RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 2
by 4
users |
~ADVERTISING~
I wanna be a superdelegate
Dennis Clayson
Suzie: Mommy ... Mommy! When I grow up I wanna be a superdelegate!
Mom: A what?
Suzie: I wanna be a superdelegate. A superdelegate is a ...
Mom: You are very precocious little girl, but I know what a superdelegate is, honey. I am an intelligent, free-thinking, unbelievably aware and extraordinarily compassionate liberal woman. But sweetheart, I thought you would grow up to be a doctor, a lawyer, a professor of gender studies or even the acme of all human aspirations, a social activist.
Suzie: But Mommy, a superdelegate is more important than any of those.
They are so important that they have a "right" to switch "allegiance" from one candidate to another. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds very important.
Mom: Come over here, Suzie, and sit by on my knee while I explain to you what a superdelegate is.
In 1968, the Democrats had a convention in Chicago. The young people, who were full of righteous indignation and the highest ethical motivations, held a peaceful rally in the streets of Chicago. This peaceful and loving demonstration was met by the Nazi police, who were controlled by the Chicago Democratic machine.
The convention was so divided that Richard Nixon became the next president. Do you know who Nixon was?
Suzie: Yes, Mommy. He was the devil. After his death, his evil spirit entered into the body of Vice President Cheney.
Mom: That’s right. Well, the party leaders were upset, so they gave more power to the people. This left some Democrats believing that the party leaders and elected politicians didn’t have enough power, which is very bad because power is necessary to make sure that the government can help everyone. So the superdelegate rule was started after 1980. Its purpose was to give power back to active politicians.
Suzie: And it worked ... didn’t it, Mommy?
Mom: Well, it depends. The superdelegates only make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates. So it works best in close elections when the people can’t decide who should be the next president.
Suzie: So if the people aren’t able to decide, the powerful people get to decide. That’s why I want to be a superdelegate. But Mommy, don’t Democrats believe in democracy?
Mom: This is hard to explain, but let me try. The government is supposed to take care of all of us, but sometimes the people don’t know what is best for them. Sometimes, those of us who are smarter, like you and me, need to override the ignorance of the people. This is for their own good, of course.
Suzie: I saw on TV that the superdelegates also get a lot of money. Is that right?
Mom: I don’t know what you were watching, because the media isn’t supposed to talk about things like that unless they are talking about Republicans; but yes, a superdelegate can demand a lot from candidates.
So far, the superdelegates have received close to a million dollars from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sources.
Suzie: Does that mean that if I were a superdelegate, my vote could be bought?
Mom: Absolutely not! It may look that way. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions are a reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take, but anyone who would say such a thing can’t be trusted.
Suzie: So the superdelegates don’t really decide anything?
Mom: Well, no. I mean ... they could, but they will always be fair. A political scientist at the University of Virginia said, and I hope that if you don’t grow up to be a professor of gender studies, or a professor of journalism, that you would, at least, become a professor of political science; well, this professor said, "Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates."
Suzie: Then if I were a superdelegate, would they be helpful to me also?
Mom: Yes, they could promise you all sorts of things, but they would never do that. They could give you some money, but it wouldn’t be much.
Suzie: But Mommy, what could I buy with the money they would give me?
Mommy: Not much, Suzie ... just the next president of the United States.
Suzie: Mommy ... Mommy! When I grow up I wanna be a superdelegate!
Mom: A what?
Suzie: I wanna be a superdelegate. A superdelegate is a ...
Mom: You are very precocious little girl, but I know what a superdelegate is, honey. I am an intelligent, free-thinking, unbelievably aware and extraordinarily compassionate liberal woman. But sweetheart, I thought you would grow up to be a doctor, a lawyer, a professor of gender studies or even the acme of all human aspirations, a social activist.
Suzie: But Mommy, a superdelegate is more important than any of those.
They are so important that they have a "right" to switch "allegiance" from one candidate to another. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds very important.
Mom: Come over here, Suzie, and sit by on my knee while I explain to you what a superdelegate is.
In 1968, the Democrats had a convention in Chicago. The young people, who were full of righteous indignation and the highest ethical motivations, held a peaceful rally in the streets of Chicago. This peaceful and loving demonstration was met by the Nazi police, who were controlled by the Chicago Democratic machine.
The convention was so divided that Richard Nixon became the next president. Do you know who Nixon was?
Suzie: Yes, Mommy. He was the devil. After his death, his evil spirit entered into the body of Vice President Cheney.
Mom: That’s right. Well, the party leaders were upset, so they gave more power to the people. This left some Democrats believing that the party leaders and elected politicians didn’t have enough power, which is very bad because power is necessary to make sure that the government can help everyone. So the superdelegate rule was started after 1980. Its purpose was to give power back to active politicians.
Suzie: And it worked ... didn’t it, Mommy?
Mom: Well, it depends. The superdelegates only make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates. So it works best in close elections when the people can’t decide who should be the next president.
Suzie: So if the people aren’t able to decide, the powerful people get to decide. That’s why I want to be a superdelegate. But Mommy, don’t Democrats believe in democracy?
Mom: This is hard to explain, but let me try. The government is supposed to take care of all of us, but sometimes the people don’t know what is best for them. Sometimes, those of us who are smarter, like you and me, need to override the ignorance of the people. This is for their own good, of course.
Suzie: I saw on TV that the superdelegates also get a lot of money. Is that right?
Mom: I don’t know what you were watching, because the media isn’t supposed to talk about things like that unless they are talking about Republicans; but yes, a superdelegate can demand a lot from candidates.
So far, the superdelegates have received close to a million dollars from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sources.
Suzie: Does that mean that if I were a superdelegate, my vote could be bought?
Mom: Absolutely not! It may look that way. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions are a reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take, but anyone who would say such a thing can’t be trusted.
Suzie: So the superdelegates don’t really decide anything?
