AddThis Social Bookmark Button


In Change

Tip Jar

Del.icio Roll

« Blues State 2008. Plan outline | Main | Rule 2. Party Rules »

March 07, 2007



Hey guys & gals! Wake up!!!


MEMO LESSON #001 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)

SHAME! SHAME!! SHAME!!! on any Super Delegate who announces their “vote” or “endorsement” for any candidate prior to the August 2008 Convention!!!

Why? You ask? The short answer is, it shows that the inmates are running the asylum.

Because Super Delegates are or should reflect the concience, maturity and wisdom of the party. They should be the sober and mature reflection or the brains of the Democrats to nominate when necessary the candidate to best represent the Party in the election. Let’s face it, the most Democrat Platformed Democrat would never be elected by all of the people in a General Election, i.e. The “Granddaddy” Ted Kennedy already tried that and screwed up the 1980 Presidential Election and got Jimmy Carter defeated. (N.B. - Democrats, Republicans and Independents get to vote in the same election for the General Election.) Let’s face it! What is needed here is sober and mature reflection and not hype and tingles up our legs. I have even heard one Super Delegate say, “I don’t know, there is just something about him.” What??? Please! We need quite a bit more than that; unless the Democrats like “losing” Presidential Elections. There have been only two Democrats elected to two terms since 1932. You got it! Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 and William Jefferson Clinton in 1992. Others have tried and failed. Truman declined his second bid. John Fitzgerald Kennedy very, very unfortunately and tragically did not get that opportunity. Lyndon Baines Johnson even had to announce on March 31, 1968 that he would neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination as their president and Jimmy Carter lost his bid (maybe thanks to Ted). In our reflection we would be remiss not to consider soberly the last two Presidential Elections against “the village idiot.” Al Gore and John Kerry could not even get their first term. The losers John Kerry and John Edwards I see have announced their early endorsement. Should we listen to these two losers??? What do they know about getting elected? I have heard that the last two-term elected Democrat President has supported one of the candidates and made the statement that the candidate he supports in his opinion is the “most qualified” presidential candidate ever – including himself! Maybe he knows something worth the Super Delegates checking out. Maybe they should ask the last two-term Democrat President what he thinks. After all he left office with a greater than 65% approval rating among all people (higher ratings than both Kennedy and Reagan.) I wonder if the Reagan Democrats voted for him. I wonder if he could get them for the candidate he supports? Maybe we should just check that out.

Contrary to popular sentiment the nominating process or a Primary Process is not “a game” or “a contest” in the competitive sense. It is “an evaluation process” to decide and evaluate who is the best candidate to represent the Party in the election. Unlike “a game” where the rules must be applied evenly and fairly to determine the valid truthful winner, a “nominating process” is “a process” not “a game”. I know we like to use the term “won the race” but it is neither “a race” nor “a game.” If it is a process, then the rules become “procedural” and not “substantive”. In a game, the rules are “substantive” and not “procedural.” In a game you can decide who should go first; that’s “procedural.” To know who won the game; we must follow “the substantive rules.” Florida and Michigan violated “procedural rules” not “substantive rules” so to “forfeit” their votes and delegates is not an option. A penalty is the only option. If you get a speeding ticket on the way to work you still get to go to work and just pay a fine later. (Who took their own name off the Michigan ballot?) As was proved in the last two elections the most popular nominee does not always get elected in the General.

The super Delegates are like the jury in a trial. They are not to declare or indicate during the trial whether they support the Plaintiff or the Defendant. They are to wait until all the factors are presented and considered, yes, and sometimes they argue behind “closed doors.” Yes, with not only the public excluded, but the trial lawyers and the trial judge are not even privy to their deliberations. (Can you picture the jurors holding thumbs up or thumbs down during the trial? It would make for great theatre but be bad for business. Even the Romans waited until the fight was over before they did either thumbs up or thumbs down. Maybe we should try that. Who knows, we just might get the most electable candidate ever. After losing two, maybe it’s time for the Nominating Process to try something new; unless of course the Democrats like losing Presidential Elections. I know, I know, sometimes I am just a smart _ _ _ .*) When you consider the issues and crisis and wars at hand, it is time to take very, very serious and sober deliberations, evaluations and considerations as to who is best qualified to not only get elected with all folk but also which candidate has the best and most qualified advisors, support staff and experience to intelligently and maturely deal with those crisis which face our Beloved United States of America today.

Had enough? I could go on and on. I am just getting warmed up. If the best and most qualified candidate is not nominated by this Democrat Convention in August 2008 there will be a great exodus of Democrats old and newly signed up ones leaving the Democrat Party till “THE PARTY” gets off their “state of stupid” and returns to sober, mature and intelligent judgment. This is by no means a threat in any way form or fashion. Consider it prophecy or prophetic. No one likes being associated with “stupid” or “loser.” It just tastes bad. It could be worse, the Democrats could be labeled “Stupid Losers.” Yuk!!!! BAA BAA! What do they say about three time losers? In California we put three time “losers” in prison for life.

Thank you and God Bless you and your supporters for reading this and sending it on to other Super Delegates!


Very, very patriotically and Democratically yours,

jw ([email protected] 949-650-7702

Please note: There will be a pop-quiz to follow. (see next page.)

