Obama Was Selected, Not Elected
Jun 3, 2008 Political
Karma is a wonderful thing sometimes because it sometimes comes back to bite people in the butts. Such is the case with the Democratic party and their current Selection to lead them In 2000 the Democrats lost their minds because Al Gore won more of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote which is the fairest way to ensure that small, heavily populated areas of the country do not dictate who is elected. It allows the smaller folks to have an equal say. The Democrats began calling for change (there is that word) to the process. That is what they do, don’t like the outcome, change the rules. Fortunately, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to make that happen.
However, a funny thing happened after the Democrats began crying that Bush was selected (by the Supreme Court) rather than elected by the people. The Democrats have now selected (by way of the Super Delegates) their nominee rather than electing him via the people. Hillary Clinton won more of the popular vote and if the Democrats had allocated their delegates the way the Republicans did, she would have run a long time ago. Yes, Clinton won the popular vote and Obama won the delegate count sp he was selected and not elected.
How many Democrats have you heard crying about the illegitimate nominee? How many Democrats have bumper stickers that read “Selected, not Elected”? How many of them will refuse to acknowledge Obama as the legitimate candidate because he was selected by a small group of special people rather than the voting public? How many will proclaim that every vote should count and that the will of the people is important? How many will talk of disenfranchisement?
As I write this, Obama is giving his selection speech (it can’t be a victory speech, he did not win) and he started it off by pulling his grandma from under the bus. He acknowledged her and the fact that she raised him and he said that tonight was for her. He said she was in Hawaii and could not make it because of her health. I guess it is all the same, he does not want a typical white person around him anyway.
I have to admit, the guy gives a good speech and he really gets the crowd into it. Then again, so did Hitler and we know how that ended. Obama is saying a lot of nothing and he is inspiring a lot of people with promises he cannot keep. It is unfortunate that so many Americans are absolutely clueless with regard to this guy and with politics in general.
But then again, what should we expect from a group of people who cried about Bush being “selected” and not elected while acting as if Obama, who really was selected rather than elected, as if he is the second coming of the messiah?
Sources:
Right on the Right
The Discerning Texan
Tags: Democrats, Obama, selected not elected, super delegates
Pelosi Sides with Obama
Feb 15, 2008 Political
I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are many issues that come up that do not require this or that a district is about evenly split so a politician needs to use good judgment (there is a contradiction in terms) but for the most part, they should follow the wishes of those who put them in office. Some people do not agree with this and there has been at least one who resorted to childish insults because of my position. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi thinks I am right.
Today, Pelosi said that the Super Delegates should vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Now I don’t necessarily agree that this should be so with the SDs because the rules allow them to vote however they want though many would be foolish to tick off the people who will vote for them (at least for the ones who hold elected office).
Don’t veto the people’s choice.
“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”
She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.
“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” SFGate
I agree that this should be done. However, I also believe that Pelosi is being a hypocrite when she says this and I believe it is because she supports Obama in the race. She has not endorsed him but she is leaning that way and it is obvious by what she has said that she wants him to win. Perhaps she will feel threatened by Hillary as president. Here is why she is hypocritical; she keeps voting against the wishes of her constituents. She voted to keep funding the war and she has not voted to stop it.
I am in favor of staying until we achieve victory so I am happy about this but it runs contrary to what she is saying here. She voted for a minimum wage increase that people wanted (everyone wants more pay) but then she excluded the tuna company in her district so they could keep wages low. She has never taken a position against a colleague who voted for or against something contrary to the voters. As a matter of fact, when Republicans vote in accordance with the wishes (not nearly enough do this) of their constituents, Pelosi criticizes them. Let a congressman from a military district vote in favor of funding the troops and she says he is being obstructive despite the fact that military families want their troops funded. Nearly all voters in their right minds (and certainly a majority) want Congress to cut spending and stop using earmarks but none of them do that and Pelosi is not telling them to.
Though it might appear that she agrees with me I guess it only appears that way because she has had to change a position in order to help the candidate she wants to win. Of course, she is also probably worried that ticking off Democrats could put her back in the minority and she won’t be banging that gavel next year.
Reading the comments at the SFGate, the source of this story (linked above), people keep saying comments from Hillary supporters who think she should get the delegates and that Florida and Michigan should be seated. I need to know something from the Democrats. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention and neither has won outright with Obama leading by more than 100 votes (just leading is probably good enough) and the SDs award their votes to Hillary making her the winner will we be able to say Hillary was selected and not elected?
Gore sued George Bush and lost. The appeals went to the SCOTUS and they determined that the recounts had to stop (I actually think they could not recount in select areas) and George Bush won. Since that time Democrats have called him illegitimate and said he was selected, not elected. They claim the SCOTUS put Bush in office against the will of the people.
If the SDs do that with Hillary then their actions would be no different than those of the SCOTUS in Gore vs Bush (except that Bush won). I would just be interested in hearing how the liberals will rationalize this because no matter how you slice it, they are both the same thing. Actually, how liberals describe Florida in 2000 is closer to my hypothetical situation because in mine, Hillary really is behind.
Bush was only behind in the minds of the liberals.
Tags: dns, gore v bush, Pelosi, scotus, selected not elected, super delegates