Despite the Hype, Obamacare is Dead

By: Peter Egan

Obamacare is dead in the water. Yes, I said it and no, I'm not crazy.

Despite what you may have heard, Obamacare still has a long, long way to go before it ever manifests itself as a reality. In addition to the myriad of court challenges by individual states (which may or may not have valid points - I'm not a lawyer), Obamacare still must pass the test of voters this November, and the voters have the power to 'kill the bill', even if the courts don't.

As I predicted here on this site as well as on another site on a post entitled: Real Vote on Obamacare Takes Place this November, soon-to-be House Speaker Boehner has made clear that if Republicans regain a majority in the House of Representatives this November that Obamacare will not be funded.

Republicans will campaign on this issue, and will quite possibly eclipse the then-unprecedented sweep of 1994.

For anyone reading this that is unfamiliar with how the U.S. Government works, all budgetary matters (anything involving the spending of money, be it taxpayer funds, borrowed or printed money - for those of you in Rio Linda) must originate in the House of Representatives.

As explained previously on this site, whichever party controls that legislative chamber ultimately has the final say on whether or not Obamacare (Healthcare Reform, for those of you in Rio Linda) ever becomes a reality. If republicans are able to net at least 39 House seats this November, the chances are better than good that this Healthcare "Reform" is completely scrapped, most likely in favor of something that actually constitutes a reform and doesn't so much resemble a Chavez-style government takeover of yet another industry.

This so-called "healthcare" bill is not about healthcare at all, as Democrat Congressman John Dingell explained. It's about control. According to Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, the real purpose of the healthcare bill is to "control the people". Bear in mind this is coming from a Democrat Congressman just days after Democrats passed a bill that every Republican and dozens of Democrats voted against in the name of "healthcare reform".

Yes, Dingell, Democrat from Michigan actually made the statement and there is plenty of audio to prove it.

The American people are not as stupid as the ruling party seems to believe, and this November my money says that they'll be thrown out of power in the House and lose a good bit of the Senate. Before all is said and done, the vast majority of voters will understand what this recent healthcare bill is really all about, and Democrats are going to pay the price for it for several elections to come.

Republicans Need a Leader Like Newt Gingrich Was in 1994

Author's Note: This post is a response to a comment made on a post on Mixx entitled: A History Lesson on Healthcare Reform... Remember 1994?

That was the title for the Mixx page for the recent Mainstream 180 post entitled: Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets.

The comment was a response to a remark from my friend Janejas, who had this to say:

@FatLester The difference is that there are more than 30 million Americans that will have healthcare this time.I do believe that they will have something to say about it in November too.

My response to his comment is as follows:

The people whom you are referring to (and that number is debatable) typically don't vote except during Presidential election years. Will they this time? If I'm a psychic the answer is "no".

Furthermore, as many as 50 million stand to lose existing healthcare coverage due to the incentives provided to employers to drop healthcare coverage and place their employees on the federal plan.

This certainly won't stand to help the Carteresque unemployment figures. I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he hasn't been deliberately destroying jobs to advance his healthcare reform measure.

The only thing that MAY save you guys this go around is the fact that the GOP has no real leader like they did in 1994. I respect Boehner, but he's no Newt Gingrich in terms of leading a movement.

I know the future Presidential candidates are all keeping a low profile until the 2012 election season nears, but someone within the GOP besides Rush, Mark Levin and Beck (read: someone in an elected position in either the House or Senate) must step up and assume a leadership role if the party is to be able to capitalize of the Dem's increasing unpopularity as was the case in '94.

Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a plethora of other House and Senate Democrats either have extremely short memories, or are completely inept in their political strategies being deployed in hopes of passing Obamacare, a complete federal takeover of the U.S. healthcare industry.

They are not the first Democrats to pursue such a strategy.  As I recall, in the early-to-mid 90's there was a similar dynamic in which the Democrats had control of the Presidency (William Jefferson Clinton); the Senate by a 56-44 margin (George Mitchell was MajorityKeader and Bob Dole Minority Leader); and the U.S. House of Representatives by a whopping 82 seat margin.

An Elephant Never Forgets...

Just two years later, the Republicans picked up a net 54-seat gain in the House, winning a landslide mid-term election that resulted in Newt Gingrich's ascension to the House Speaker position. An net gain of eight Senate seats left the GOP with the same advantage the Democrats had held going into the election: 56-44. Senator Dole (whose wife Senator Elizabeth Dole I have met) became the Majority Leader and Hillarycare was history... Until now.

