The New Politburo

Obama still doesn't have a majority of the pledged delegates.

I'm not sure what you mean. Obama does indeed have the majority of pledged delegates: Obama has 1741 to Clinton's 1,624. And if I understand correctly, Florida and Michigan wouldn't have erased that lead in pledged delegates, no matter what the Rules and Bylaws Committee decided about the two states.

I mean that his pledged delegates don't give him a majority of the total delegates (i.e., enough to win the nomination by themselves). Sorry, that was badly worded.

Clinton has a better case in Florida, but in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot, because he was following the rules of the party. How can one count a one-candidate election? Especially since 40% or so of those who voted said "uncommitted?"

We don't need all these voters--just one guy and Multivac.

Considering some of the people who have been elected here and elsewhere throughout history, well, I'm not sure either Hillary or Barack are really unelectable.

Yours,
Wince

The premise of this guy's initial rant is flawed. The purpose of a primary election is to select the candidate of a political party. It has no real political relationship to the real election in the fall.

There's no democracy involved here, no issues of your right to choose your elected representatives. It's essentially a private affair among the members of the political party, and the party -- i.e. the leaders -- can run it any way they damn well see fit. If the Democrats want to nominate a candidate by just ignoring all the primary results and having Nancy and Harry draw straws, they can do that, and any complaint about "disenfranchisement" is arrant nonsense.

If you don't like the way the Democratic Party picks its candidates, you have an easy solution: leave the damn party! Form your own, or join another.

But this confusion of the Democratic primary with some kind of sacred exercise of the democratic principal is scary. It resonates unpleasantly with the typical news coverage by our thoroughly subverted press, where everything the Democrats do is done by "the Government" and everything the Republicans do is done by "the Republicans," even if they're the government at the time. The consistent underlying theme is that the Democratic Party is The Party, the only legitimate representative of the people, and the Republicans are some strange pretenders representing aristocrats and monopolists and perverts that we have to tolerate to avoid the wholescale fakery of a Soviet-style one-party election, but whom we don't actually mean to actually take power.

If you don't like the way the Democratic Party picks its candidates, you have an easy solution: leave the damn party! Form your own, or join another.

Or shriek from the sidelines, like Simberg.

Pleaes allow me to revise and extend Mr. Pham's remark, "The premise of this guy's initial rant is flawed." Indeed. I can't even figure out how the author gets from here, second paragraph:

(1) "Let us recall, that until recent history, presidential candidates were selected at the convention, following roll-call votes by the state delegations. Until such roll-call votes are held there is no official candidate"

To here, about half-way in:

(2) "The irrefutable fact of the matter is that neither election was canceled. Both elections were held and the citizens of both states went to the polls in an open, fair, and democratic election fully believing they were casting votes to decide who the Democratic nominee for president would be. These voters, and by extension the entire American electorate, were deceived, betrayed, and disenfranchised."

Are we to be reminded that, regarding Democratic party politics, (1) historically, it was the delegates, not the voters, who had the final say, or be outraged that (2) in 2008 it will be the delgates, not the voters, who have the final say?

Maybe I missed Mr. Maxwell's point, but this seems like a logical flaw you could lose a trailer hoome in.

Furthermore, what was the purpose of selecting super delegates in the first place, if the only reasonable choice for them is to echo the popular vote, or confirm the pldeged delegate count? It would seem that the present situation -- two candidates nearly tied in the balloting, with the one who is slightly behind also the one who seems to be surging in popularity -- is a prime example of where super delegates exercising their judgment might beneift the party. And if not now when?

One could argue that the large number of primaries and caucuses held in the very short time period around super Tuesday distorted the overall results due to Obama's surge in popularity at that time. In essence, his popularity spike was cemented in the delegate count because of a timing that was fortunate for him, whereas Hillary's later resurgence has had less of an effect because of its timing. Why shouldn't super delegates such an argument?

I don't disagree with his final comments about the left wing press, but the whole comparison to Politburo style government is pure tripe. As Mr. Pham pointed out, there is no obligation on the part of a political party to conform to general election laws, and the actions of Mr. Dean and his cronies in no way threaten our governmental democratic institutions.

Or shriek from the sidelines, like Simberg.

Is there an audio feed on this website I am deaf to?