Mom: Well, no. I mean ... they could, but they will always be fair. A political scientist at the University of Virginia said, and I hope that if you don’t grow up to be a professor of gender studies, or a professor of journalism, that you would, at least, become a professor of political science; well, this professor said, "Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates."
Suzie: Then if I were a superdelegate, would they be helpful to me also?
Mom: Yes, they could promise you all sorts of things, but they would never do that. They could give you some money, but it wouldn’t be much.
Suzie: But Mommy, what could I buy with the money they would give me?
Mommy: Not much, Suzie ... just the next president of the United States.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
Brian B wrote on Feb 24, 2008 6:42 PM:
" I can't wait to see the responses to this one!! It'll be better than reading the funny paper!!
"
"
jeroze wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:04 PM:
" Last week Professor Clayton bemoaned religous bigotry as a cause for the defeat of a candidate who belonged to a certain religious group.
It occurs to me that we may have more than just religious bigotry in politics.
Poor Mom and Suzie, are so naive and and biased.
I wonder if there are any U S A Citizens who are more greatly challenged.
Come to think of it, I don't know many politically active people who were so unfortunate as Suzie's Mom was when the smarts were handed out.
I was tempted to accuse Professor Clayson of plagiarizing from Rush Limbaugh this week. Suzie's mom is the kind of Liberals he talks about.
But I won't do that.
And it is my opinion you will not be able to buy the next President of the United States.
No you can't, No you can't, No you can't. Sorry, Suzie. "
It occurs to me that we may have more than just religious bigotry in politics.
Poor Mom and Suzie, are so naive and and biased.
I wonder if there are any U S A Citizens who are more greatly challenged.
Come to think of it, I don't know many politically active people who were so unfortunate as Suzie's Mom was when the smarts were handed out.
I was tempted to accuse Professor Clayson of plagiarizing from Rush Limbaugh this week. Suzie's mom is the kind of Liberals he talks about.
But I won't do that.
And it is my opinion you will not be able to buy the next President of the United States.
No you can't, No you can't, No you can't. Sorry, Suzie. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 25, 2008 1:49 PM:
" Poor Cross, liberals being called out in the media is a hard thing to take. And to think that there is hardly a difference between 40% and 13%; this proves the point to us all why libbies love to over-tax the well-to-do successful people of the US. 40 cents to the dollar is 27 cents more per dollar, Cross. In other terms thrice as expensive! Thanks for pointing this out for the good guys.
I have no doubt that if no clear cut demo has an advantage going into the convention, Billary sure will end up with the nomination. Wild Bill will make sure of that behind closed doors and blue dresses.
"
I have no doubt that if no clear cut demo has an advantage going into the convention, Billary sure will end up with the nomination. Wild Bill will make sure of that behind closed doors and blue dresses.
"
cross1242 wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:43 PM:
" hetfield, I, for one, have no idea what your point is and that makes it pretty lame.
BTW - My math was wrong. The Democrats have 4050 delegates of which about 800 are superdelegates. That's 20%. The Republicans have 2382 delegates among which are 150 superdelegates. That's 6%. (Not that my bad math makes a difference to my points.) "
BTW - My math was wrong. The Democrats have 4050 delegates of which about 800 are superdelegates. That's 20%. The Republicans have 2382 delegates among which are 150 superdelegates. That's 6%. (Not that my bad math makes a difference to my points.) "
hetfield wrote on Feb 25, 2008 5:25 PM:
" Wow. Cross, you dont understand something and for once didnt take the opportunity to tell everyone exactly what the writer was stating.
My point was simple. Libbies see %'s like 40 and 13 and think they are equal. Your post suggests that the good guys have superdelegates as well and Clayson shouldnt be acting as if they dont. There is a huge difference in the delegates in each party. But you suggest this difference is negligable because the republicans also have superdelegates.
This is parallel to the fact libbies see little difference in taxing the wealthy at different rates. You wish to tax the wealthy at higher rates even though at all rates they pay alot more in than anyone else. Why should they pay a higher rate? Do they get more from the government than anyone else? Do they get a higher level of services? No, but they should not only pay more in dollars but should also have to pay a higher percentage.
Libbies do not understand the numbers, much like your math was incorrect in the percentages.
Also, you use the term 'pretty lame' in your rebuttal. Is pretty supposed to be used as a degree of lameness or do you think the word makes it look more pleasing to the eye? "
My point was simple. Libbies see %'s like 40 and 13 and think they are equal. Your post suggests that the good guys have superdelegates as well and Clayson shouldnt be acting as if they dont. There is a huge difference in the delegates in each party. But you suggest this difference is negligable because the republicans also have superdelegates.
This is parallel to the fact libbies see little difference in taxing the wealthy at different rates. You wish to tax the wealthy at higher rates even though at all rates they pay alot more in than anyone else. Why should they pay a higher rate? Do they get more from the government than anyone else? Do they get a higher level of services? No, but they should not only pay more in dollars but should also have to pay a higher percentage.
Libbies do not understand the numbers, much like your math was incorrect in the percentages.
Also, you use the term 'pretty lame' in your rebuttal. Is pretty supposed to be used as a degree of lameness or do you think the word makes it look more pleasing to the eye? "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:27 PM:
" hetfield @ Feb 25, 2008 5:25 PM said, "You wish to tax the wealthy at higher rates even though at all rates they pay alot more in than anyone else. Why should they pay a higher rate?"
You bet I think that people who are better off should pay more than those who are poor off.
Why?
Because, despite your denial, they DO get a lot more out of this country and society that those at the bottom of the heap. They have been able to use a lot more of this country's infrastructure than those who are just getting by. The fact that you don't acknowledge that has more to do with refusing to admit that than with ignorance of reality.
