Sunday, June 1, 2008

Random Thought on the Dems

No joke, just a serious question.

In 2000, the Dems filed lawsuits in Florida to change the election laws in the state DURING the count, recount and re-recount fiasco. It failed, but set the stage for what happened yesterday with the DNC re-deciding (after the fact) that the "play by our rules or your votes don't count" would be given a "do-over."

The Obamessiah was given a percentage of the delegates from Michigan even though he had not been on the ballot. Would one of you Democrat loyalists give me a straight answer on how this is "ensuring every vote counts?" By my logic:
1. It doesn't add up to letting the popular vote stand on its own.
2. Gives the appearance that Obama is the chosen candidate regardless of the overall popular vote (opposite of what they claimed in 2000).
3. Rewards these two states for thumbing their collective noses at the rules committee and proceeding with the non-sanctioned votes in the first place.
4. Perhaps makes them count MORE by bringing them to the table when everything is in an uproar and brings additional scrutiny (at least by non-msm avenues) to the reversal of the DNC position on total popular vote vs electoral vote.
5. Reinforces (at least in non-msm and non-Dem voters eyes) the image of the DNC changing rules after an election takes place to make things work in their favor.

So, basically, I'm asking WTF?

No comments: