Sunday, June 01, 2008

Sights and sounds of the DNC Rules Committee.

Apparently Hillary supporters felt the lash of Democrat style political correctness yesterday. This must be the typical white woman that the Drama referenced in his remarks last month.



You’ve got to love her prediction, though. Donna Brazile, wielding the lash, differentiates herself from the Clinton modus operandi by reminiscing on a maternal dictum to always play by the rules. While Donna doesn’t impute racism to the Clintons until almost the end of the video, she plays the race cudgel not the race card.



Longtime Clinton thug Harold Ickes, among the most ruthless and brutal operatives in the last half century-a guy that makes G. Gordon Liddy look restrained-makes it clear that this race isn’t over ‘til the fat lady sings.



8 comments:

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

In your oft failed attempt at objectivity, you are missing the point as well. Yea it's fun to take pleasure in the preening and posturing of the players but there are bigger issues here and much better fodder for criticism.

Much to your dismay, let me post my email to the DNC rules committee:

Re the DNC meeting today:

Though it is understandable to attempt to maintain order and control over the primary voting process and its schedule, it is also folly.

Punitive measures denying or disavowing valid Democratic voters and their votes is absurd on its face. Being a Democrat and thus not a proponent of an unbridled free market, I do believe nevertheless there are free market solutions to your concern for controlling the primary schedules.

We all know that there are economic benefits to having candidates visit the various states. We certainly are aware that there are promotional benefits to having candidates visit states and give speeches to gatherings; to shaking hands with individual voters; even to drinking beer with them or bowling with them. As with all free market solutions multiple iterations may have to take place before a sensible balance is reached. Attempting to alter those iterations at best merely postpones the settling out of the logistics and at worst leads you to make choices potentially detrimental to the welfare of all Democrats.

Should all states be left to hold their primaries whenever they choose, they will no doubt move to front load all primaries. This will lead to an inability of the candidates to visit all the states with early voting schedules and they will campaign through advertising and national exposure. These actions will have an impact on each of those states and the states themselves will begin to work on a coordination plan. Regional same day voting schedules will likely end up the solution with timing between each one to allow campaigning in each of the states next on the schedule.

Regardless the ultimate solution, it is foolish and futile for the rules committee to issue rules to various state parties when those state parties have little influence over their legislatures and it is the legislatures who hold control of the voting schedules. It is beyond futile but more likely suicidal to establish punitive rules that can severely impact the interests and involvement of each state's voters.

One can only marvel at a process, established by the rules committee, where a difference of 100 or 200 delegate votes, essentially ends the contest when there were 10 or 12 more states yet to vote. The rationale that established superdelegates is generally understood and certainly had validity. But now we have party leaders exclaiming that superdelegates must vote based on elected delegates, usurping the entire rationale. The entire program can lead one to question the ability of Democrats to govern and lead.

Any solution you come to will contain inequities and will appear detrimental to some faction. Paramount in your decision is not the interest of either candidate; it is not the implication of unfairly treating the other states that chose not to move up their primary dates. Your decision must be in the best interests of the voters and no one else. We have had significant brainpower in the DNC for years. We have not always been successful in winning elections, especially presidential ones. Winning elections is in the hands of the voters and nothing you do should infringe or even slightly impair those hands.

The dilemma you are faced with is of your own doing. Micromanaging is seldom a good idea. In my mind, it might be time to do that which we are forever accusing George Bush of not doing; admit to a mistake, to an honorable but misguided attempt at injecting order and balance to a process not always given to either. Admit that, though the party apparatus must diligently appeal for order, they are impotent without punitive measures. Yet punitive measures punish voters, the innocents in the entire process, and it is contrary to the best interests of the party to punish voters.

I would suggest that our country was founded as a rebellion against unfair and inequitable rules and regulations. It is America's history, its foundation, that fairness and equity should trump ruling factions attempting to infringe the will of the people. With that in mind, admit poor judgment, reverse last year's punitive measures and let the contest continue based on the will of the people and not based on the machinations of a governing authority. The general election is fraught with its own share of problems; let's not exacerbate the process by making the primaries an even worse imbroglio.

RF said...

This morning I also saw McAuliffe ranting and raving about the injustice of the compromise. If McCain ends up winning in November, he owes big thanks to the bitter Clinton folks unable to handle defeat.

Art A Layman said...

rf:

It has much less to do with handling defeat than with suffering an inept governing body with no backbone.

Anonymous said...

Could someone please explain why we need all that corporate welfare again to bring in more jobs??? That program is nothing but graft in a different package.
----
In times of economic hardship, a job surplus seems contradictory. However, a New York Times article reported that unlike many other states across the country, Iowa has a surplus of jobs.

In a survey conducted by the Iowa Workforce Development (IWD), it was found that there were 48,000 job vacancies in industries including financial services, health care and skilled manufacturing.

This situation means a shortage of workers, with Greater Des Moines expecting a shortfall of 60,000 workers during the next decade.

The IWD expects the job surplus to reach 198,000 by 2014. This will mirror national trends, with experts projecting a shortage of 14 million skilled workers by 2020.

The IWD is predicting the greatest surplus in skilled job openings, especially in professional positions, due to the increasing number of Baby Boomers who are retiring and leaving the workplace.

RF said...

Getting rid of corporate welfare is definitely an issue where we should be able to have bipartisan agreement. That’s why it will be great that the third congressional district will be sending Ed Fallon to DC. I predict Boz is in for a June 3 surprise.

Anonymous said...

Got any lottery number predictions for us rf?

RF said...

Yes, I'll be happy to share some with you. More lottery tickets sold will lessen my tax burden.

Needless to say, I'm po'd and disappointed. And, my prediction was crap. Still, a credible challenge like this speaks volumes about the incumbent.

Anonymous said...

free porn action
телки кисловодска
секс знакомства рязань
секс видео jasmine
оральное порно фото

Labels

Amazon Bookstore