|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 12:02 PM by dave29
Ickes was just setting up for his Michigan stance
Rule 13.A. "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference." Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.
The problem with his argument is that those with an "uncommitted" status were probably also not "educated" in the concept of "Fair Reflection" when they showed up and cast their vote as uncommitted in the Michigan primary. Is it truly fair to penalize Michigan "uncommitted" voters for not knowing rule 13A, which Ickes would argue forces them to remain uncommitted (therefore awarding no delegates to Obama or Edwards or Biden, etc), when many were just voting for their candidate the only way they could?
How many voters do you think would have shown up knowing they would be penalizing their candidate?
What sane reading of this rule would assume it applies to a primary that has already been stripped of it's delegates, only to have them re-instated after the fact in a manner that completely favors one candidate?
Yes, Mr. Ickes, I think we all need to be educated on the "concept of fair reflection," which you and yours have tried to use to your advantage.
For those of you who don't understand why Mr. Wexler purposefully expressed his desire to be educated, and why this infuriated Ickes so much, it follows that Wexler understands no VOTER was educated in this concept when they went to the polls.
|