests than the group of billionaires that run the other party.

    Vote on, voting cattle, vote on.

    Posted by ElyDog at 06/03/2008 @ 12:15pm