Primary Fun

 

1. Just for fun, check Drudge.  The Rev. Sharpton says disenfranchising Michigan and Florida is O.K.  I wonder what the payoff is?

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       02/13/2008  at  05:38 PM  



2. Doc, they’re already disenfranchised. The national DNC set the rules about the primary dates, and the state DNCs moved the primaries up anyway. So the people have no one to blame but their own local leaders. They disenfranchised themselves.

   Of course, if the state DNCs want to fund another primary, that’s there business. Just so long as none of the cost comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket, I’m all for it.

   Posted by Drew458       02/13/2008  at  06:52 PM  



3. They were disenfranchised by the DNC when they wanted to make their own decision as to their primary date.  This really seems a lot more important than a couple of hanging chads and some folks who were so out of it that they didn’t know which was their candidate.  Our major parties seem to be getting more arrogant by the day.  The Democrats are leading, but I expect the Republicans to catch up.

   So, Obama loses 2 entire states worth of delegates and Sharpton says it’s OK?  For a black candidate, the first one who actually has a chance of winning the Presidency and he’s giving his blessing to the DNC?  Sharpton’s publicly crucified people for a lot less, with a lot flimsier evidence.  Maybe Hillary promised him HUD.  Or did she have something to seriously blackmail him with?  Either way, if there isn’t serious dirt here, I’ll be very surprised.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       02/13/2008  at  10:24 PM  



4. mother (DNC): “Don’t do that!”
   child (FL & MI): “I wanna do it!”

   mother: “If you do that, you’ll get such a smack! So don’t do it.”
   child: “I’m gonna do it anyway.”

   Kid goes ahead and does whatever. SMACK!!
   “Waaah, mommy hit me!! No fair!”

   DYFUS (MSM): “We hear there’s an abuse situation here.”

   ..................
   Doc is factually correct, but my view is valid too: Florida and Michigan state DNCs brought it on themselves. They are members of a national party, not independant parties, and thus they have to be subservient to the national organization. If they weren’t, then every state would have it’s primary on January 2nd. Hey, wait, is that really a bad idea?
   ..................

   Every third or fourth blue moon Sharpton does something I can respect. This time he’s actually stood up in favor of the rules and come out against the actions of a candidate who happens to be black. Amazing. Honorable. Even-handed. So yeah, what’s in it for him; what deal did he cut? Or is he wholly owned by the Clinton Machine?

   Posted by Drew458       02/14/2008  at  12:13 PM  



5. Drew, your argument has lot of legal logic to it.  I just have a major problem with disenfranchising anyone’s vote.  I know the DNC isn’t congress or the president, it seems wrong none the less. 

   If you look at the DNC’s history of the last 40 years, going back to Chicago in 1968, the Democrats have had much more violent reactions to dissent and protest of any kind.  You may completely disagree with the protesters, that’s not my point.  The point is that there is much more violence unleashed by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Take a look at the last Dem convention here in Los Angeles.  Compare it to the Republican convention the same year.  Plenty of protest on both sides, but the great violence by the cops was here in Los Angeles.  I really don’t think the Democrats have much to do with democracy anymore.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       02/15/2008  at  08:29 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.