And, secondly, this is a society and not a colony of independent actors. We're not all on our own. Each of us is our brother's keeper. (Let's see. Who said that?) We need everybody to understand and act like that. And, government is in the best position to make the necessary arrangements. Getting a society like that should mean that a lot more people will do better on their own just because they know that if they take a risk and lose, they are not going to have to live under a bridge because our society just doesn't care. "
You bet I think that people who are better off should pay more than those who are poor off.
Why?
Because, despite your denial, they DO get a lot more out of this country and society that those at the bottom of the heap. They have been able to use a lot more of this country's infrastructure than those who are just getting by. The fact that you don't acknowledge that has more to do with refusing to admit that than with ignorance of reality.
And, secondly, this is a society and not a colony of independent actors. We're not all on our own. Each of us is our brother's keeper. (Let's see. Who said that?) We need everybody to understand and act like that. And, government is in the best position to make the necessary arrangements. Getting a society like that should mean that a lot more people will do better on their own just because they know that if they take a risk and lose, they are not going to have to live under a bridge because our society just doesn't care. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:08 PM:
" The wealthy pay more in taxes for one reason; liberal lawmakers continue to overspend and want a huge government. They want to continue to overtax investment and earnings to pay for their pork barrel spending projects, illegals, and any program that encourages people to stop working.
FTW
"
FTW
"
Phil wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:23 AM:
" cross - don't waste your time with the hetfield's of this world. Some people don't want to try to expand their limited knowledge.
Charles Barkley, of all people, pegged it in his recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. "
Charles Barkley, of all people, pegged it in his recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:15 AM:
" Phil:
You're right, of course. However, I have some feeling of wanting to argue with far-righties not because I expect them to finally see the light. Rather, it's to show others with incipient far-right leanings that it's a bunch of baloney.
It's the same thing for me with Prof. Clayson's columns: week after week of far-right baloney and absolute silence published in response. It may be a vein hope that others will see that there is a response and get them to recognize baloney when they read it.
I do find it fascinating to see great ignorance masquerading as great wisdom. "
You're right, of course. However, I have some feeling of wanting to argue with far-righties not because I expect them to finally see the light. Rather, it's to show others with incipient far-right leanings that it's a bunch of baloney.
It's the same thing for me with Prof. Clayson's columns: week after week of far-right baloney and absolute silence published in response. It may be a vein hope that others will see that there is a response and get them to recognize baloney when they read it.
I do find it fascinating to see great ignorance masquerading as great wisdom. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:54 PM:
" Far-right? Baloney? Neither are correct of course. Tell you what Cross n Phil, post here what you plan to do with your tax rebate. Let's see how far you want to go to help the environment, or the helpless in Waterloo/Cedar Valley.
Like most lefties you talk a huge game, but do little.
The reason you are feeling so poorly is that the Courier is one of the few publications that posts conservative opinions. Perhaps you should read the NY papers. "
Like most lefties you talk a huge game, but do little.
The reason you are feeling so poorly is that the Courier is one of the few publications that posts conservative opinions. Perhaps you should read the NY papers. "
Phil wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:15 AM:
" Read the NY papers? You mean the NY Times that has William Kristol - the standard for (wrong) conservative neo-cons - as a columnist? Or the NY Sun or NY Post - couple of right wing rags that pass themselves off as newspapers.
I don't mind conservative columnists at all - I have mentioned several in my posts over the weeks that I read regularly. Anyone, conservative, moderate, or liberal who makes thought out, reasoned arguments I have no problem with as a columnist. Hacks, whether they are right-wing or left-wing, don't deserve the ink and paper they waste. "
I don't mind conservative columnists at all - I have mentioned several in my posts over the weeks that I read regularly. Anyone, conservative, moderate, or liberal who makes thought out, reasoned arguments I have no problem with as a columnist. Hacks, whether they are right-wing or left-wing, don't deserve the ink and paper they waste. "
Leo46 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:06 AM:
" Cross said "I do find it fascinating to see great ignorance masquerading as great wisdom. "
Amen to that!! Oh, were you talking about "neocons" again? I thought maybe you were talking about "neolibs" "
Amen to that!! Oh, were you talking about "neocons" again? I thought maybe you were talking about "neolibs" "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:19 AM:
" Interesting piece this week by the Mr Clayson as he uses someone named Suzie and her mother to illustrate the superdelegate conundrum being faced by the Democratic party this year. Much of the commentary was the usual useless blather that the good professor uses to excoriate the "leftists" but the interesting paradigm is the process in which the superdelegate can be persuaded to support a certain candidate over another. Lets hope the Democratic candidate is decided before the convention so the ethical morass that is the superdelegate does not come into play this year or any other year be it R or D.
Also,,, In reality I do not believe any political party has to meet any ethical or moral standard in choosing their candidate. The political parties in this country are not a constitutionally guaranteed entity, they are simply what they are, independent contractors out for their own gain with the intent of holding onto as much political power as they can. The R's and D's are simply the Halliburton and Blackwater of the political world. Woe, to the individual who gives up his right to self determination to a political party "
Also,,, In reality I do not believe any political party has to meet any ethical or moral standard in choosing their candidate. The political parties in this country are not a constitutionally guaranteed entity, they are simply what they are, independent contractors out for their own gain with the intent of holding onto as much political power as they can. The R's and D's are simply the Halliburton and Blackwater of the political world. Woe, to the individual who gives up his right to self determination to a political party "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:03 AM:
" " Each of us is our brother's keeper. (Let's see. Who said that?) We need everybody to understand and act like that. And, government is in the best position to make the necessary arrangements."
I think that's the scariest statement I've ever read.
Yep. Don't sign up for Hillary's health care plan and she'll garnish your wages. And, Cross, don't bother with your usual "neocon myth" blather. She DID say that. "
I think that's the scariest statement I've ever read.
