Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Why can't the Democrats be more Democratic?

Let's be honest here - the 2008 Presidential election is pretty much sewn up for the Democrats, whichever candidate they choose.

Or, at least, it would be if they didn't continue being such idiots about the whole thing!

The longer this primary drags out, the more chance the Dems have of blowing the whole shooting match.

On the other side, you've got to hand it to the Republicans. They are an incredibly focused and capable political machine. They've accepted the idea of doing whatever it takes to achieve victory; including compromising their conservative polemic and standing behind a man like John McCain (who crosses party lines on several key issues.)

They're a losing party with a winning strategy.

Dumbo Dems

What's highlighted by the skirmish for the Democratic candidacy is just how undemocratic the Democratic party really is. A lot of the angry rhetoric conservative pundits throw at the Democrats compares them to 'Stalinists.' Normally I find that comparison laughable - but dammit if there isn't a grain of truth buried in there somewhere!

Take, for instance, the decision to disenfranchise Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Those states chose to bring their primary dates forward, in order to make their state more important in the selection process. For breaking 'the rules' the Democratic party removed their right to send delegates to the Democratic Convention. They basically stopped their votes from counting.

Hardly very democratic!

Secondly, take the concept of the Super Delegates. These are 'important' Democrats, like state governors and the like, who have a 'bigger' vote than the standard Delegates at the convention. Basically, all Democratic Delegates are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

In a close knit race like the battle between Hillary and Obama, the Super Delegates are 'king makers.' Whatever the election results declare, the Super Delegates can go in and reverse the decision if they don't like it.

Again, hardly very Democratic! What's the point of having months of state-wide primary elections if the Super Delegates can swoop in and change the final count if they feel that democracy hasn't provided the 'right' answer.

And that's the core of the issue, isn't it? Despite being called the 'Democratic' party, the Democratic party elite are determined to control the electoral process so they end up with the result they want - the will of the voters be damned.

The fact that we're only two months away from the Democratic Convention and we're no closer to having a definitive winner has shown the American public only one thing - that the Democratic party is incapable of governing itself. Is that really the sort of organisation we want governing the country?

Unless the Democrats get united and organised, the answer to that question will come on election day.

4 comments:

BritGal' Sarah said...

Excellent post and very true, I have wondered myself at their undemocratic actions!

MicroGlyphics said...

While somewhat factually correct—that the selection of a Democratic nominee is less than democratic—, there is a process in place which set rule for participation. Florida and Michigan chose not to follow these rules. Moreover, the Michigan ballot did not even have Obabma's name on it. How is this fair to anyone.

Personally, I was a Kucinich supported because we need less corporate-focused politics and more people-focused politics. I know this is not a prospect for Hillary, and as much as I would like to believe otherwise, I don't believe Obama will be this change agent.

Given my choices now, I am behind Obama. As far as the Republicans are concerned, don't forget that Ron Paul is still in the race, and Bob Barr, I hope, will be a thorn in their side. I feel that the Ron Paul supporters will tend toward Bob Barr when all is said and done.

I do agree that the Democrats have been adept at stealing failure from the jaws of victory, and you are right that the Republicans are a losing party with a winning strategy, so we'll just have to wait to see how this all pans out.

Finally, let's not also forget that Hillary specifically ignored the small states, the caucus states, so it is specious at best to then attempt to claim that it is unfair that these other votes don't count. That is really akin to complaining that your basket didn't count simply because you committed a foul on the way to the rim. There are rules to games and contests. These folks agreed to abide by the rules—and not just where it is convenient and advantageous.

Let's get over with this and on with it. In the end it will come down to how gracious a loser Hillary can be. Besides, if the so-called super delegates would make a commitment now, we could have this thing considered here and now.

Slutty McWhore said...

You never responded to my long-winded comment on that post your wrote about me!

So, are we going to kiss and make up, or do you still hate my guts? ;-)

Reverse_Vampyr said...

Very well-said. The "Animal Farm" nature of the Democrats underscores why I don't think I could ever vote for a one, even if they weren't already wrong on so many social and economic issues.