Seriously, how retarded must you be to have written this:
Obama Selected, Not Elected
The Democratic Part [sic] can't seem to live up to its name. Democrats like Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Kucinich and others cried and screamed about George W. Bush being "selected" by the Supreme Court rather than being "elected" by the Electoral College as the Constitution mandates...
But that said, the Democrats have now gone and done exactly what they were so angry about in 2000. Obama has been selected by elitist Super-delegates rather than having been chosen by the grassroots party members.
Brilliant analysis, Jonathan. Because there is, of course, absolutely no difference between selecting your party's presidential nominee, then subsequently voting for the country's actual President. No difference. No reason to think there might be different rules, or criteria, or a different selection process. Which each party is free to develop on its own, as long as, in the end, there is a nominee for the general election.
The Blogging Tories: Because even total morons need a place to feel welcome in Blogoland.
FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE! Jonathan wants to lecture you on "conservative principles." No, really. You can't make this stuff up.
5 comments:
Can't Strong do anything but parrot Ann Coulter? Ad I see he's got that illiterate moron "Liberal 4ever" over there agreeing with him. How pathetic is that? Those two have the collective intelligence of a footstool.
Actually I was quoting Rush Limbaugh. You should try listening, you might learn something RT.
Thanks for reading CC.
In the eyes of those trying to stop him from gaining the White House, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Period, full stop. Never in a thousand years could he do something that would please them, even if it was fulfilling every platform and ideology of the farrest righterist. The only thing we'd hear is the goalposts being Overhauled to handle Indy 500 speeds.
So, he might as well do what pleases him and let them suck wind.
Just thinking, CC I do see your point. Obviously the two contests are different, but perhaps you can see my point considering both are subject to Campaign Finance and Elections Laws.
This goes back to my point of election vs. selection...
Red Tory, I was noting this "selection" vs. "election" idea before Ann Coulter ever blogged about it, check my blog and you'll see.
Have a great weekend.
Obviously the two contests are different
Of course. So obviously, your whole premise is false.
both are subject to Campaign Finance and Elections Laws.
No, they are not subject to the same election laws. The primary or caucus is not an election from a legal point of view, and is not subject to election laws any more than a high school student council election is.
Rush was telling anyone who would listen to attend the Democratic primaries, pretend to be a Democrat and vote in the primary, to skew the results. Had this been an election in the legal sense, he would now be in jail for election tampering.
Of course the biggest difference is that the "selected" Democrat nominee also won the popular vote, unlike the US Supreme Court "selected" President.
Post a Comment