A Boston Tea Party ...(Jordan Didn't)

A few weeks ago I wrote about the train wreck I hoped would take place for the Democrats during their primary season. (see the original article here: http://conservativeharvest.blogspot.com/2008/02/boston-tea-part-ending-is-obvious.html#comments) Now a month later it seems potential Armageddon is a near certainty. In the previous posting I commented on how the disaster would take place but I think it is worth discussion how such circumstances would even be allowed to be possible. One issue shows us how a Democrat thinks and the other why it is hard to stomach most politicians.

Disenfranchisement of voters is a calling among Democrats. As various scenarios are discussed Democrats are finding that inconveniently math does not lie. The proportionment of delegates is going to result in neither Barak Obama, the leader, nor Hillary Clinton getting enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Discussions are now underway to figure out how to count the votes in Michigan and Florida, the two states who were penalized for moving up their respective primaries. I heard people in the Democratic Party on the Sunday morning TV talk shows say it is not morally right to not count the votes from the citizens of the two states. The question I have is when did it not become morally right to not count these votes? Was it not immoral as soon as the penalty was placed on the states of Michigan and Florida?

If one is concerned with the disenfranchisement of any voter then we should have heard an outcry on December 1, 2007 when the Democratic Party leadership decided to unseat Michigan delegates and even earlier when Florida was penalized. While the Michigan and Florida state politicians argued for legitimacy, there was no outrage from the national leadership under the stewardship of Yee-AAA Howard Dean. Fast forward to today when the error of the penalty is so obvious, we now hear arguments of morality. Disenfranchisement took place the minute the penalties were issued. It is my belief the most moral thing to do would be to live by the rules stated at the outset of the primaries. Democrats are now doing what they often do feint moral outrage when it is politically convenient.

Shallowness in politics from either party should not shock anyone. Political aspirations often equal political opportunity. We see another example of this in the issue of super delegates and their importance in deciding who may be the Democratic nominee. I find it convenient that they get to make their final declaration of support after the average citizen casts his/her vote. I find this insulting. Super delegates are made up of leaders of the Democratic Party. Shouldn’t super leaders take the lead? If you lead should you not be the FIRST to cast your vote? What a wonderful way of showing you unwavering support for someone or something then to cast the first vote. This open, gutless, and expected political maneuvering is an indictment of all politicians. It reaffirms why we receive so little leadership from them.

Because they didn't vote first the Democratic Party’s super delegates are scared stiff of having to be the judge and jury of their primary results. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. They expected to cast their vote for the winner except now they aren’t sure who the winner is. If there is any justice these super delegates will have to cast the deciding votes for the Democratic Presidential nominee. If you are super then you shouldn't run from taking the last shot just like Michael Jordan didn't. We of course are talking about politicians so we should expect them to figure out a way to never have to be put in this situation again. The politicians of today don’t lead. They don’t have the backbone to go first and despise casting the deciding vote.