Yep. Don't sign up for Hillary's health care plan and she'll garnish your wages. And, Cross, don't bother with your usual "neocon myth" blather. She DID say that. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:54 AM:
" hillaryc, out of curiosity, do you think that the Republican superdelegates face the same "conundrum" as do the Democratic superdelegates? "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Cross, Not this year as Mccain will have enough delegates locked up before the convention but if you read a little closer you will see I addressed that:
"Lets hope the Democratic candidate is decided before the convention so the ethical morass that is the superdelegate does not come into play this year or any other year be it R or D." "
"Lets hope the Democratic candidate is decided before the convention so the ethical morass that is the superdelegate does not come into play this year or any other year be it R or D." "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:31 PM:
" Kramerica @ Feb 27, 2008 11:03 AM, in response to my assertion that government is in the best position to take care of people in need, said, "I think that's the scariest statement I've ever read."
That depends on whether one's mindset is a mindless knee-jerk response that government is NEVER right or whether government with the proper administration can do a lot of good. Under W, the people doing the administration want to prove that government NEVER works and arranges things to prove their own point.
And, while it's not worth checking, I seriously doubt that Hillary said "garnish your wages." (Using the term "garnish.") People may have deductions from salary like taxes, SS, and Medicare. But, by no stretch of the imagination is that a "garnishment."
Has anyone else noticed that regardless of Prof. Clayson's original argument and my original reply, that these comments rapidly and always turn into some people saying, "libbies are dogs" and the libbies saying, "No, we're not"? "
That depends on whether one's mindset is a mindless knee-jerk response that government is NEVER right or whether government with the proper administration can do a lot of good. Under W, the people doing the administration want to prove that government NEVER works and arranges things to prove their own point.
And, while it's not worth checking, I seriously doubt that Hillary said "garnish your wages." (Using the term "garnish.") People may have deductions from salary like taxes, SS, and Medicare. But, by no stretch of the imagination is that a "garnishment."
Has anyone else noticed that regardless of Prof. Clayson's original argument and my original reply, that these comments rapidly and always turn into some people saying, "libbies are dogs" and the libbies saying, "No, we're not"? "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:41 PM:
" No, Cross, she said it. Want the sound clip? And mindless knee-jerk response? Again, another slap in the face to anyone who disagrees with Cross. We're just too stupid to understand how great government-run anything is right? No, my well-studied, well-informed opinion comes from a long history of how government run anything means WAY more expensive, inefficient and ineffective than advertised. If the government was a contractor you were considering hiring, you wouldn't, based solely on history. And yes I have noticed how Clayson's original arguments are lost and how rapidly the comments decline. Stand up and take a bow, Cross. You're the prime example. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:47 PM:
" Has anyone else noticed that regardless of Prof. Clayson's original argument and my original reply, that these comments rapidly and always turn into some people saying, "libbies are dogs" and the libbies saying, "No, we're not"? "
No, but I have noticed how certain posters on here seem to have a very high opinion (almost Obama like) of themselves and their opinions. Some posters seem to look to these messages for some type of validation for what must be an almost subconscious need to find just one person to agree with their ideas,,, be it good or bad. I have also noticed how some posters demand answers from others and then rarely provide answers for the questions they are asked. Thankfully we have you here 24-7 to monitor these situations and keep everyone on the up and up "
No, but I have noticed how certain posters on here seem to have a very high opinion (almost Obama like) of themselves and their opinions. Some posters seem to look to these messages for some type of validation for what must be an almost subconscious need to find just one person to agree with their ideas,,, be it good or bad. I have also noticed how some posters demand answers from others and then rarely provide answers for the questions they are asked. Thankfully we have you here 24-7 to monitor these situations and keep everyone on the up and up "
hetfield wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:48 PM:
" Cross doesnt believe a tax levy is a garnishment. This is incorrect as offsets happen for a number of different unpaid debts. SSI can even be offset; this is certainly an involuntary garnishment.
As far as the mudslinging goes it appears the lefties on this post, and in the current election, are the ones doing the slinging.
Cross/Phil, do you care to respond to my challenge whether you will give your tax rebate to the poor of this country? "
As far as the mudslinging goes it appears the lefties on this post, and in the current election, are the ones doing the slinging.
Cross/Phil, do you care to respond to my challenge whether you will give your tax rebate to the poor of this country? "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:08 PM:
" Yes, Kramerica, if you've got the sound clip of Hillary saying "garnishment" then I want it. "
Phil wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:38 AM:
" hetfield - I have not given one minute of thought about the great economic stimulus check I will be receiving in a few months. If you want to share who you will be donating your check to, perhaps I can see about matching your contribution. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:36 AM:
" Phil, I plan on depositing 'my' money(it was mine all along) into my mutual fund accounts. The left realized they have been overtaxing all along so they are giving my money back
However, you libs are shook up that the all-thinking gov't thinks you may know what to do with 'your' money. So you guys are kind of forced to think for yourselves by either saving the tree frog, investing in hydrogen vehicles, or by helping Gore create his new invention; a solar freezer that works better when the doors are left open, thus help lowering the temperature in the Artic region.
Have a great day! "
However, you libs are shook up that the all-thinking gov't thinks you may know what to do with 'your' money. So you guys are kind of forced to think for yourselves by either saving the tree frog, investing in hydrogen vehicles, or by helping Gore create his new invention; a solar freezer that works better when the doors are left open, thus help lowering the temperature in the Artic region.
Have a great day! "
Phil wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:10 AM:
" Totally different subject - but one that has had some play in this comment area before.
For anyone interested in a researched, rational evaluation of the Islamic terror threat I recommend you read this article and then get yourself a copy of the book discussed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703179.html "
For anyone interested in a researched, rational evaluation of the Islamic terror threat I recommend you read this article and then get yourself a copy of the book discussed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703179.html "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 28, 2008 1:11 PM:
" You're right, Phil. Total change of subject, always follow the liberal talking points and when you run out of ammo, talk about the war. This time by quoting a left-leaning columnist in a left-leaning newspaper. As if we're all supposed to go OH NOW WE SEE!! Please. And I'm SURE you've bought ALL the books recommended by conservatives on the subject, correct? "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 2:06 PM:
" Kramerica, I can save you time on trying to find a sound clip of Hillary saying the word “garnishment.” I’ve looked around the web and figured out what apparently happened.
