Primary Ponderings
Posted March 17th, 2008 by Da King
Democrats cried 'voter disenfranchisement !' in the 2000 presidential elections.
Democrats cried 'voter disenfranchisement !' in the 2004 presidential elections.
So there was more than a touch of irony when Democrats disenfranchised the voters of two entire states in their own 2008 presidential primary elections. You couldn't make this stuff up. Nobody would believe it. I hate to say I told you so Dems, but you made Howard Dean the head of the Democratic National Committee all on your own…so…
I told you so.
As if it wasn't bad enough that the Democrats hold enough super delegates in reserve (796) to trump the will of the people in any reasonably close primary election, now the decision over what to do about Florida and Michigan hangs over their heads like the sword of Damocles.
And the Democrats don't seem to have the slightest idea what to do about it. There's leadership for you. I even heard one Democratic pol from Florida blaming the whole thing on the Republicans. I guess some habits are hard to break.
The would-be leaders of the Democratic party, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, offered their own self-serving "solutions" (and with a straight face too ! Politicians are a special breed).
Hillary says the Florida and Michigan primaries should be counted, even though everyone knew they wouldn't count beforehand, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (note - "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote against Hillary in Michigan. There's a ringing endorsement of the former first lady, I mean co-president). Hillary's "solution" would result in two huge wins for, who else - Hillary. Pure integrity, that gal. At this point, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the left for finally catching on to the tactics of the Clintons, albeit 15 years too late. Welcome to the light.
For his part, Obama offered a "compromise" position, whereby each he and Hillary would get 50% of the delegates in the two states. Beautiful solution, Barack. It disenfranchises the voters, and virtually guarantees that you are the nominee. More integrity right back at ya, Hillary.
Let's call both of these candidates the unDemocrats, and the whole process the unDemocratic primaries.
On the plus side, the voters in both Puerto Rico and Guam will be enfranchised, and may even play a crucial role. The second irony is that these people who can't even devise a fair primary election are vying to run the country. Yep, I bet they'll be able to manage universal health care just wonderfully.
I suppose eventually the Dems will realize there have to be do-overs in Florida and Michigan, since angering the voters in two big swing states won't be very helpful when the general election rolls around. I'm pretty sure someone will make Howard Dean aware of that. Of course, the best course would be to remove Dean as head of the DNC and replace him with someone more competent, like maybe Brownie.
I can see it now. There will be no nominee when the Democratic Convention starts. Obama will hold a 75 delegate lead, and Hillary will have captured the popular vote and won the big swing states (this is my dream scenario). The super delegates will run screaming from the convention hall start picking their candidates…
And it's a tie with only one super delegate left !
And that super delegate is…
Bill Clinton !
With Al Sharpton standing right next to him.
So Bill picks Obama.
Then Hillary is named as Obama's vice president (following the divorce).
Nine months later, Obama becomes the first U.S. president to commit suicide.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Just blame it all on the "failed policies of George Bush". All kidding aside, it appears that the doomocrats are incapable of holding a raffle, let alone a primary. What I find most beautiful ,in this scenario, is that it is a completely partisan effort and the dooms are not disappointing. It appears that the calm in the Republican primaries has led to a magnification of the idiocracy being conducted in looney leftville.
While attempting to divert criticism of the Florida debacle and blame it on the Republican run legislature, it was somehow forgotten that the bill was introduced by senator Jeremy Rings-D and that no democrats were opposed to the motion.
As far as super-delegates, the PD was kind enough to print my take in Saturday's edition. It sums up the SD wars.
Oh, cry me a river! Now we have an other example of something they were for before they were against it.
Where was all this concern over superdelegates prior to the onset of the primaries? Is this "new" concept - conceived in 1982 - still too complex for the liberal intellect? Superdelegates may not have played a major role in recent history, but now ignorance prevails. Is it not shameful that, as a conservative, I understand the logistics of the Democratic primaries better than the party's own constituents?
Despite what feels nice, superdelegates are not bound by popular vote results, public opinion, the liberal media or even a responsibility for preventing impending riots. They are free to vote their conscience and, given enough incentive, change their minds.
Though this may not be indicative of a true democracy, it is consistent with socialist ideology: Allow the sheep to participate, but never relinquish control of the outcome.
With the possibility of revotes in Florida and Michigan, there will be enough excitement - and recounts - to go around.
From "hope" and "change" to completely hopeless!
***In closing, I'm sure many will be "surprised" by the new findings. It seems that the invisible man has been visible at one of these "inspirational" tirades. In other words, he's been placed at the "pew" of the crime. I now cannot imagine any rebuttal, other than…………….."I am a big fat liar"! The wheels have finally come off the Broccoli express.***
March 17th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Alexander is correct in noting,
" ….it appears that the doomocrats are incapable of holding a raffle, let alone a primary."
And think of the irony here. These Dims, that have so screw up their primary, are the same clowns that want the country to entrust its health care system to, the same Dims that expect America to trust our complex foreign relations to, etc.
Look at Fla. and Michigan. The Dims said one thing at the beginning of the primary season — namely that if these states went ahead with their early voting, they wouldn't have any delegates at the Dim national convention — and now they're saying something else.
Think how this inherent dishonesty would work with, say, health care if these clowns ever came to power. For example, Comrade Hillary would promise you one thing and then change her little mind a few months later.
+++
And Alex, who but a complete fool could be surprised that Hussein Obama sat through more than one of Rev. Wright's hate filled ravings during his 20-year membership in that Chicago Church of Hate? Look at Obama's bitter wife; she no doubt drank Rev. Wright's brand of anti-Americanism and hate Whitey rhetoric.
And remember BO's own words — "Words count."
+++++
Bless King's soul; he doesn't think Obama is a racist.
I do.
But at the very least, the burden of proof is on BO to show otherwise given the bigot he freely chose as his family's spiritual adviser. It's would be as if McCain had David Duke as his pastor for the past 20-years.
+++
But now the liberal line of defense of Obama's racism is that the country should patronize the Negro like the Dims do and overlook the anti-antisemitism, hate, and paranoia that plagues much of the black community and its churches.
This is what is called the bigotry of soft expectations. It is rampant within the Dim Party. The Dims might put up with it, but most surely, normal America won't.
+++
Look for the Dim establishment to find a way to dump Sen. B. Hussein Obama. They know the guy is poison for their election chances in November.
This creates its own problems.
McCain's job is getting easier and easier. Landslide!
March 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The best part of all this is that one of the number 1 Obama supporters, Oprah Winfrey joined up with Wright's church in 1984 and sometime soon after that all of a sudden withdrew from the place. Now I wonder if that could have been because she feared that her future could be destroyed by his racism. Surely Obama could have seen that coming in 20 years of attendance there.
Maybe my info about this came from that most horrible of all sources, Newsmax, and we all know they never get anything right. They say that they called attention to the rantings of the Reverend Wright in May 2007 and the MSM avoided it much like they are trying to do now.
Here the Dems are trying to figure out how to blame Bush or other Republicans for their lack of ability to run a primary and the "candidates" are set to go at each other's throats and the party "leaders" can't figure out how to keep from disenfranchising all those poor people in Florida and Michigan. Old Howie was so sure it would all blow over and now if is blowing right down on his pointy little head.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I know that conservatives, generally, disregard rules, laws, etc….if they are inconvenient. The last 7 years have brought that lesson home to observers of Bush administration actions.
So don't blame me for being a tad skeptical of the cries going up here for Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan. The cries ring hollow.
Michigan and Florida were instructed….according to party rules….to not move up their primary dates. They did it anyway.They were warned that if they did, their delegates would not be seated. Hillary and Obama signed their names to THOSE rules.
Now Republicans would just throw out the rules or act like they never existed. I understand that. Hillary's comments about the two states are understandable because she's trailing and has no mathematical path to the nomination.
The ONLY reason any of this sanctimony and faux-concern for democracy, from Repulbicans, is being spouted is because it's the Democrats who are locked in a tight, extremely tight, primary race. When extremely close elections present themselves, Republicans look to game the system ala 2000 Florida. That's because Republicans see rules and regulations as optional.
To prove what I'm saying is true. King, you have commenters here who are blood red Republican, who have, at the instruction of Dittohead, registered as Democrats to game the primary system, voted for Hillary (McCain's weaker potential opponent) in an attempt to hurt Obama's chances. They aren't Democrats, they would never vote for Democrats, yet it's perfectly okay for them to violate, at the very least, the spirit of election law.
Would that, by any chance, be an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Ohio? Could the actions of Dittoheads be regarded as a conspiracy to add delegates to Hillary's column, that Democrats, themselves, did not vote to include?
How ethical, moral, democratic, and fair-minded would all that be?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Rules are Rules!