Remember what the big issue-of-the-day was going into the '94 mid-term elections? I remember. It was the very same issue dominating all the headlines coming out of Capitol Hill today.

There was little if any substantive difference between the plan the former First Lady and current Senator wanted to take credit for when her husband (and I use that term loosely, no pun intended), and the one President Obama has staked his legacy on today.

My point is, let the Democrats pass the damned thing if they're that hell-bent on it. It will ensure we gain power back that much sooner - long before their healthcare bill will even begin to be implemented.

If 1994 was any indication of what will happen this coming November if Obamacare IS passed (considering Hillarycare never became law in the 90's), the GOP will not only win back majorities in both Chambers of Congress, but the prospect of obtaining a supermajority in one is not an unrealistic possibility. There could well be some party-swapping going on between October and December with less-radical Democrats defecting to the party in power.

Whether the bill gets passed or not, the Dems were voted enough rope to completely hang themselves with, and they've done everything within their capability to do just that.

The panic I see in the eyes of tea party-goers is good if it can be sustained until November. As long as American voters don't forget what happened throughout this past year, I'm quite comfortable with the GOP's electoral chances at winning back strong House and Senate majorities, effectively rendering Obama a lame-duck for the final two years of his Presidency (unlike Clinton, Obama's a one-term President).

An Open Letter to Republicans in Congress (House and Senate)

This post originated as a response to a post I came across by Joe Barton, Republican Congressman from Texas.

Congressman Barton had submitted a story from the Wall Street Journal about the validity of climate science.

Rep. Barton's commentary goes as follows: "We need to continue looking into the validity of the science before changing our entire economy. There are just too many embellished claims."

First, I would like to make unequivocally clear that I am in agreement with the Congressman for the most part. Where I take exception is not with the premise or point of his argument. My issue is that I don't think Congressman Barton's comments go far enough.

By calling for additional reviews of some of the scientific data, one is implicitly suggesting that the global hubbub over the nonexistent phenomena often referred to as "climate change" may in fact hold some validity. To do this is to give the propagandists driving the campaign far more credit than they deserve. The people promoting "climate change" hysteria are the same people who just a few years back were telling us that by 2010 we'd all be dead from "global warming". Well, the coldest decade on record seems to have put a nail in the coffin of "global warming", but the environmental alarmists are still pushing full-speed ahead.

The remainder of this post is addressed to the Congressman, and not just Congressman Joe Barton, but every other Congressman and Senator who believes in freedom, national sovereignty and an educated populace. While the rest of this post reads as though Rep. Barton is the only person being addressed, that is because I initially wrote the piece in response to his commentary about the WSJ story. That said, he is certainly not the only member of Congress to whom this message is intended. The following is intended for every Republican federal office-holder as well as any democrats that actually have the nation's best interests at heart (assuming there's at least one), as well as anyone else in the American government that cares about our nation's best interests.

Without further adieu, here is my response:

You Congressman know as well as I do that this "climate change" (formerly known as "global warming") is being thrust upon us for two reasons. The first and most obvious is the financial motives of those pushing for alternative energy sources (in which the propagandists are heavily invested, as you well know).

The second reason is a bit more nefarious than simple corrupt profiteering. The second reason, as you well know, is the establishment of a "global tax" as a means of setting the precedent for the abolition of national sovereignty.

You know this. Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending to be naive to the globalist agenda. You know it exists. Don't you understand that those of us who still love America and still value freedom and liberty above all else want people like you to call a spade a spade without beating around the bush or pretending to play dumb.

We know, and we know that you know. The difference is that you can hold a press conference any time you wish, you can have a column published in any newspaper, and most importantly you can use the "taboo words" on the House floor, creating a permanent public record that at least one legislator possesses enough strength of character to say what many of us already know while in session.

We WANT people like you to call out the enemy for what it is, for what they are. We elect people like you to be our voice in Washington. Unfortunately, we are all too often disappointed by the absence of backbone and courage in those we elect to serve us in our nation's capitol.

The Republic is under assault from within. The American Government's current ruling regime (including its rabid leaders in the House and Senate) poses every bit as grave a threat to this country as does Al Qaeda. At least our military can can go and kill those terrorist groups that wish to kill us.

To me Congressman, an elected official (in this case a Senator) who has a disdain for Americans' right to own and carry guns and would vote against confirming a Supreme Court nominee because that person believes in the Constitutional rule of law, is as dangerous as Al Qaeda, perhaps moreso.

Well, that is not a viable option for dealing with Nancy Pelosi (who is either a treasonous traitor or a 'useful idiot', as the Soviets like to refer to them as. Those of us who would prefer not to live in the New Soviet Union would like to see some people like you actually call them out for what they are, and expose them for the traitors and scoundrels they really are. If one of your colleagues says or does anything that borders on treason, for the love of God, please call them out and don't let it slide or look the other way!

A trip down memory lane (part one)

Whenever I'm having a bad day, I find that reminiscing and thinking back to the 'good ole days' often helps cheer me up.

I admit, during the democrat primaries last year I was secretly hoping to see Hillary Clinton pull out a victory over Obama. At first I thought it was merely a case of me cheering for the underdog. However, today I realized that was not the case at all.

It wasn't so much that I wanted to see Hillary heading up the American government, but rather I wanted to see her husband Bill back in the spotlight. That's right, I believe I could stomach another four years of one William Jefferson Clinton being back in the spotlight.

While I disagree with almost all of his policies, I have to admit that there was nary a dull news day when Bill Clinton was president. In fact, had Hillary won (and then beaten McCain), newspapers would have received a new lease on life and wouldn't be falling off the map left and right.

For whatever reason, I was in a foul mood when I woke up this afternoon. I just happened to stumble across this video on YouTube, and it almost immediately cheered me up --- big-time.

So without further adieu, I present to you, President Bill Clinton telling the truth:





I hate to admit it, but God I love that video! Thanks Bill, you really cheered me up today :-)

Barack Obama is definitely NOT a Muslim

There have been some nasty rumors swirling around throughout the course of the election season purporting that Barack Obama is actually Muslim. As best I can tell, the rumors appear to stem from the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein. The fact is that this claim (that Obama is Muslim) could not be any further from the truth --- and the proof is below.

To even suggest that Barack Obama is Muslim or has ever practiced the religion of Islam is a heinous insult to the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who live peaceful lives and harbor no hatred nor aggression for others based upon such trivial characteristics as race and religion.

While I have never sat through a service at a Mosque, I have known enough Muslims well enough to know that their religion is far more loving and peaceful than that propagated by the likes of the Reverend Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Junior.

In fact, to associate Wright's church with any legitimate religion is a stretch to say the least. I have attended Catholic services for more than two decades, and I have never once heard anything uttered from the priest's mouth that in any way, shape, manner or form resembled the hate-filled rhetoric that has been programmed into the minds and hearts of Wright's flock --- Obamas included.

This is not a church or a religion. It is a cult, plain and simple. May God have mercy on us if this guy becomes the most powerful man in the world, whether by vote or by fraud.

As you watch the video below, keep in mind that Barack and Michelle Obama enjoyed these sermons on a weekly basis for 20 years.





America, don't say you weren't warned about this.

Michelle Obama caught using racial slur during NH campaign stop

Disclaimer: The following post is an attempt at political satire. For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that the story below is not true (make believe), and is intended to be funny.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire - Michelle Obama has again come under scrutiny for allegedly using a racial slur during a routine campaign stop in the key battleground state of New Hampshire on Monday. While having lunch with some campaign aides, Mrs. Obama reportedly referred to a white customer seated at a nearby table as a "cracker", setting off a brief but heated exchange between the two individuals that was diffused when the Secret Service intervened.

Mrs. Obama and some campaign aides had stopped off at a restaurant in coastal New Hampshire to sample some local fare when the alleged incident occurred. The group had recently been seated at a table inside the upscale seafood restaurant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at the time of the event.

According to eye-witnesses, Mrs. Obama had ordered a bowl of New England-style clam chowder and appeared to be enjoying it, when a man seated at a table nearby caught her attention.

Apparently desiring something off of the nearby table, Mrs. Obama pointed her finger in the man's direction and in a sharp tone said, "Please pass me that cracker".

The man, who is white, was visibly angered by the use of slur by the black woman. He immediately stood up, turned toward her and shouted back at the potential first lady: "Hey, you can't use that word --- that's OUR word!"

When Mrs. Obama failed to acknowledge the man's response and refused to apologize for the racist remark - at one point even questioning whether or not he was even speaking to her - the man became irate and the Secret Service was forced to intervene.

According to the man at whom the slur was directed, he and his girlfriend had been sharing an appetizer consisting of steamed mussels and lobster spring rolls while they waited for their entrees to arrive.

"There was only one lobster roll left on the plate", said the man, who asked not to be identified by name. "She saw me going for it, and rather than just ask me nicely if she could have it, she had to go and offend me by calling me a cracker", he continued. "I honestly would have given it to her if she hadn't resorted to name-calling", he added.

Mrs. Obama repeated the slur when she initially told reporters that she was speaking to someone seated at her own table at the time, and that she found the man's response to be irrational and without merit.

“I was talking about the crackers at my own table --- you know, in the basket next to the napkins and sweeteners. This is all just a big misunderstanding”, she said.

However, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign issued a statement late Monday night flatly denying that the incident ever took place, and claiming that Michelle Obama has never even been to New Hampshire. The campaign has since refused to answer any questions about the subject, and has threatened to cut off interviews with any news organization that raises the subject in the future.

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden suggested that Michelle had actually said "crack her", and was "probably trying to get someone at her table to open a bottle of ale for her, presumably one with a pop-top lid." Biden conceded however upon further questioning that it was not out of character for Mrs. Obama to threaten wait staff, and that the phrase "crack her" may have actually been directed at a waitress.

The owner of the restaurant offered the traumatized couple a $50 gift certificate in an effort to compensate for their negative experience. However, for the man targeted by the abusive hate-filled language, the damage had already been done.

"The really insulting thing about it is this claim by her that she wasn't even talking to me", said the victim.

"Like that makes it okay for her to say. Even if it were true, does she really believe that her words are any less hurtful if she said them to some white person in her own group instead of to some stranger? If I had said the n-word, would it really matter whether or not I was speaking to her directly? This whole experience has been surreal. I'm trying not to let it bother me, but as anyone who has been a victim of racism knows, that is much easier said than done."

Sarah Palin's Wardrobe and Michelle Obama's Room Service Bill

There has been much controversy surrounding the ever-important development of the RNC spending roughly $150,000 on Governor Sarah Palin's wardrobe. The RNC has been criticized for spending excessively on the prospective Vice President's attire. The media has also taken some heat for making an issue of this.

It is with that said that I offer the following defense of mainstream reporters and journalists across the United States:

We the people have a right to know these sorts of things, and the news media is simply doing its job by finding out juicy details such as the price of Sarah's wardrobe. After all, this woman could theoretically be only one person away from the very top of the American Government's chain of command.

Since mainstream American news organizations uphold themselves to the highest standards of objectivity and professionalism in reporting the news, allegations of mainstream publications engaging in yellow journalism for the sake of influencing an election are downright laughable.

As proof of this, I am totally confident that within a matter of days our 100% objective mainstream journalists will dutifully report on the total sum of Michelle Obama's room service bills accrued throughout the campaign season.

What we do know is that in one night, Mrs. Obama ordered two plates of lobster hors d'oeuvres, two lobster entrees, a bottle of fine Iranian champagne and Iranian caviar from room service at the Waldorf Astoria --- not the shabbiest of joints. We know that this was just one night on the campaign trail.

In light of this development, it is in the public's interest to know exactly how much money Mrs. Obama spent on dinner that night, as well as how much money she has spent on room service, not just that night but over the course of the entire campaign.

Since the media has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to fair and objective coverage throughout this election season, I have no doubt that it is merely a matter of time before our trusty reporters get back to us with this extremely important bit of information. As with the cost of Governor Palin's wardrobe, the American people have a need to know how much money Michelle Obama has spent on room service at all those five-star hotels. I'm sure the unbiased media will naturally agree and find out the answer so as to satisfy the curiosity of us mind-numb American media consumers.

While we're at it, out of personal curiosity I'd really like to know how much money Barack Obama paid for the domain name "fightthesmears.com". If anyone knows the answer to that one please fill me in in the comments area.

ACORN's Bloodless Coup D'Etat

The following is a response to an article entitled "The Dangers of Elections", which appeared at thebiglifeonline.com.

Freedom ain't free! It took a lot of bloodshed, death and violence to implement the electoral system of the American republic. The result is that for the past couple centuries elections in the United States have been largely free of violent intimidation tactics such as those described above.

For the first time in roughly two centuries, that system has been placed in serious jeopardy by the massive coordinated fraud being orchestrated by ACORN.

What ACORN is doing goes beyond trying to influence an election. ACORN is systematically attempting to undermine the democratic electoral system in the United States with the goal of producing a President and Commander in Chief that was not elected by the people whose votes determine the electoral college figures.

In other words, ACORN is attempting to pull off a bloodless coup d'etat --- not help one side win a legitimate election by means of helping legitimate voters get registered.

It took several bloody wars against native Americans and several more even bloodier wars against practically all of western Europe before our continent could have centuries of peace with (mostly) free, fair and open elections.

The war being waged by ACORN against our constitutional republic is every bit as much a threat to our nation and our form of government as was that waged by the Queen's England in 1812, or Hitler's Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

Our nation is at risk, and our elected officials across all branches of government and from all political parties and ideologies must come together in unison and act immediately to bring a permanent end to this rogue organization.

Should our leaders fail to defend the sanctity of elections, I cannot help but wonder what our nation's founders would have to say regarding the general citizenry and the extent to which we the people should go for the sake of reclaiming our country --- the country our founders fought so hard to create.

If our American Government fails to act appropriately, are we in fact obligated to take matters into our own hands, and if so, to what extent?

Kudos to Nancy Pelosi for standing-up to China's thuggery

I wish more of America's so-called leaders would stand up and join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in condemning the Chinese communist government and calling for an American boycott of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. China's oligarchy and the bloodthirsty regime it controls makes the late Fidel Castro look like Mr. Rogers by comparison. Castro was what he was when he was alive (see footnote), but he treated his neighbors far better than China has Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and Vietnam.

There is no way of knowing the full extent of the human atrocities to occur at the hands of the Chinese government over the past 25 years. There is no independent press in China, so except for on rare occasions, the rest of the world hears only what the fascist regime in Beijing wants us to hear.

A little more than a year ago, a story broke that barely even registered as a blip on the radar in which the Chinese military was raiding people's homes and killing their dogs for one sociopathic reason or another.

This history of violent abuse and murder inflicted by the tyrannical Chinese government onto its people and their pets earns this military-ruled society the notorious honor of sharing the same historical grouping with the likes of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Castro's Cuba and Stalin's Russia. Yet while America remains firm in its trade embargo against Cuba, and while President Bush is still out defending the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, China is still the #1 supplier of American consumer goods and is a mega-holder of U.S. currency.

When I consider the many horrors of the Chinese government, and add to it the fact that China has been openly practicing and preparing for an attack on U.S. troops and airbases in the region; I feel compelled to extend my deepest and most heartfelt kudos, praise and support to House Speaker Pelosi for having the courage, to not only speak out against China's recent massacre of holy men in Tibet, but to call for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies in an effort to shame China into reversing its belligerent position on the Tibet massacres that stemmed from recent protests by Tibetans over China's strictly controlled police state.

Another extremely disturbing development is beginning to surface as new information is just beginning to trickle down to the western media strongly suggesting that undercover Chinese secret police were orchestrating and engineering the violence that was reported as "rioting" in hopes of creating enough chaos that the police could go in and kill everyone they feared may be involved with the kind of peaceful protests one might expect from the Dalai Lama and his followers. To the Chinese oligarchy, peaceful protesting is as serious a crime as treason is here in the United States. The main difference is that in China, the whole concept of a trial by jury is too time-consuming and bad for public relations. The attitude seems to be that the government is infallible, and that a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to law enforcement will ultimately result in less controversy and embarrassment than if the monks were allowed to live and potentially keep causing trouble.

If the United States wishes to maintain any credibility as the world's self-proclaimed moral authority, spreader of democracy, and arch-nemesis of tyranny; more of our country's leaders from both sides of the political isle should join Speaker Pelosi and stand strong with her as she takes on both Chinese thuggery and this glaring and all-too-unfortunate double-standard in American foreign policy.

For the record, I am well aware of the fact that officially, Fidel Castro is still alive. I don't believe this to be true. My suspicion is that Castro died back in the Summer of 2006.

Presidential Race is McCain's to Lose

Even before he knows who his opponent will be, the 2008 presidential election looks to be developing into a shoe-in for Senator John McCain and the Republicans.