She did NOT say “garnishment.” A questioner DID use the word. The context was that they were talking about Hillary’s proposal for universal health care. Her plan is much like that in Massachusetts. That is, everyone is required to buy health insurance. There is enforcement so that people can’t refuse to buy health insurance and then go to the hospital and claim treatment available to everyone covered by insurance. Thus, there would be some kind of system, among many available, to ensure that everyone does buy coverage. That could include garnishment but that is very remote since there are other more effective ways. And Hillary’s answer talked about the necessity of some enforcement and NOT how everyone is going to have wages garnished.
Personally, I don’t support Hillary’s plan. I think there are better ones out there.
BTW, the cost of the required minimum insurance will be lower since the pool of people is larger. And, if you buy that insurance, you’re not buying whatever you have now. So, the cost is a wash.
And, Hetfield goes into a rant about how all taxes amount to garnishment. That’s in line with the usual hard-right theory that all taxes amount to theft. That argument essentially answers itself. I’ve cited before Holmes statement that, “taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.” It’s something of a corollary that, “if we don’t have taxes then we won’t have a civilized society.” The only question is what taxes are we going to pay to keep our civilized society? Right now, the argument is the health care system is broken and we need to provide everyone with health care using taxes to keep our civilized society. The whole thing that we’re all individual actors robbed by government through taxes is just so much hard-right baloney.
Hetfield also demand that I declare that I’m going to donate by tax-rebate to charity since he finds me a bleeding heart. I love it when Hetfield tries to set the standard for helping others and announces that he’s going to put his money in a mutual fund. In my mind, that proves Hetfield as devoid of any feeling that he is his brothers keeper. And, thus, his demand that others donate to charity is really an appeal to make up for Hetfield’s lack of charity.
But, since he asked, I suspect that the largest portion of my rebate will go to paying pending bills. I, like everyone, have trouble making ends meet. And, some of those “bills” do include charitable donations.
"
She did NOT say “garnishment.” A questioner DID use the word. The context was that they were talking about Hillary’s proposal for universal health care. Her plan is much like that in Massachusetts. That is, everyone is required to buy health insurance. There is enforcement so that people can’t refuse to buy health insurance and then go to the hospital and claim treatment available to everyone covered by insurance. Thus, there would be some kind of system, among many available, to ensure that everyone does buy coverage. That could include garnishment but that is very remote since there are other more effective ways. And Hillary’s answer talked about the necessity of some enforcement and NOT how everyone is going to have wages garnished.
Personally, I don’t support Hillary’s plan. I think there are better ones out there.
BTW, the cost of the required minimum insurance will be lower since the pool of people is larger. And, if you buy that insurance, you’re not buying whatever you have now. So, the cost is a wash.
And, Hetfield goes into a rant about how all taxes amount to garnishment. That’s in line with the usual hard-right theory that all taxes amount to theft. That argument essentially answers itself. I’ve cited before Holmes statement that, “taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.” It’s something of a corollary that, “if we don’t have taxes then we won’t have a civilized society.” The only question is what taxes are we going to pay to keep our civilized society? Right now, the argument is the health care system is broken and we need to provide everyone with health care using taxes to keep our civilized society. The whole thing that we’re all individual actors robbed by government through taxes is just so much hard-right baloney.
Hetfield also demand that I declare that I’m going to donate by tax-rebate to charity since he finds me a bleeding heart. I love it when Hetfield tries to set the standard for helping others and announces that he’s going to put his money in a mutual fund. In my mind, that proves Hetfield as devoid of any feeling that he is his brothers keeper. And, thus, his demand that others donate to charity is really an appeal to make up for Hetfield’s lack of charity.
But, since he asked, I suspect that the largest portion of my rebate will go to paying pending bills. I, like everyone, have trouble making ends meet. And, some of those “bills” do include charitable donations.
"
hetfield wrote on Feb 28, 2008 2:40 PM:
" I demanded nothing, cross. I just find it funny that you have a double standard; the gov knows everything, except what to do with your rebate.
I support investment to grow our economy. As you stated several times, my charity is given to others by the gov.. I shouldnt have to give anyone anything extra!! My god man, that would be anti-liberal! "
I support investment to grow our economy. As you stated several times, my charity is given to others by the gov.. I shouldnt have to give anyone anything extra!! My god man, that would be anti-liberal! "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 28, 2008 3:10 PM:
" You can re-label it all you want Cross, rational people know what garnishing wages means, Hill just just the definition of the word rather than the actual word. She said the same thing, though. The government is FORCING me to buy health insurance and if I don't, they'll "help me" pay for it by taking my money in other ways, even if that includes my wages. What part of this don't/won't you understand? "
Phil wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:13 PM:
" Kramerica - hey, I just thought it was a good article - forget who wrote the column - look at the research the author did. I'm not trying to change the subject.
As far as the Washington Post being a "left leaning" - give me a break. They publish some of the most conservative columnists around - along with liberal ones. That's a total cop-out excuse to avoid getting more facts. "
As far as the Washington Post being a "left leaning" - give me a break. They publish some of the most conservative columnists around - along with liberal ones. That's a total cop-out excuse to avoid getting more facts. "
Phil wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:28 PM:
" hetfield - why do you hate America? The right says this is a nation founded on Christian principles and I know nothing more Christian than Matthew 19:20-24.
Actually, you might want to send it back to the Chinese, that's who we are borrowing it from anyway. Glad we had those conservatives in power from 2000-2006 so we could keep our country on such a sound fiscal policy and control government spending. "
Actually, you might want to send it back to the Chinese, that's who we are borrowing it from anyway. Glad we had those conservatives in power from 2000-2006 so we could keep our country on such a sound fiscal policy and control government spending. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:17 PM:
" hetfield @ Feb 28, 2008 2:40 PM said, "I shouldn't have to give anyone anything extra!! My god man, that would be anti-liberal!"
