The fall into two categories
- Politicians who lie about voters' issues.
- Politicians (and I'll add pundits) who make threats against Presidential nominees
Until Barack Obama, I would have said that you have a better chance of winning a state lottery than getting the truth out of a politician. I've stood with Sen. Obama through thick and thin, I think many of us have. Why? When he speaks, I don't have to think about whether or not his comments are calculated. I don't have to worry about whether the statements have been triangulated. I don't have to worry about whether he thinks I'm so stupid, I won't know that he's pulling my leg. There's no calculation, no triangulation, no leg pulling. I'm sorry to see the drama unfolding in FL and the attempt to turn voters against Sen. Obama and the DNC. At some point, and hopefully soon, voters are going to have to ask if their trust was misplaced if the politicians they believe in are willing to lie to them, and manipulate them, for their own selfish purposes. Here's why the argument about 'disenfranchisement' doesn't work:
The courts have already ruled that voters have not been disenfranchised by having their votes sanctioned by the DNC. Voting in a Presidential Primary is NOT a constitutional right. Voters have assumed it is and some politicians, for self serving reasons, have freely misled them into believing it is. In fact, the constitution is deliberate in not dictating which methods political parties are permitted to use in order to select their nominee. Prior to the early 1900s, the general public was not part of the candidate selection process. If the DNC and RNC wanted, both parties could create a superdelegate process and allow superdelegates to select the party's nominees. They could select nominees by pulling names out of a hat. They could choose any number of methods other than running Presidential primaries. Both have, instead, opted to have bring voters into the process.
Why? For any number of reasons:
1 - "Buy in" for the voters. You're more likely to vote for the candidate you helped your party select.
2 - MONEY. You're more likely to send cash to your respective party to support the nomination of 'your' candidate.
3 - It's possible that both parties believe that an informed and involved citizenry is important and primaries allow for voters to become better informed. (I'd count on money and 'buy in' mattering more to them).
Whatever the reasons we continue the primary process, those who make the 'Count the Vote' argument know all too well that the primary vote in 2008 is IN NO WAY relevant to what happened in Florida in 2000. The constitution DOES offer provisions for federal elections, most especially the Presidential race - which is why the courts intervened in 2000 (arguably, they shouldn't have despite having the right to do so).
The courts have already ruled that parties (whose selection processes are not regulated) can use whatever guidelines they view appropriate in making the selection. The only caveat is that political parties may not discriminate against voters by preventing them from voting. Hence, the DNC could not stop the people from MI and FL from voting. They can most certainly decide what to do with those votes as long as the decision is consistently and fairly applied.
Terry McAuliffe is well aware of this fact, as other diarists have pointed out. He threatened the same sanctions against MI for attempting to move up its primary in 2000. He was quite proud of using the threat of stripping MI of its delegates to get it to back down.
The question is now this, how can politicians who misinform, mislead, and manipulate voters be trusted to 'lead' them? It's a fundamental flaw in the candidacy of any politician who thinks that it's just 'good politics' to rile voters, lyingly tell them that they've been disenfranchised, when it's clear that they know that's not the truth.
I've spent 8 years laboring and trying to survive an administration that felt the American public was either 'too stupid for' or 'unworthy of' the truth. The costs to this country have been human and financial. This administration has cost us our standing in the world, as well. Anyone who lies to the voters about the 'small things' will lie about everything else. The unpardonable actions of his rivals makes it clear to me that trusting Sen. Obama was the best decision I could have made.
As for the second category, I can't add any more... what's more disgusting than THIS:
The apology:
How many times has a Presidential nominee been threatened this many times? Any politician who stays quiet on this issue doesn't deserve a single vote. This is becoming absolutely dangerous and "I'm sorry" is no longer enough.