Or was this just the short passing of nutty smelling fart, unattributable and unmemorable.

Or shriek from the sidelines, like Simberg.

I don't "shriek." And I really don't care how the Democrat Party selects its nominee--they could throw a dart at a phone book, for all I care (and they'd probably come up with someone better than with the current process, at a lot less cost, though far less entertainment). But it does point up the reason that I don't call it the Democrat(ic) Party.

I just find it amusing and hypocritical, given all the screaming about "Count every vote!," "Disenfranchised!" in Florida in 2000. Not to mention their continuing harping on how Al Gore won the popular vote, as though that has anything to do with how a president is elected.

I know it hurts you Simby.

It must be tough when you are faced with three Democratic candidates for President, shortly to be reduced to two.

Shriek on buddy. Whoever wins, it isn't going to be one of yours.

Obama is by far the weaker candidate, though both are unelectable.

Please don't tempt the Fates.

History is littered with the corpses of people who said, "Oh come on -- nobody could ever be that stupid!"

Where is the hypocracy? For example, how was the ultimate solution for Democratic Florida primary different from the Republican Florida primary? Feel free to focus on a different example if you want, but I don't see any hypocracy.

How is it not democratic? Super delegates are anti-democratic, but given that the superdelegates actually don't want to override the directly elected/pledged delegates, and given that the person with most votes and the most delegates will get the nomination, I don't see the choice as anti-democratic.
If you want to complain about democracy, I'd focus on the caucuses, but there, the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats.

Also note that both delegations actually will get full strength at the convention anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/us/politics/03web-seelye.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"History is littered..." Obama and Hillary on the democratic side I can understand. I'm still flumoxed that McCain is representing the republican party. I know the history, but I still ask myself, "How could this happen?" I wonder about GWB as well, but that's more understandable and in the past. I realize that most republicans have no more principles than the democrats (they're all politicians first.)

I still want the guy with no fire in his belly.

Instead we get the only survivor of the Keating five.

If you want to complain about democracy, I'd focus on the caucuses, but there, the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats.

Ah, but you see, I don't expect Republicans to be democratic. That's why they're called Republicans. I'm simply pointing out that the so-called "Democratic" party isn't all that democratic.

What a brilliant observation on Party names from Mr. Simberg. Especially coming from a non-Republican.

I'm simply pointing out that the so-called "Democratic" party isn't all that democratic.

Really. You mean to say that it is just possible that the name that a political party goes by has little to do with what it is???

Shocked. I am shocked I tell you.

You mean to say that it is just possible that the name that a political party goes by has little to do with what it is???

No. What he said is the political party that complained about "disenfranchisement" and "count every vote" is the party that's not counting every vote in their own political system. Yeah, they can do it anyway they want, and it is their party. But it also a sign of how they would run things if they had the power of all three branches.

Leland: Tosh.

What he said is the political party that complained about "disenfranchisement" and "count every vote" is the party that's not counting every vote in their own political system.

Why should they, it is THEIR political system - it's a members club, they can do what they like and they are completely transparent about it when people join. If people don't like it, don't join.

Any comparison to the disenfranchisement of the general population in a public GENERAL election is entirely spurious, as is any conclusion drawn about how the Democrats would run government.

Of course, Rand, and I've noticed your good self, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

What a brilliant observation on Party names from Mr. Simberg. Especially coming from a non-Republican.

So, in your version of "democracy," only people who belong to a political party are allowed to comment on it?

And only people whose views coincide with the majority Party have a right to express their views?

You version of "democracy" sounds a lot like totalitarianism, Mr. Anonymous.

If Rand is as clueless and hopeless as you say, why do you devote so much of your time and energy to attacking him and defacing his blog?

Why does it bother you that he posts ideas you disagree if, as you say, those ideas are doomed to fail?

You behavior does not suggest confidence but fear and panic. Do you think Rand is so politically formidable that you can't succeed if he's allowed to present his ideas?

Eddie,

Obviously you do not share my enjoyment in carefully comparing Nutty Bloggers of the Right or it would be clear why I read Simberg's flailings.

If by some miracle McCain wins, I predict with high confidence that his flailings will reach epic proportions.

