I know, I know, fellow Coffee drinkers. I have been in contempt recently, for I’ve failed to deliver a steady supply of delicious Brew. Regrettably, I came down with quite the illness during the past week; I had a debilitating combination of the Plague, a cold, the flu, Ebola, hoof and mouth disease, SARS, gout, West Nile virus, and rheumatoid arthritis. I was in no condition to Brew much less breath. I feared for my life on several occasions.
There was a veritable short ton of material about which to write, and I diligently saved links and ideas so I could discuss them with you. However, most of it is now “OBE” or overcome by events, so there’s little point in bothering now. It’s tragic, really, because I enjoy our time together. And frankly, ranting about the world’s absurdity is a good way to stay sane.
The Dying Democracy of the Democrat:
Perhaps you’ve heard about these supreme beings called “superdelagates”, a strictly Democrat idea. The creation of these things is rather simple: the Democratic Party wanted the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) composition to be less dependent on the will of party leadership and more reflective of the votes the common man cast. Of course, party leadership felt that these changes might have crimped their power and influence a little too much, so they created superdelagates. Where regular delegates (attendees to the DNC) are selected by the voters, superdelegates are not and are free to support whoever they want. Since the Democratic nomination is so tight this year, the superdelegates might play “king-maker.” By that I mean they will have the ability to select the nomination, somewhat usurping the role from the people. Remember, superdelegates can support whoever they want; they’re not beholden to the will of the people.
Some, however, are probably beholden to one of the candidates. These superdelegates are usually elected officials. Elected officials like campaign donations because as we all know, money rules the day when it comes to candidate viability in elections. So, it’s feasible that some of these superdelegates could be, I don’t know, influenced by certain campaign donors to vote/support one candidate over the other because he or she happened to slip some cash into the super’s pocket. You know, to support their reelection. It just so happens that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done just that with a number of superdelegates. The point is made in that article that handing out cash to individual voters or the delegates pledged to represent the voters’ wills would be considered somewhat tasteless, if not illegal, in our democratic process, doing the same to other elected officials who happened to be superdelegates to help these supers in their own elections isn’t so bad. It can’t be. Since Obama and Hillary have donated a total of $890,000 to superdelegates in the past few years. Obama’s political action committee has given $694,000 since 2005, and has 81 superdelegates who’ve pledged support to him. Of those 81, 34 were the recipients of $228,000.
Surely not all superdelegates are so easily swayed. I don’t doubt that some of them are moral and objective (well, reasonably so). But the old adage “money talks” must apply here as well. Some of these delegates will pledge support to someone in a dance of political favors. (Speaking of political favors, Bill Clinton recently yelled at Bill Richardson for his not supporting Hillary – asking him if two cabinet posts wasn’t enough. Richardson was a two-time Cabinet appointee of Bill Clintons.)
I’m bothered by the superdelegate issue for two reasons. One, as previously mentioned these delegates simply don’t have to cast their vote towards the candidate that the people want. They can vote for whomever. That’s placing yet another barrier between the people and the selection of their President. Two, these delegates can be bought, because they’re not required to represent the people, and because most of them are party or other elected officials and while it’s not bribery, campaign donations surely influences one’s decision about who to support. Must we really have more non-representative steps in our processes?
In fairness, the Republicans also have non-pledged delegates. But while non-pledged superdelegates make up approximately one-fifth of the 4,049 votes at the DNC, the Republican superdelegate total consists only of the 123 members of the RNC. This is out of 2,380 delegates. The likelihood of the DNC supers making a difference is much greater.
Frankly, superdelegates as a whole make me a little ill. Not being beholden to the will of the people is bad enough, but they get a disproportionate amount of power when it comes to electing a President. They can cast their delegate vote to whomever they wish, and then they get to vote in the general election, not to mention that they may influence voters simply by the virtue of their offices and ability to nominate and thus endorse a candidate.
And you thought this was a democracy. Well, it is, sort of. Loosely. In a way.
Mao: The Generous One:
Chairman Mao Zedong was concerned that his country was poor, and had little to offer the US in the way of trade. So he came up with an interesting proposition, which he posed to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973. He offered what he had a surplus of: Chinese women. He offered to “give a few” to the US. Tens of thousands. A few minutes later in the meeting, he came back to that issue and offered Kissinger 10 million Chinese women. Mao stated to Kissinger that they had too many women, and these women birthed too many children. Kissinger did the only thing he could do in the situation without embarrassing Mao: he said that it was such a novel proposition that “we will have to study it.” Could you imagine being a fly on the wall in those negotiations?
Word of the Day: Ennui (on-WEE) (noun): A feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction arising from lack of interest; boredom.
On This Day in History: The USS Maine sinks in Havana harbor, which leads to the Spanish-American War (1898). Does anyone remember that ship, what was it, the Maine? The Soviet Union officially announces that it has completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (1989).
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.
No comments:
Post a Comment