That's catchy, the kind of change I can believe in.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I feel if they let the Michigan and Florida delegates count, the DNC sets a bad precedent. They told those states not to move up their primaries - if they did, they would lose their delegates. MI and FL did it anyways. If they are allowed to still get delegates, what is to stop some state from making their primary in November 2011 for the 2012 election?
March 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I agree with Ben. See? I'm not that hard to get along with.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Rev said: To prove what I'm saying is true. King, you have commenters here who are blood red Republican, who have, at the instruction of Dittohead, registered as Democrats to game the primary system, voted for Hillary (McCain's weaker potential opponent) in an attempt to hurt Obama's chances. They aren't Democrats, they would never vote for Democrats, yet it's perfectly okay for them to violate, at the very least, the spirit of election law.
After 20 years of following the rules, I was one of the "Hillary for a day" supporters. While I do enjoy listening to Rush, this was my intention prior and I'd like to share my thoughts.
I have been thoroughly disgusted with the primary process in my party. While the democrat system is catered to allow a far-left candidate to emerge, the Republican process seems to become watered down in the early stages. I am a staunch opponent of "open" primaries, as they allow early manipulation of the process and, when coupled with the liberal media, front-runners emerge that do not emulate conservative sentiment. I became sickened by the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries because registered Republicans did not have their majority share.
If we were to do this process right……………states with the highest number of registered Republicans would set the priority of order. And yes, they would all be closed! If someone were able to screw their head on correctly and realize this, we could have a Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, or other hard-liners emerge from the process. The system is inherently biased to left of center tilt.
My vote for Hillary was an objection to my Republican primaries, as well as a spoiler vote to push the libs to the brink of destruction. Even with my spirits diminished in our process, the libs need a complete overhaul of theirs.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
1. Absolutely, Alex, primary eelctions should be closed to party members.
2. It's funny how the Dim and other lefties thought it was great to vote in the GOP primaries in S.C. and N.H. and thereby help choose McCain as the GOP candidate but then they cried like stucked pigs when some Republicans use the similar tactic on them in Ohio and Texas.
Ah those Dims, it's always do what they say, not what they do.
3. And indeed, Alex, the Dims are literally being pushed to the brink of destruction with 1) the primary mess they have created for themselves and 2) the outting of B. Hussein Obama as an America hater.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
folks,
The dem. party has it under control. Have you forgotten about the 70+ add on delegates that will be named just proir to the convention. These enlightened delegates will take the necessary action to assure that the will of the people will be heeded. Has the Democratic not heralded the sanctity of one man one vote and the will of the people since the election was "stolen" in 2000. Never forget the Democratic party is the party of fairness,openness and honesty.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Rev,
"Michigan and Florida were instructed….according to party rules….to not move up their primary dates. They did it anyway.They were warned that if they did, their delegates would not be seated. Hillary and Obama signed their names to THOSE rules".
Did the millions of Florida and Michigan voters sign their names to those rules ? Did they agree to be disenfranchised ? Nope, they weren't even asked. I guess the peons don't count, especially if YOUR candidate benefits, Rev. How very democratic of you. I'm sure the Dem mob bosses appreciate your support of their pseudo-election.
And don't think I don't know that if Hillary was your choice of candidate, you'd be making the opposite argument.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
King,
Totally correct!
I guess all of their focus is on "appearing" democratic and Democracy doesn't seem to matter when inter-party warfare is conducted. Besides, their cult seems to rely on what the candidates say………….not do.
Personally, I'd love to have revotes because the time bomb keeps getting worse for the DNC. At least I'm honest about my spoiler intentions, unlike those who hide behind the double-standard when it comes to democracy.
If they could stop the earth's rotation, in the 2000 election, and have 3 recounts to confirm the initial outcome……………….there's plenty of time to stage 2 more primaries and let no voter be disenfranchised. I love how karma bites back.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Rev, Alex said:
"My vote for Hillary was an objection to my Republican primaries, as well as a spoiler vote to push the libs to the brink of destruction. Even with my spirits diminished in our process, the libs need a complete overhaul of theirs."
That has to be the most ridiculous reason yet I have heard as to why so many (allegedly) Rs voted for Hilary. Rev has once again spoken so accurately and concisely that the Rs have no legitimate answer for his points, other than to change the question. Alas, where was all this disenfranchisment chatter when you guys were winning?
March 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Ridiculous maybe, but there's no studder in my step and the primary process is what it is…………..a wreck.
