Search This Blog

Friday, April 18, 2014

Democracy into the Dumpster: The Liberals Buy their Superdelegate Votes.

Posted by rycK on Friday, February 15, 2008 9:04:37 AM Revised 4.18.2014

My Party of Democrats is auctioning off the Presidency.[1] [2]

In a crude effort to prevent obvious losers from getting the nomination from the Party of Democrats, such as Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy ‘the peanut’ Carter [in his second attempt while knocking off Teddy Kennedy] and others, a system of caucuses and primaries was established in order to to, obviously, take control of the process and select ‘electable’ candidates, and the voters could just go out in the woods and whistle. This is the solution to democracy in the progressive view.

Any such process becomes a bit shabby when the race is very close and the superdelegates are able to set up a Star Chamber and make kings from the wreckage. [3] So, how does the process work in this case? Why, it is simple: The candidates just pander to the delegates and buy their allegiance and votes with money, promises and future power positions. Notice here that this process is the antithesis of the democratic process. Tammany Hall could not have worked out a better system.

The Party Fathers set aside 796 delegates (they are not really eligible for the compound noun that includes the word super in my view) that is 20% of the entire delegation. A win is 2025. To secure the win, Hillary has coughed up $195,500, but Obama has raised the steaks and stakes to $694,000. His contributions are recent, but Hillary’s machine stretches back a few years.

In the spirit of a San Francisco massage parlor, the delegates are whoring out their votes for money and power and Senator Obama has more money so let us guess what will happen? Well, it appears that they will accept the bribes and vote accordingly:

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, all seven elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.”[4]

You plunk the money on the drum and the monkey dances the Dunciad. This is almost as nauseating as John Murtha’s earmark funny money system where he cuts secretive earmarks and gets contributions as kickbacks. [5] [6]

As a Democrat, I must offer my comments of disgust at the performance of the so-called party leaders who act like insects devouring a dead bird. To say that this is anything other than a political cesspool is an understatement.

Let us all realize that many of our contributions to these people may just wind up in the pockets of party hacks. Isn’t that a great way to run a democratic republic?? The Party of Democrats is polluted with pigs and we need to clean out the sty.

How progressive!



[1] Super delegates may sink the Democrats Rules adopted in 1982 to take back the nominating process could haunt the party's leaders.
By Joshua Spivak  January 19, 2008,0,6353609.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail. “In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.”

[2] Seeking Superdelegates. “Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.”