...unbelievably brazen. From Senator Levin.
All the allocation "arguments" will be a lot easier at 1/2 vote, including the nonsense of having a two-name "contest".
I can hardly wait to the Q&A for this one, on how a self-respecting rules-committee can provide a waiver for an intentionally flawed primary.
You start to see that the committee is going to get a lot of pressure for "full voting", just to put the problem behind them.
It's the height of irony that a state that would threaten the party with a flawed primary AND then claim that they deserve the right to go up to the front of the class ... threaten to upset the convention, also. What if everyone acted like they did?
Of the two, Michigan's case is ... the most bogus.
THE BOGUS NEW-HAMPSHIRE-IS-WORSE-THAN-US CLAIM
New Hampshire, as I understand it, has always been part of the pre-window. They moved within the window, and got a waiver. Michigan actually changed which window it was in.
THE BOGUS SEQUENCING CLAIM
Senator Levin seems unaware that the actual sequencing seems to have achieved exactly what the framers intended. The way South Carolina voted was influenced in a real way by the way Iowa and New Hampshire voted. And frankly, the idea that Michiganders could get to vet a candidate as thoroughly as the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, much smaller states, is pretty lame, even if one agrees that the early voting sequence adversely influences U.S. policy in some areas (including the "ethanol pledge").
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Michigan demands full voting for "flawed primary"
