Better “Damn Democrats” than “Damned Democrats”… lol.  Think about it.

The word for the day is “Disenfranchisement.” And this blog is going to be a bit more scattershot than some others I’ve posted, particularly in the realm of politics.  Just a ranting, a venting, a stream of consciousness babbling of some things I don’t quite GET….  And I will break one of my general blog rules by using the f-word liberally (pardon the pun).  Generally, I think of profanity as a short-cut for thinking.  But upon occasion, I think a peppering of profanity can help make a point and spur people to ponder a point a bit more purposefully…. 

1)  Why the fuck does Howard Dean insist on sticking to flawed Democratic Party “rules” – even when it means allowing Florida governor Charlie Crist and his Republican cohorts to say “Mission Accomplished!” on multiple fronts: essentially silencing Florida Democrats who voted in the primary, perhaps discouraging many of those Democrats from voting in November’s general election, and dividing and (possibly) conquering the national Democratic party?

2)  Rules sometimes need to be changed.  And which rules should be at the top of the “must be changed” list?  Rules that say “fuck you, your votes won’t count” to two states (in this case Florida and Michigan) whose voters were not responsible for either the rules or the decisions their politicos made to violate the rules….  Punish the politicians, I say – not the voters.  Why, when public officials do the rule-breaking, are the voters the ones to be penalized?  Count the public’s votes – and if you must make an example of someone, make it the real rule-breakers.

3)  I’m sure you’ve heard people say, “The popular vote should determine the nominee.  The superdelegates should follow the vote of the people and not swing the nomination to another candidate.”  Why are the folks who are most gung ho about letting the “vote of the people” (and not of the superdelegates, who apparently are not people) decide the nomination… why are these “vote of the people” proponents in many cases the same folks who want to essentially say “fuck you” to the vote of the people in Michigan and Florida, by insisting that the votes in those states do not count?  And if they don’t mean to say “fuck you” to those voters, why are they not doing everything in their power to ensure there is a re-vote of the people in those states?  Makes sense, if counting the “popular vote” is your real reason for wanting to count out the superdelegates….

4)  Why are many leading Democrats trying to pressure either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama into leaving the race before all 50 states have had a chance to vote?  I agree we need party unity – and sooner is better than later.  But we also need to let ALL Americans who want to vote in the primaries have a chance to do so.  If you want the nomination to be decided by March – and if that’s in the best interest of the Democratic party – then why not let the people in every state VOTE before March?  And if that’s what you want, and also in the party’s best interest, why in the hell would you penalize states (like Michigan and Florida) for moving their primaries back so they can vote before March?

Am I the only one who doesn’t get this?  I’m a staunch Democrat and we’re supposed to be the party of “the people.”  So why are we not letting ALL of the people’s votes count?  That’s why I think the f-word is appropriate in this blog.  And I apologize if it offends anyone’s sensibilities.  But let’s face it, the people are getting fucked here!  I’m kinda used to the Republicans doing it – with their unprovoked wars, tax-breaks to Exxon-Mobil, thumbing their noses at our environment, and so on and so forth.  But do we Democrats have to do it as well, by disenfranchising voters?  It’s not right.  I daresay it’s unAmerican.


Let every Democrat’s vote be counted in this primary season.  And then whoever wins a larger share of the popular vote, whether it’s Obama or Clinton, should be the Democratic nominee.  And we Democrats should unite to support that nominee.  If the margin of victory is within a certain small percentage, or if neither candidate earns a majority of the popular vote, then we should seriously consider bringing the top two candidates together on one ticket to face the Republicans in November.  What better way to ensure party unity and keep the lion’s share of both leading candidates’ supporters from being discouraged? 

What’s the alternative?  Tearing each other’s hearts out, handing the Congress and Presidency back to the Republicans, and likely enduring four or more years of the same old same old?  Just thinking aloud here….  But it’s enough to make a guy want to use profanity.


Advertisements