I think Eugene Robinson gets it right here

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm just taking notes for when the Democrats start accusing Republicans of disenfranchisement again. Sham party or no, at least we gave our sham members in the nation's 4th and 8th largest states a sham voice in our sham policies.

Are you actually going to try and argue that they were disenfranchised? That is fantastic.

You do realize that the party has the right to set its own rules for this sort of thing, and that they clearly told Florida and Michigan what the consequences would be if either of those states moved their primary up without permission from the DNC, right?

And you do realize that in all elections, if a voter fails to abide by the rules of the election, that voter's vote doesn't count, right?

And you do realize that the RNC took away half of the delegates of Florida and Michigan for the same reason, effectively making the vote of each person in Florida and Michigan worth 1/2 a vote, right?

lol! Keep fighting the good fight, Tex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And you do realize that in all elections, if a voter fails to abide by the rules of the election, that voter's vote doesn't count, right?

My, my, you sound suspiciously like a Republican.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

My, my, you sound suspiciously like a Republican.

My, my, you sound suspiciously like a partisan hack stretching to find something to hold onto.

I am constantly amused at how rarely you respond to substantive posts with any substance. But I guess if the facts aren't on your side...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My, my, you sound suspiciously like a partisan hack stretching to find something to hold onto.

I am constantly amused at how rarely you respond to substantive posts with any substance. But I guess if the facts aren't on your side...

What "facts"? The fact is, when Republicans have insisted on valid voter credentials, the Democrats have whipped out the "disenfranchisement" argument with glee, the most egregious example being Florida 2000.

It's just kinda fun to see you trying on the Republican's clothes when it suits you. Talk about a partisan hack.

PS. And yes, you are SO substantive. Pot meet kettle.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

What "facts"? The fact is, when Republicans have insisted on valid voter credentials, the Democrats have whipped out the "disenfranchisement" argument with glee, the most egregious example being Florida 2000.

It's just kinda fun to see you trying on the Republican's clothes when it suits you. Talk about a partisan hack.

PS. And yes, you are SO substantive. Pot meet kettle.

Again with the Tex revisionism. It is a pleasure to watch. Did you study under McCain? No wonder you are now on board with him.

Take note: I asked for substantive posts in response to substantive posts. Your link (irony alert) then pointed to another great example of Tex not posting anything substantive (and I responded in kind).

As for your claim about Florida, it is just amusing. Obviously you don't understand what the basis of the complaints was, because your characterization isn't even remotely accurate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Again with the Tex revisionism. It is a pleasure to watch. Did you study under McCain? No wonder you are now on board with him.

Take note: I asked for substantive posts in response to substantive posts. Your link (irony alert) then pointed to another great example of Tex not posting anything substantive (and I responded in kind).

"I do it, good. You do it, bad." You're starting to sound like Cranky In Elders Quorum.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for your claim about Florida, it is just amusing. Obviously you don't understand what the basis of the complaints was, because your characterization isn't even remotely accurate.

Oh, I understand just fine, thanks.

[Tex]

An update:

Obama just needs about 20-25 superdelegate endorsements to hit the magic 2,026 number to claim the Democratic nomination, assuming he just splits the remaining 86 in half. But it’s quite likely that the magic number is going to change, because it appears that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has every intention of coming up with some sort of Florida/Michigan compromise.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And what "rumor" is it you are trying to claim with Michigan and Florida delegates? The party has made it pretty clear that if those delegates are seated at all, it will only be after a nominee has emerged (making their participation totally useless).

Doesn't sound like this is "pretty clear" at all.

The fate of nearly 2.3 million Democratic presidential primary votes belongs to 30 party activists.

They serve on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which planned to decide Saturday what role Michigan and Florida should play at the national convention in August.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/...imary_scramble

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Doesn't sound like this is "pretty clear" at all.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/...imary_scramble

Of course it is pretty clear. They are now meeting, and a candidate has emerged. Obama has 3 dozen superdelegates ready to announce the last day of the primaries, reportedly. Seat Florida and Michigan now. It is effectively decided.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course it is pretty clear. They are now meeting, and a candidate has emerged. Obama has 3 dozen superdelegates ready to announce the last day of the primaries, reportedly. Seat Florida and Michigan now. It is effectively decided.

You made it sound like the seating of Michigan/Florida delegates would be a mere formality. What is clear is that such is not the case.