A Back Room Cabal: We're Talking Democrats, Not Neocons in the White House
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Cigar smoke filled, back room deals, plotting old white men. These are images the media and the Democrats would have us believe are associated with Republicans -- with *cough* neocons. Except, more and more, we are learning that this is the Democratic Party at work.
The media would never say it because it would speak ill of their chosen party, but it says something deeply disturbing that the Democratic Party does not actually trust its base to select the nominee for their party.
For all the talk of the Republican party being controlled by a secretive world of Schaifes and Dobsons, at least our electoral process for our nominee is wholly transparent. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, of all places, begins to sound out what the base is starting to say in the Democratic Party:
The bad news for Democratic voters is that many superdelegates are jumping the gun and making up their minds about which candidate to back, so the candidate with the most votes may not win the nomination. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Now why oh why do the Democrats have superdelegates?
Read on . . .
It was put in place after party leaders felt sidelined by earlier rules changes that had returned the bulk of nominating power to voters. What they hoped to avoid was another fiasco like the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. The ultra-liberal wing of the party ensured he won the primary vote, but in the general election he carried only a single state, Massachusetts.
In other words, the superdelegates were put in place because the base of the party is far to the left of the American electorate. The Democrats needed a way to make sure their candidate was not a far left puppet of an out of touch base. And by and large it worked.
The humorous part for us, of course, is that the system is breaking down. The superdelegates now might return the Clintons to power after the base was ready to shrug them off. The base, of course, would prefer a candidate far to the left of Hillary Clinton -- a man who supported a burglar's right to sue a home owner when injured during the crime, a man who wanted to deny medical care to infants who survived being aborted, a man whose preferred foreign policy involves bombing Pakistan, and a man who would rather meet terrorist leaders in the White House than cross a picket line to meet with Stephen Colbert. More disturbing than the Democratic Party not actually trusting is base to select the nominee is that the Party apparatus has legitimate cause for its distrust.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Okay, I Understand That There Is Obamamania . . . — Comments (14) »
A Back Room Cabal: We're Talking Democrats, Not Neocons in the White House 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What we are seeing unfold in the Democratic Party this primary season had its roots in the vote for the Iraq War. With Hillary's affirmative vote, she earned the undying enmity of one George Soros. Hillary and George and Bill were best buddies up until that vote. Obama was being groomed as the successor of the second Clinton presidency, thought to be not ready for prime time this season and a sure bet to be in top form in 2016, to continue the legacy of George. Hillary changed all that with one vote.
This commentary from Free Republic discusses George Soros' activities around the world. It comments on his penchant for "developing the young" and indoctrinating them in the policy of the "good". It mentions that Soros doesn't spend nearly the money in America as elsewhere to promote his agenda, thinking America is well on its way to the achievement of his goals.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786453/posts
At one point in my quest to understand George Soros, I found an interesting piece in a Kyrgystan blog about how OSI was using Skype, whose servers were housed in Eastern Europe in a country immune from prosecution for eavesdropping or wiretapping. At the time, Soros was a major investor in Skype. Wonder if that is how he kept tabs on the "people he could trust".
Anyway, we should all be aware of him and his efforts to render us useless.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
What we are seeing unfold in the Democratic Party this primary season had its roots in the vote for the Iraq War. With Hillary's affirmative vote, she earned the undying enmity of one George Soros.
I confess that in reaading that, it made me think about McCain's support for "comprehensive immigration reform": did it cost him the undying enmity of Rush Limbaugh and the like.
I never really thought about it much before but both parties have had to fight major candidates who went against their respective orthodoxies this campaign season. Heretics, if you will. The Republicans are nominating theirs but the Democrats are still fighting about theirs.
This might not be the end of conservatism but it may mark the the beginning of the end of ... what? ... a certain political ideologism in politics. I don't know whether that is good or bad.
Soros. He has been laying the groundwork to take over the Democratic Party since 1994. Obamamania is essentially the creation of one man.
If we have a similar component, I haven't seen it.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
Oh, thats right, we believe in an individuals right vote and choose over the ability of the elite to decide what is best for us.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
They're a portion of our unpledged delegate total (most of whom are elected as part of the nomination process, and who will be identified with a particular candidate anyway). We just have a much smaller group, and I think that they're there mostly to help the RNC keep control of parliamentary procedure (as opposed to the results).
As to the Democrats: I don't think that they meant for an incipient system fail of quite this magnitude (which they can still avert, of course). The apparatus just... did what apparatuses do when unsupervised: grow unchecked.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Actually the unpledged delegates are unpledged based on state rules and not national rules. Kansas, for example, binds the 3 RNC delegates (the Chair, Committeeman and Committeewoman) to the caucus winner. Other states choose to bind their "add-on" or "bonus" delegates similarly.
We believe in democratic expression, but we also believe in federalism. That's why every state GOP organization gets to decide how to allocate delegates, how many to bind, and the like. The Democrats, as they like to do when governing, nationalize their rules and their procedures, and require adherence.
But the ultimate point is that, superdelegates were expressly created to thwart the will of the voters. Now, when they might actually engage in the purpose for which they were created the Democrats are crying foul. I wish I could even feel sorry for them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I almost wish that the press and those of us on the other side would not focus too much on the back room/superdelegate issue. Maybe with a minimum of attention, the Democrat's train wreck will happen.
support for the grassroots, working families, the little guy, and the common man.
Of course it's a contradiction, of course it doesn't make sense, but then it's the Democrats we're talking about.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
... from the LA Times. Earlier this week they were the ones who advocated a Charter School takeover of all Middle and High Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-breakup11feb11,0,70...
Most editorial boards seem to overlook all but the most egregious liberal transgressions, but something has definitely gotten into the Times editorial board recently (the ghost of Otis Chandler came back withthe Zell takeover?). They are not always going to be on our side, but they are certainly not going to give the Dem's a free pass, either.
When the LA Times Editorial Board favors our politics, and our process, we need to talk that up. Now let's see if we can get them on board with our candidate.
When the LA Times Editorial Board favors our politics, and our process, we need to WATCH OUR BACKS!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Bomb Pakistan.
And not that im a fan of his policy to meet with tyrants and terrorists in the white house, but while there here, we can arrest em, right? Both of them I mean, the tyrant and Obama.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
some of the democrats are watching their pigs in the house with the people, & not being able to tell the difference? (Orwell reference)
And oh so true... This election seems to be shaping up as a race between pragmatic realism and naive and vapid emotion - both in the Democratic primary and the general. I am quite concerned that the culture we have will end up embracing the latter and face the consequences.
"The great thing about history is that there is always more of it"