The Political Inquirer

The Democratic party and their dilemma of how to handle the situation in Florida and Michigan is doing wonders to enforce the stereotype that Democrats will pander to anyone who wishes to shrug off personal responsibility.  I mean come on, “We knew the rules, we broke them, were not sorry, we won’t make any promises that we won’t do it again, but you should give us a break anways.”  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see that much of a difference in the Democrats or the Republicans in this regard aside from the groups they pander to.  Looking at the home mortgage crisis you can see the Democrats are crying for the poor homeowners and the Republicans are crying for the poor banks.  Meanwhile, the honest taxpayer and US dollar are taking it in the shorts.

Glenn Beck excellently discusses this issue concerning an overall lack of personal responsibility in his recent article which I recommend reading.

“…what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?”

What is incredulous to me is that these states are not only crying about their unfair victimization, they also seem to think that somebody else should pay for the costs of holding these contests over again.  Florida governor Charlie Crist thinks the DNC should pay for them.  Howard Dean thinks that the money would be better spent for Democrats in the general election.  In fairness, I wouldn’t have a problem with Florida or Michigan holding new contests as long as the states pay for them and the candidates(mostly Barak) have ample time to hold their beauty pageants.  I have to wonder though if the Floridians and Michiganders would much rather keep the ~$30 million or so dollars it would cost to redo the elections and spend it on important matters such as education and infrastructure.  

To put it simply, I don’t think seating the delegates is important at all.  Aside from a satisfied feeling people might have that their votes were counted, what else can be gained?  Even if both of these states would go to Hillary, with the likely slim majority she would probably only net a maximum of 30 delegates in the process which would leave her still considerably behind Obama.  If Barak were to come out ahead with these contests, he would still not be able to capture enough delegates to secure the nomination.  I happen to like Chris Dodd’s idea of splitting the delegates right down the middle although it sounds more like a rhetorical suggestion than a real one.  Meanwhile, Republicans dance with glee watching all the infighting.

This much should be clear; anyone who thinks the results should be seated as they were originally held is either a shameless Hillary supporter or a Limbaugh strategizing Republican, and isn’t it an odd inconsistency that Limbaugh does not like McCain but still wants to get Hillary elected so the Republican Party has a better chance.  I haven’t figured that one out yet.