Which votes aren't they counting? Certainly not the ones in Florida. Which ones in Michigan aren't they counting? In any case, "count every vote" is worth doing when it could change the outcome, as it could in Gore v. Bush in Florida in 2000. In this primary season, any vote conceivably left uncounted wouldn't have changed the outcome - Obama's lead in pledged delegates was insurmountable, whether he got 4 more or 4 less delegates in Michigan.

Eddie,

Who's that? There's no one here by that name. On top of everything else, do you have trouble reading English?

Obviously you do not share my enjoyment in carefully comparing Nutty Bloggers of the Right or it would be clear why I read Simberg's flailings.

Right, I'm not so easily amused as you. Something actually has to be funny for me to find it amusing.

Now that we have established that, why don't you answer my question?

I don't see Rand going around defacing the Nutty Blogs of the Left. On the contrary, he defends your right to free speech, which you seek to deny him. I don't see how that makes you morally superior to him -- could you please explain it?

Furthermore, you are hardly alone. There seems to be an army of dimwitted davids who devote themselves to spamming and defacing any site that disagrees with their political views. Can you explain that, too?

Does the Left believe it cannot win unless if the other side is given a fair chance to present its arguments?

If so, what does that say about the strength of your ideas.

I'll bet my best shirt you don't have the guts to answer those questions, anymore than you have the guts to post your personal attacks under your real name.

Go ahead, Mr. Anonymous. Prove me right. :-)

Edward, I'm not Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, but I'm frustrated by this pervasive idea of "having the guts" to post under your own name. (I'm not Mr. or Ms. Anonymous). I'd be happy to talk to any of you in person, or by telephone or by personal correspondence. But what I'm not happy to do is to talk politics in a venue where my writing is recorded for all time via google's archive. I'd prefer that my name creates a business-related brand in Google's archive that is unrelated to political conversations. The medium is new, and doesn't allow for this kind of differentiation yet, but it would be a shame to not participate at all. Sometimes not using your name has nothing to do with courage - it is just being business-savvy. And others will have other good reasons to not use their real names. I recommend focusing on more on ideas, and less on personal identities.

---

I'm still wondering whether Ronald Maxwell's entire politburo piece was really just about 4 delegates from Michigan who couldn't change the outcome.

Why should they, it is THEIR political system - it's a members club, they can do what they like

Really, Dave? The last time I heard that argument was when clubs wanted to refuse admission to women, blacks, and Jews.

I'm pretty sure the courts decided private clubs *cannot* do what they like.

I'm also pretty sure that the Democratic Party is chartered as a political party, not a club. If it were a club, it would not be able to put candidates on political ballots and would be subject to McCain-Feingold and other restrictions on political activities.

What were you saying about facts getting in the way of a rant?

Edward, I'm not Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, but I'm frustrated by this pervasive idea of "having the guts" to post under your own name. (I'm not Mr. or Ms. Anonymous). I'd be happy to talk to any of you in person, or by telephone or by personal correspondence. But what I'm not happy to do is to talk politics in a venue where my writing is recorded for all time via google's archive.

And your point is...?

I'm sure that people like Mr. Anonymous, who do nothing but post personal attacks on Rand, would not be happy to have their names associated with their petty behavior. I'm certain that's why they post anonymously. How does that prove they are not cowardly?

That has nothing to do with people like you, Robert, who do not post personal attacks and do post actual arguments. You may not use your anonymity to post things you would be afraid to say to someone's face -- but that does not mean *no one* does.

I also note that the trolls almost always seem to be people who post anonymously, not under pseudonyms. I'm not sure why that is, but the people who take the time to enter a name, even a fictitious one, generally have something useful to say, at least occasionally. (Jim Harris being a notable exception. :-)

Rand, Rachel Lucas has instituted a solution on her blog to the problem of anonymous posters. She digs into Wordpress and re-names them "squirrel lover" or other such nicknames.

Robert, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym (i.e Habitat Hermit); it is however very difficult to distinguish one anonymous from another. If I found that Habitat Hermit consistently posted drivel, I could simply ignore any of his comments (not to be picking on you HH, it's just the pseudonym that came to mind). A horde of anonymi is more difficult to ignore, as one may actually make intelligent arguments that I would otherwise miss if I habitually ignored anonymous commenters.

> The True Will of the People

Since no one else on this thread has quoted Kipling yet, I guess it falls to me:

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King--
Or Holy People's Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!

It is amusing to see Rand "Concern Trolling" the
democratic party. The DNC and the 50 state parties and
the terrtories plus the overseas groups have worked up
their own rules attempting to include people who will be
excluded from the presidential election.

The Dems have party rules on when primaries are allowed.
The only tool to enforce that is to strike delegates at
the denver convention. This has been done.

Rand finds it frustrating that Obama will demolish McCain.

Rand finds it frustrating that Obama will demolish McCain.

If you believe that, why are you so obsessed with Rand and his tiny blog? Why do they terrify you?

Confident people are not afraid to allow others to express ideas they disagree with. Cowards are.

Do you think Obama is unable to win without anonymous "dirty trick" squads attacking anyone he disagrees with? Does Obama think so? Does he endorse your gutter tactics?

Why are you afraid to answer my questions, Mr. "Smith"?

Ah Ed, been a while, still tilting at those Windmills eh?

Funny thing is. I'm pretty sure you knew the point I was making which is why you decided to make a different point entirely.

Nice try.

If you believe that, why are you so obsessed with Rand and his tiny blog? Why do they terrify you?

Wrong word. I don't think people are terrified of Rand's Blog nor of his opinions. I find it fascinating, like an itch you can't scratch or a scab you have to keep picking at. With your good self(*) and Rand the ability to hold a position in the face of all evidence to the contrary or, in fact, with no evidence at all has always interested me.

(*) - I can't remember who but for years somebody on SSP had a sig stating something like: Any statement by Ed Wright starting "Of course the facts are..." will be followed by a false statement. I'm sure it's on Google somewhere, can't be bothered to look it up.

Funny thing is. I'm pretty sure you knew the point

Yes, I understood your point -- which is not supported by the facts. The Democratic Party is not a private club, as you stated, but a political party, and must therefore abide by the rules for political parties.

One of those rules is that people like Rand are allowed to comment on political parties, even if it makes you mad.

Actually, that would be true even if the Democratic Party was a private club -- that dreadful First Ammendment allows Rand to criticize anyone he chooses.

Wrong word. I don't think people are terrified of Rand's Blog nor of his opinions. I find it fascinating, like an itch you can't scratch or a scab you have to keep picking at.

Okay, you're so "fascinated" by free speech that you have to keep "picking" at it.

It bothers you. A lot. Why?

If the Obama is the omnipotent force you say he is, why not just wait for him to get elected? Then, you can ask him to ban all the blogs and all the offensive opinions that bother you?

Of course, Obama might not be willing to do that. He says he believes in free discussion of ideas, and I believe him. Isn't it hypocritical of Obama bombers to anonymously attack a principle Obama publicly embraces? Doesn't a man about to get the Democratic nomination deserve better supporters than that?

I can't remember who but for years somebody on SSP had a sig stating something like: Any statement by Ed Wright starting "Of course the facts are..." will be followed by a false statement.

Ah, yes, Scott Lowther. The man who thought National Aero Space Plane was a great success. He put that up because I dared to tell him NASP was a failure. You picked a great role model, Dave. :-)

Sorry, that's unfair to Scott. He might have goofy ideas about things like NASP and insult people in his .sig, but I never knew him to try to squelch opinions he disagreed with.

That "fascination" seems to be unique to the Anonymous Left.

Why should they, it is THEIR political system - it's a members club, they can do what they like and they are completely transparent about it when people join. If people don't like it, don't join.

I haven't joined.

Any comparison to the disenfranchisement of the general population in a public GENERAL election is entirely spurious, as is any conclusion drawn about how the Democrats would run government.

In 2000, the election was run by the politcal system set up by the state legislature of
Florida, as part of the requirements of the US Constitution. The Democrats didn't like the outcome, so they used the judicial branch to change the rules. In 2008, the election in Florida was run by the political system set up by the state legislature of Florida. After Florida made the decision, the DNC changed the rules except this time, they didn't need the Florida Supreme Court.

I can compare all day long. You don't have to like it, and if you don't, then leave.

And Ed's right, your comment about "Member's Club" is exactly what was done to deny access to minorities and women to all sorts of activity. Good luck running an exclusive general election. Keep telling others to leave the party. It worked on Joe Lieberman... oh wait, it didn't.