Unfortunately, hetfield, that happy day is not here yet. So, I know that I have to give to charity. But, after the Democrats take over nationally in December, maybe that day will be coming soon.
Kramerica @ Feb 28, 2008 3:10 PM said, "You can re-label it all you want Cross, rational people know what garnishing wages means."
Nice try to change the subject, Kramerica. YOU said that Hillary said "garnishment" and she didn't. She did indicate that her program is compulsory, which it is. And, the government has a system to do that just like it takes your money to build roads now. What part of that don't YOU understand? There is nothing that says that it can only build roads with our money. And we need universal health care just like we need roads. "
Unfortunately, hetfield, that happy day is not here yet. So, I know that I have to give to charity. But, after the Democrats take over nationally in December, maybe that day will be coming soon.
Kramerica @ Feb 28, 2008 3:10 PM said, "You can re-label it all you want Cross, rational people know what garnishing wages means."
Nice try to change the subject, Kramerica. YOU said that Hillary said "garnishment" and she didn't. She did indicate that her program is compulsory, which it is. And, the government has a system to do that just like it takes your money to build roads now. What part of that don't YOU understand? There is nothing that says that it can only build roads with our money. And we need universal health care just like we need roads. "
Phil wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:09 AM:
" hetfield - you say that the refund was "yours all along". Hmm..well since you appear to live in the general area of the Cedar Valley, let me clarify some things for you.
- The part that helped build the roads you use, supplies your electricity and other utilities - that's not yours.
- The part that allows you to own property and prevents your rights to keep it - that's not yours.
- The part that allowed you and any children you have to get 13 years of education - that's not yours.
- The part that provides you local police and fire protection - that's not yours.
- The part that is being put away for your future medical needs when your old (hey feel free to pay for this yourself if you want) - that's not yours.
- The part that insures you, your parents, your grandparents, etc. don't spend their final years in total poverty - that's not yours.
- The part that keeps your water clean and your air fit to breathe (thanks to those environmental wacko's) - that's not yours.
I could go on - those are the easy ones. By the way, assuming you work on the average 40 hours per week, get paid overtime if you work it, have a couple days off per week, have company supplied health care and other benefits - you should be giving part of "your" money to one of the local unions - because without all the things they have won for the working people through their bargaining efforts - you wouldn't have those either. "
- The part that helped build the roads you use, supplies your electricity and other utilities - that's not yours.
- The part that allows you to own property and prevents your rights to keep it - that's not yours.
- The part that allowed you and any children you have to get 13 years of education - that's not yours.
- The part that provides you local police and fire protection - that's not yours.
- The part that is being put away for your future medical needs when your old (hey feel free to pay for this yourself if you want) - that's not yours.
- The part that insures you, your parents, your grandparents, etc. don't spend their final years in total poverty - that's not yours.
- The part that keeps your water clean and your air fit to breathe (thanks to those environmental wacko's) - that's not yours.
I could go on - those are the easy ones. By the way, assuming you work on the average 40 hours per week, get paid overtime if you work it, have a couple days off per week, have company supplied health care and other benefits - you should be giving part of "your" money to one of the local unions - because without all the things they have won for the working people through their bargaining efforts - you wouldn't have those either. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:29 AM:
" infrastructure---- broken
property rights---- broken
education------- broken
social security-----broken
environment----- broken
War on poverty----failure
immigration-----broken
war on drugs---failure
defense----- success
The fix for all these problems is more money to the government,,,,because Americans can no longer be trusted to do anything through innovation and the private sector,, only the government can provide services and ideas in an equitable and innovated way to ensure that all are treated equally by the state. Do not judge the services the government has ran into the ground through mismanagement and lack of common sense,,,all these services would be unqualified successes if we only let the state manage more of the wealth created in this country . The state is the only true and uncorruptable entity that any citizen can trust,,, you should be wary of your neighbor if he has what you feel is too much stuff as he probably isn't contributing his fair share to the state and should be reported to the authorities "
property rights---- broken
education------- broken
social security-----broken
environment----- broken
War on poverty----failure
immigration-----broken
war on drugs---failure
defense----- success
The fix for all these problems is more money to the government,,,,because Americans can no longer be trusted to do anything through innovation and the private sector,, only the government can provide services and ideas in an equitable and innovated way to ensure that all are treated equally by the state. Do not judge the services the government has ran into the ground through mismanagement and lack of common sense,,,all these services would be unqualified successes if we only let the state manage more of the wealth created in this country . The state is the only true and uncorruptable entity that any citizen can trust,,, you should be wary of your neighbor if he has what you feel is too much stuff as he probably isn't contributing his fair share to the state and should be reported to the authorities "
hetfield wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:33 AM:
" Phil/Cross, you guys cant read/understand sarcasm apparantly. So you both maintain that the taxes I spend are not mine, because they go to infrastructure, yada yada. You are correct, however what you cant conceive is this part of my taxes is only a small portion. The rest go to liberal, democratic demahog pork projects and illegals.
Next time I will let you know when I make sarcastic comments, because you libs see something in black and white and automatically believe it! It doesnt matter the source, you probably read the National Inquirer as well and take that for truth.
And you know what your assumptions are worth Phil? Not the paper they are written on. So judge not, little lad.
Don't you guys have a project to work on? Like harnessing this cold weather and shipping it up North to save the world from Global Warming? Maybe watch another Gore or Michael Moore trashumentary?
I love it when the left controlled media prints the REAL truth; you libs get all worked up and through all your twists and spins you can't get away from reality. Your reality now is this; you have to choose between a Clinton and an Obama. Good luck! "
Next time I will let you know when I make sarcastic comments, because you libs see something in black and white and automatically believe it! It doesnt matter the source, you probably read the National Inquirer as well and take that for truth.
And you know what your assumptions are worth Phil? Not the paper they are written on. So judge not, little lad.
Don't you guys have a project to work on? Like harnessing this cold weather and shipping it up North to save the world from Global Warming? Maybe watch another Gore or Michael Moore trashumentary?
I love it when the left controlled media prints the REAL truth; you libs get all worked up and through all your twists and spins you can't get away from reality. Your reality now is this; you have to choose between a Clinton and an Obama. Good luck! "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:57 AM:
" Yawn. hillaryc @ Feb 29, 2008 7:29 AM gives a list of how everything the government does is broken. Once again, it's just so much hard-right baloney. Unfortunately, they keep repeating the baloney probably expecting that people will believe that government has a reverse Midas touch if only they hear the complaints enough time.
Rather than spend my time trying to explain to Hillaryc how she is wrong again, I'll refer her and everyone to a web page that already takes the hard-right laundry list and provides the rebuttal to every point. (Plus, it's in a brief chart form. So, those who want their facts brief can't complain.) It's at:
http://www.governmentisgood.com/feature.php?fid=14
The whole website "governmentisgood.com" is a great place for anyone to go for a quick rebuttal to everything the hard right stands for. (There's a book out too.)
I would think anyone on the hard-right must have an awful experience when he or she wakes up each morning. Upon consciousness coming, they must think, "Here I am about to spend another day in Hell. And, I'm all alone with no one to make it better." "
Rather than spend my time trying to explain to Hillaryc how she is wrong again, I'll refer her and everyone to a web page that already takes the hard-right laundry list and provides the rebuttal to every point. (Plus, it's in a brief chart form. So, those who want their facts brief can't complain.) It's at:
http://www.governmentisgood.com/feature.php?fid=14
The whole website "governmentisgood.com" is a great place for anyone to go for a quick rebuttal to everything the hard right stands for. (There's a book out too.)
I would think anyone on the hard-right must have an awful experience when he or she wakes up each morning. Upon consciousness coming, they must think, "Here I am about to spend another day in Hell. And, I'm all alone with no one to make it better." "
Kramerica wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:16 AM:
" Phil compared to the NY Times...yes I guess you could say the Wash.Post leans right..
Cross, you're right, she didn't use the actual WORD, she just used the exact DEFINITION
Hillary..........I love you. "
Cross, you're right, she didn't use the actual WORD, she just used the exact DEFINITION
Hillary..........I love you. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:25 AM:
" hetfield @ Feb 29, 2008 8:33 AM said, "Phil/Cross, you guys can't read/understand sarcasm apparently."
OH, I think we understand sarcasm perfectly well. But, I don't think that you understand when we reply that your sarcasm is misdirected. "
OH, I think we understand sarcasm perfectly well. But, I don't think that you understand when we reply that your sarcasm is misdirected. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:59 AM:
" Cross, I really have a hard time figuring out if your just ignorant or just unable to accept any opinion other than your biased view of the world. As usual you make this a left, right issue as you only see black and white and no grey, but I will play
For you to act as if it is just the right who claims many of the services our government provides are broken is hubris on a scale that only someone of vast ego and self-delusion could imagine. The left side of the political spectrum has spent the last 4 to 8 years, blaming every natural or unanatural disaster on the government,every child without health care on the government, every senior citizen without cheap prescriptions on the government, every bridge collapse on the government, every melting glacier on our government, every one without a flu shot on the government, then the government decides they can take your house if it provides a benefit to the government,yeah it's just a righty issue,,
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up evry morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
"
For you to act as if it is just the right who claims many of the services our government provides are broken is hubris on a scale that only someone of vast ego and self-delusion could imagine. The left side of the political spectrum has spent the last 4 to 8 years, blaming every natural or unanatural disaster on the government,every child without health care on the government, every senior citizen without cheap prescriptions on the government, every bridge collapse on the government, every melting glacier on our government, every one without a flu shot on the government, then the government decides they can take your house if it provides a benefit to the government,yeah it's just a righty issue,,
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up evry morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
"
cross1242 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:46 PM:
" Actually, hillaryc, it really IS just the hard-right wing that claims that "many of the services our government provides are broken." Everybody else may want to improve things here and there and believe that the democratic process will provide those improvements. (And, after the November elections, it looks as if the Democratic Party candidates who win on a massive scale will provide those improvements.) "
hetfield wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:14 PM:
" The only things we can look forward to if the dems win are huge tax increases, the continued decline in family values, and scandal after scandal.
For some reason the left relishes this and equates it to change. The good guys know how great our lives and our liberties are. The dems will only attempt to lessen both.
"
For some reason the left relishes this and equates it to change. The good guys know how great our lives and our liberties are. The dems will only attempt to lessen both.
"
hillaryc wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:26 PM:
" actually Cross your not only wrong but you are outright lying ,,, and your inability to recognize that is an example of the willful ignorance and plain right arrogance of yourself. as usual your love of your own id belies the simpleness of your outdated opinions. The workers and thinkers of the nation, both right and left will continue to pursue the greatness our country allows us to strive for, while the posers and disunifiers such as you will continue to tear it down and seperate it through a false ideology based on the oligarchy of self
Once again I will end with the truth which is:
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up every morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
"
Once again I will end with the truth which is:
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up every morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
"
cross1242 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:10 PM:
" hetfield, I recall stories of how long after FDR was gone that there were some people who would, after buying something, would check their change and if there was a Roosevelt dime included, would request two nickels instead. And some would literally throw away any Roosevelt dime they came upon. And that was despite the fact that most people hailed FDR then and since as one of our greatest presidents.
I think that Obama will be our next president with a big majority in Congress. And, I think that he has the capacity also to be one of our greatest presidents.
