Michael Gaynor
Superdelegates or Obama slaves?
By Michael Gaynor
Superdelegates were provided for to exercise judgment, not to serve as a rubberstamp for the majority of elected delegates.
The Democrat Party has superdelegates empowered to vote on who should be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee.
Should they be superdelegates in name only and slaves in reality?
Obama maniacs have been saying that superdelegates should slavishly vote for Barack Obama if he has a majority of the elected delegates.
Hysterical Hillaryites probably would be saying that those superdelegates should automatically vote for Hillary if she has an elected delegates majority.
How pathetic!
A superdelegate should vote for whomever he or she thinks is best for America
That's a superdelegate's right and duty under Democrat Party rules.
Edmund Burke was right when he told the electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Superdelegates were provided for to exercise judgment, not to serve as a rubberstamp for the majority of elected delegates.
Surly Obamaite insistence that those superdelegates better vote for Barack if he has the most elected delegates, lest there be riots (check with former Virginia Governor and current Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder, who seems to have gotten wilder with age and the intoxication of the thought of Barack being the 2008 Democrat presidential candidate) calls to mind the Three-Fifths Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.
Wikipedia:
"The three-fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives....
"Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College...."
Ironically, Obamaites want superdelegates to have the same personal political say as slaves did: none.
America's first black (or half-black) president should be much better than that!
© Michael Gaynor
Superdelegates were provided for to exercise judgment, not to serve as a rubberstamp for the majority of elected delegates.
The Democrat Party has superdelegates empowered to vote on who should be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee.
Should they be superdelegates in name only and slaves in reality?
Obama maniacs have been saying that superdelegates should slavishly vote for Barack Obama if he has a majority of the elected delegates.
Hysterical Hillaryites probably would be saying that those superdelegates should automatically vote for Hillary if she has an elected delegates majority.
How pathetic!
A superdelegate should vote for whomever he or she thinks is best for America
That's a superdelegate's right and duty under Democrat Party rules.
Edmund Burke was right when he told the electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Superdelegates were provided for to exercise judgment, not to serve as a rubberstamp for the majority of elected delegates.
Surly Obamaite insistence that those superdelegates better vote for Barack if he has the most elected delegates, lest there be riots (check with former Virginia Governor and current Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder, who seems to have gotten wilder with age and the intoxication of the thought of Barack being the 2008 Democrat presidential candidate) calls to mind the Three-Fifths Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.
Wikipedia:
"The three-fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives....
"Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College...."
Ironically, Obamaites want superdelegates to have the same personal political say as slaves did: none.
America's first black (or half-black) president should be much better than that!
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