While you are right about rules being rules, I think there is a more important question King hinted to and it is being avoided. Why were Obama and Hillary so willing to sign off the rights of the voters in those 2 states? They walk and talk democratic and roll like socialists. With their selfish actions, they can no longer turn to the disenfranchised card.
And they are worried about the superdelegates imposing their own wills? Please.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
addendum to previous response.
While I have no stake in the Democratic parties, it is obvious that you do.
What you must decide is…………….what is more important?………………………Preserving one of the "professed" core principles of your party (letting every voice be heard)………………….or does your allegiance to Obama trump this principle?
p.s. You might want to line up a couple dozen flags, behind the stage, when you answer this one.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
This….
" It's funny how the Dim and other lefties thought it was great to vote in the GOP primaries in S.C. and N.H. and thereby help choose McCain as the GOP candidate but then they cried like stucked pigs when some Republicans use the similar tactic on them in Ohio and Texas."
…requires evidence. Have any?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
This….
"What you must decide is…………….what is more important?………………………Preserving one of the "professed" core principles of your party (letting every voice be heard)………………….or does your allegiance to Obama trump this principle?"
…is a straw man. Democrats, as a unified party working towards the goal of putting a Democrat in the White House, agreed as a party with the strategy to accompish that objective. What that strategy included was an agreement that if Fla. and Mich. moved up their primary dates…..the strategy that all the Democrats agreed upon, including Hillary and Obama, would be disrupted.
Commenters, like Alex and King, voice their objections to this by suggesting Fla. and Mich. voters are being disenfranchised. This isn't true. The Democratic voters in those states disenfranchised themselves when their state political leaders defied the national party objective.
Those same state voters will have the choice in a general election to vote for the Democratic candidate chosen through the strategy Fla. and Mich. chose to reject.
Ben, though a Republican, is quite correct about this issue.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I have yet to run into a Hillary or Obama supporter who thinks the will of individual voters in Michigan and Florida is at all important.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Rev,
You said: "Commenters, like Alex and King, voice their objections to this by suggesting Fla. and Mich. voters are being disenfranchised. This isn't true."
I'm proud to be with Alex on this issue, on the side where all the voters in america get to have their voices heard, rather than on the side of anti-democratic hypocrisy where you are, Rev, where the Dem mob bosses get to control the people. Congratulations, you're a communist.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The will of the individual voter in Michigan or Florida is an issue that those individual voters need to take up with the powers in their state. Powers that willfully violated a clearly agreed upon party restriction. In the case of Florida, I understand, those powers were GOP powers. Shocker.
All of this, like many other oh-so-deep-concerns conservative Republicans have with the Democratic Party, is bogus and much sanctimony about nothing.
Neither Florida nor Michigan can save Hillary's hide. Anyone who knows anything, knows that.
And what's really, really telling…..is how conservatives have spent so much time kind of shilling for Hillary Clinton over this issue. Other than having their oh-so-tender democractic sensibilities injured, could the reason be also…..fear of a President Obama? Surely not, right?
March 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Like I said, I have yet to hear an Obama or Hillary supporter who thinks the individual voters of Michigan and Florida are of any consequence. Thanks for serving as an example, Reverend.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:16 am
Rev,
Hackneyed and biased as usual.
Though the Florida legislature is run by the GOP, the legislation to move up the primary was introduced by a Democrat, and not a single Democrat voted against it. Gee whiz, I wonder why you left that part out, lol ???
My "oh-so-tender democratic sensibilities" (I guess that makes you anti-democratic) fear a Hillary or Obama presidency about equally, since there isn't any difference between the two of them, politically speaking. What you refuse to recognize is this: conservatives have spent 15 years criticizing Hillary. There is a very, very long track record there. Obama, on the other hand, was getting a free ride straight to the presidency, unvetted and anointed by the MSM. Nobody deserves to ascend to the throne unexamined in america. Not even your messiah. Get over yourself.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:33 am
King,
You are, of course, 100% correct.
The facts are the facts.
The Dim primary is fubar — typical for anything the Dim & liberals get their hands on.
And now, who would want to trust the U.S. health care system to these same clowns that cannot even run a primary election for which there has been a mulit-year template to go by?
March 21st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Sorry you can't receive your chemo this month, but rules are rules!
March 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
"Sorry you can't receive your chemo this month, but rules are rules!"
Yup, the libs & Dims don't really care how many people they injure/kill by screwing up the health care system as long as THEY get to control it.
In this regard, the Dims are just like their soul-mates in the defunct USSR who killed tens of millions in their attempt to build Utopia.