Granted, there is a lot of time between now and November, and a lot can happen in a very short time when it comes to presidential elections. Heck, three of the four names on the ballot have yet to be determined. How then, can one reasonably project the winner of an election that hasn't even begun? The answer lies in a multitude of factors that will make a Democratic victory in November extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to those paying attention. For one thing, Senator McCain is the candidate for the party that produced the sitting president, who also happens to be one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Additionally, voting trends in House and Senate races the past two years have overwhelmingly favored the Democrats. On top of all that, McCain is extremely unpopular among conservatives who have long been the GOP's electoral bread-and-butter.

So how does this add up to an easy victory for McCain in November? The answer lies in a multitude of factors:

1. Match-up dynamics - McCain matches up far better in a one-on-one contest against a Democrat than he ever did in a primary field full of Republicans. His broad appeal may have hurt him among conservatives, but will help him lure in independent and crossover voters.
2. Conservatives will vote for him anyway - The conservative faction of the Republican Party will turn out in force to vote for McCain, whether they like him or not. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if conservatives turn out in record numbers to support the candidate they said they'd never vote for. The reason for this is that conservatives don't really vote for their candidate as they vote against liberals and Democrats. Regardless of who the Democrats' candidate turns out to be, the GOP's conservative base will have plenty of reason to show up to the polls to vote against him or her.
   
3. The Democratic Primaries - Democrat voter haven't helped out their own cause much by dragging out their party's primary until the bitter end. Supporters of both candidates have been somewhat embittered by what they consider unfair tactics being deployed by the other. McCain and the GOP have at least a two-month head start to began putting together a case against either Clinton or Obama. This time will also aide them in fundraising activities. In addition to all this, until one of them wins, Senators Clinton and Obama will continue to spend precious campaign funds beating up each other, which helps neither of them defeat Senator McCain.
   
4. Florida and Michigan - The DNC shot itself in the foot when Howard Dean made the decision to strip the two potential swing-states of their delegates to the national convention. In what has largely been seen as a slight to the voters of these two states, the Democratic nominee will have some catching up to do if he or she were to win either of these two states. No matter who wins the Democrat Primary, there will be loyal Democrat voters who will inevitably feel as though their candidate was given the shaft by the party.
5. The Obama preacher issue - Like it or not, Senator Obama's association with his radical church and pastor will still be a major issue in November if he wins the Democrat nomination. This effect will be exacerbated by his middle name (Hussein), regardless of whether it's fair or not. The Democratic Party leaders know this, and it will be intriguing to see whether or not and to what extent they pressure the Superdelegates, if in fact Obama finishes with more popular delegates. The Superdelegate system exists for just this scenario --- if the voters choose the wrong candidate (the one less likely to win the main election). If Obama wins the popular delegate count, the question becomes whether or not the party has the fortitude to actually use the system the way it was intended, and in doing so subvert the will of the people.

In taking all of these factors into consideration, the forecast looks increasingly bright for McCain and the GOP. While there is plenty of time for the Dems to get things turned around, at this point them doing so appears unlikely at best.

For the record, the objective of this post and this blog is not to advocate a particular candidate or party. The idea is to inform readers of what I think will happen, from the standpoint of the present competitive dynamics, and how they look to project into the future. I'm not writing about what should happen or what I'd like to happen. Rather, the purpose of this post (and one of the goals of this blog) is to inform readers of what will happen before it does.

The Irony with the Democrats' Superdelegate System

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the Democratic Party's Superdelegate system being used to determine its nominee? This is a far more Republican primary system than the one the Republicans use to choose a nominee, if you go by the literal definitions of the terms "democratic" and "republican".

The Superdelegate system is different from the traditional primary system in that some influential party leaders are given votes at the convention in addition to those cast by the delegates from the respective states. The system used by the republicans is based entirely upon the votes of the people of the respective states.

The DNC could face an extremely troublesome scenario if voting by Superdelegates offsets the will of the American people in determining the Democratic candidate for President. This scenario is further complicated by the fact that Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates by the party for violating the party's rules. Sean Lengell of the Washington Times wrote about this very predicament in a piece entitled "DNC Faces 'Train Wreck' Over Delegates".

The key-quote from the article came from Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, who said: "If [party leaders] go to the Democratic convention and they stiff-arm the Florida delegation, how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee on [Election Day, Nov. 4]?"

This raises a very interesting question. Could being stripped of a voice at the party's convention harm the Democrats' chances of winning these two states in the general election? Will Democrat voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised from the primaries to the extent they vote Republican in November? That is a question that likely will not be answered until November.