* See what rush to judgment does! The word for the blank is “guy.” Got ya!
MEMO LESSON #001 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)


1. Why do we have Super Delegates? ____________________________________
(If it is to follow the will of the voters, that would be superfluous for they would be merely “perfunctory.” Then that’s “Stupid” at work!)
2. If we eliminated “perfunctory” Super Delegates and instead went with the rule whoever received the most votes in a State gets all the Delegates from that State, who would have more Delegates at the present time? __________________________
(Now isn’t that more “Stupid” not to employ the “winner take all” method, and instead go with “perfunctory” delegates who do not necessarily follow the popular vote of either their State or District?)
3. Which nominee has won more States? ________________________________
(Does that standard make Idaho and Utah equal to New York and California?
Then that’s really more “Stupid” at work!)

(In the words of Ron White, “You can’t fix stupid!” In the words of jw, “It’s grossly “Stupid” to ignore “Stupid” or, not to at the very least, try to fix “Stupid.”)

(POP QUIZ 002) (May 21, 2008)

1. If the Super Delegates are supposed to “follow the will of the voters” then, which “voters” are they supposed to follow or uphold? If it is “the will of the voters” of their own State does that mean that Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Governor Patrick have to vote for or endorse Hillary? Does Representative Pete Stark from California have to endorse the candidate that received 57% of the vote in his district or could he endorse the candidate that received only 38% of the vote? (He incidentally, well after the California Primary, did recently endorse the Candidate who received only 38% of the vote.) Probably the worst of all was “Grand-Pappy” Robert Byrd. Hillary won his State by 41% (67% to 26%). We really should not find fault with Senator Byrd who may be trying to “atone” for his early affiliations and conduct. But his endorsement really questions the validity, rule and logic of the rule to “follow the will of the voters?” Or is, that just “guilt” at work in Senator Byrd’s case and as to others just more “Stupid” at work?

2. If the voters in the early States such as Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota and Wyoming were Independents and Republicans crossing over to get the Democrats to nominate the poorest Democrat candidate for the Republicans to run against then, should the Super Delegates “follow the will of the voters” in that case as well? (Hummm!!! I am not real sure, but I think that is a whole lot of “Stupid” going on there.)

3. Does that mean under the “non-existent rule” that the Super Delegates are “obligated” and must “follow the will of the voters,” obligate the Super Delegates to nominate the candidates the Republicans and Independents want to run against to assure a Republican victory in November? Dahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

4. Should we ask the original genius, Dan Abrams, who I think first came up with this “non-existent” rule what he was thinking? I am sure he did so without checking with Floyd. Or should we check with some others such as Chris Matthews (you know the guy who has a tingle up his leg), Keith Olbermann or Bob Becktel etc. who seem to think the “follow the will of the voters” rule is not idiotic. If the rule is not “idiotic” it is at the very least very, very “Stupid” at work!

5. A little side note or query. How many Super Delegates are there in California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia or Texas (i.e. Blue States)
as compared with the number of Super Delegates in Idaho, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming (i.e. Red States)?
(“Inquiry minds want to know!” Careful don’t get ahead of me here! )

6. Since we are having such a turmoil about Super Delegates and how, or who, should get them, let’s do away with them and go by “winner take all” of each State’s Pledged Delegates for that State. How many Pledged Delegates would each candidate have in that system? (or would that system disfavor one of the Candidates too much. That’s what happens when you run two candidates one who is “qualified” and one who is only merely “qualifiable!”

7. You really want to put this in perspective??? Just switch each of the two candidates Senatorial experience and life experiences and their spouses’ experiences (i.e. just switch their biographies or resumes). Now you got “perspective.” (Borrowing a line from “Spinal Tap” a movie by Rob Reiner, “That’s too f _ _ _ _ _ _ much perspective!” I didn’t originate it Rob Reiner put it in a movie! Get on his _ _ _ _. *) After reviewing that comparison, what would the Political Analysts and the Candidates Operatives and Spokesman be saying if Hillary had Obama’s accomplishments and credentials or lack thereof? (Like I said, maybe that is just way too much perspective!)


John Edwards was mightily criticized in 2004 for having less than only one term, less than six years, in the United States Senate before his candidacy for President. Likewise Bill Clinton was criticized and scrutinized for only having been a governor, although multi-term, and no Federal Government experience. Yet one of the candidates today has only been a State Representative and less than two years in the United States Senate before announcing his candidacy. There is just something mightily discriminatory about that!

The problems have arisen since certain elements of the Democrat Party have been framing much “mischief” under the guise of “the law.” Putting “quantity” over “quality” or “form” over “substance.” There is room in the Democrat Party for; Closed Primaries, Open Primaries, Caucuses, Apportionment of Delegates and Super Delegates. It only works however if each “process” works independently of each other “process.” Let each “process” do what it was set-up to do and everything will be just fine.

Proverb 21: 7 (NLT) says;
“Because the wicked refuse to do what is just,
their violence boomerangs and destroys them.”

Thank you and God Bless you for your time, concern and caring!

Very, very patriotically and Democratically yours,

Jw ([email protected] 949-650-7702)

P.S. Next POP QUIZ will cover the Delegates earned via the Caucus States
and the validity of their disproportion as to comparison to the Primary Voting System.

*By your “rush to judgment,” I got ya again. The word for the blanks is “butt!”


The comments to this entry are closed.

Sign Up Today!

* required



Powered by VerticalResponse

Ideas For A Party:

DPNM By-Laws

Blog powered by Typepad