I also suspect that if Obama replaces FDR on the dime, that hetfield will be throwing away all his dimes. "
I think that Obama will be our next president with a big majority in Congress. And, I think that he has the capacity also to be one of our greatest presidents.
I also suspect that if Obama replaces FDR on the dime, that hetfield will be throwing away all his dimes. "
cross1242 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:19 PM:
" hillaryc @ Feb 29, 2008 1:26 PM charges me with "outright lying."
She is presumably referring to my earlier response that cited "http://www.governmentisgood.com" as responding to all her hard-right claims about how government has failed on everything.
I am totally mystified by how she thinks I am lying. The "Good Government" website really exists and it really does provide a rebuttal to everything the hard-right stands for. "
She is presumably referring to my earlier response that cited "http://www.governmentisgood.com" as responding to all her hard-right claims about how government has failed on everything.
I am totally mystified by how she thinks I am lying. The "Good Government" website really exists and it really does provide a rebuttal to everything the hard-right stands for. "
hetfield wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:32 PM:
" If B. Hussein Obama becomes president a dime wont be worth a penny. This guy has NO experience in anything but writing books and making speeches that sound very appealing. Unfortunately Mr. US Taxpayer will be paying for his make believe stories for years to come. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:10 PM:
" Once again cross outright lies about another persons intentions and then tries to mask the illogical and morally bankrupt opinions he makes here by citing a website that has nothing to do with the outright falsehoods he labels all hard right people with. He once again tries to feed his massive ego and limited intellect by changing the subject and hiding his opinion as fact.
The truth is as usual:
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up every morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
This is why I respect Phil,,, he may not like me, he may not agree with me, I don't think he hates me as much as he hates Pres. Bush, but he has an ability to grasp opinion for what it is,,, opinion. He doesn't take every post on here as a personal assault and he does not think he owns this website, He is someone who would make a difference in his neighbors life without the government mandating it. Most folks are the good guys,,, but there is one guy here who talks the game but can't play it
Obama in 08
Support Barack so Michelle can be proud of her country "
The truth is as usual:
Cross you wake up every morning hoping the government makes a difference in other peoples lives,,, whereas I wake up every morning knowing I will make a difference in other peoples lives. That isn't the difference between the left and the right,,,that's the difference between you and productive, intellegient members of society
This is why I respect Phil,,, he may not like me, he may not agree with me, I don't think he hates me as much as he hates Pres. Bush, but he has an ability to grasp opinion for what it is,,, opinion. He doesn't take every post on here as a personal assault and he does not think he owns this website, He is someone who would make a difference in his neighbors life without the government mandating it. Most folks are the good guys,,, but there is one guy here who talks the game but can't play it
Obama in 08
Support Barack so Michelle can be proud of her country "
cross1242 wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:49 AM:
" hetfield, since "B. Hussein Obama" is obviously suspicious to you, how about WW II General of the Army OMAR Bradley?" "
whyonearth wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:05 AM:
" I suspect George W. Bush will be on the dime before Obama will. As Cross implies, it is hisory that will dictate if a president will reverred or villified. There are a great number that presently despise GWB, but only history will tell if he is "one of the greatest presidents." "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
cross1242 wrote on Feb 24, 2008 12:06 PM:
Prof. Clayson recites the history of the creation of superdelegates in the Democratic Party. However, he, somehow, neglects to mention that Republicans have their superdelegates too.
Oops.
Prof. Clayson opines that, “The government is supposed to take care of all of us, but sometimes the people don’t know what is best for them.” However, the political parties are not “government.” (They try to influence government by each trying organizing the most disciplined vote-getters.)
Oops.
Prof. Clayson seems to make the case that delegates to the party’s national convention should be strictly on a one-man one-vote basis. But, it’s not and, as far as I know, never has been for either party. The Democratic Party awards bonus delegates to states that vote Democratic and the more Democratic a state is, the more bonus delegates the state gets. Awarding bonus delegates is a clear violation of one-man one-vote. It is also particularly prejudicial to states that regularly vote Republican. However, the Republican Party also awards bonus delegates at its convention to those that regularly vote Republican.
Oops.
Prof. Clayson points out that the Democratic superdelegates often get big campaign contributions. On that, Prof. Clayson is off target. By definition, ALL superdelegates are in the business of either getting elected themselves or members of their party. And that also solicit money from lobbyists. “Money is mother’s milk in politics.” Until we get public financing of elections, politicians are going to be trying to get money from anywhere they can. And, by the way, Republicans are politicians too. Therefore, I’d be very surprised if Republican superdelegates aren’t receiving campaign contributions too. It’s not illegal and Republicans are not immune to “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” mentality.
Oops.
Of course, it seems really odd to complain about the Democratic Party having superdelegates since the superdelegates have NEVER made a difference in the candidate nominated. And, there’s no reason to think they will this time especially since the national chair of the Democratic Party has publicly stated that he isn’t going to let the nominee be decided behind closed doors by the superdelegates. So, one is tempted to say, “So what” to Prof. Clayson’s concern about improving democracy in the Democratic Party. And, it’s worthy of note that the superdelegates to the Republican National Conventions have never determined the outcome of the candidate races for the Republican Party either.
Oops.
Of course, the detail oriented will note that the Republican delegates only include 13% superdelegates while the Democratic superdelegates included 40% superdelegates. To that, I would point out to the Republicans that their objection to superdelegates doesn’t seem to be to superdelegates as a principle but just to the relative numbers.
Oops.
Say what you will about superdelegates, and public pseudo-explanations that they exist so the party Pooh-Bahs can decide close contests that is NOT the real reason. The real reason is so that the Pooh-Bahs of both parties don’t have to suffer the indignity of having to run for one of the delegate positions and failing to get elected.
I conclude by saying that I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, that Prof. Clayson finds fault only with the Democratic Party and not with the Republican Party for doing the same thing. By doing so, he injures his reputation for equanimity in his treatment of Republicans and Democrats. But, I shall bear up with that realization.
"