I don't have to write about it in detail.  You can read about just about everywhere. The facts are clear. The spins from either the Republicans or the so-called Democrats, are enough to make you dizzy. And, of course, that is what they want.  Make. You.  Dizzy.

No matter what happens between now and election day, on election day, I am NOT going to reward the Obamacrats for their anti-democratic behavior, NOR am I going to reward incumbents of any party. Except for the presidential ticket, I will be voting the Non-Incumbent Ticket, right down the line.

Break out the weed killer!

Okay.  Many PUMAs and NoDealers, me included, are struggling with how to vote in November.  I have finally decided, and, it is going to piss a lot of people off, but here goes.  I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN, if McCain and Palin turn out to be the what they are purporting themselves to be -- change from within the Republican Party -- the party running against its recent awful history.

You know, I take no credit whatsoever for Bush's reign.  I voted for wonderful Democrats who had been through a much more democratic primary -- an adequately democratic primary (unlike the most recent one).

However, I will be glad to take credit (as it stands right now) for what happens in a McCain/Palin administration.  I will only vote third party if Senator Clinton runs as an Independent. Let me state this very clearly, as much as Republican practices have been unforgiveable under the Bush/Cheney model, I do not for a second believe that their's is a prime example of the Republican way.  I am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal, and a deistic Christian (look it up).

I am not responsible for rescuing the Democrats from their misdeeds, misadventures, and dictatorial tactics.  It is not my job.

I did my job when the job needed doing.  I gave it my best to influence the process of what has turned out to be a sham and shameful Democratic primary.  I have nothing to be embarrassed about or ashamed of.

However, my work, and the work of many others had no significant effect on the Democrats.  The power brokers of the party decided to take it down the morally corrupt road it has gone down.

Let me say this clearly.  "I cannot support a dictatorship.  I will not support a dictatorial process."

As much as I detest the last eight years of the Bush/Cheney debacle, I do not envision the McCain/Palin administration in the same light, whatsoever.  Yah, they are Republicans, but so was Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and, as far as I can tell, most Republicans are not that happy with the Bush/Cheney version of the party.

If you don't think McCain is actually a maverick, look it up.  I only bring this up to make sure you understand the manipulation that keeps emanating from the mouths of the Obamacrats. Otherwise, it is irrelevant whether McCain/Palin are mavericks or not, or whether they are neo-conservatives or not.  Their party clearly respects its voters more than the Democrats.  I will not let the Democrats hold me hostage with their policy-fear rhetoric.  That, by the way, is how a dictatorship works.  Exploit your fears (needs for security) for the purpose of keeping you in control.  Fuck that.

So, I will vote Republican at the top.  I will vote for the lesser of two evils.  Rewarding the Democrat's dictatorial primary process is no different than rewarding a wayward adult child by protecting them from the consequences of their decisions and their behaviors by finding some excuse for them, or covering up for them, or manipulating to keep them from paying the price for their wayward behavior.  Never did that in the past, won't be doing it now.

It is NOT my responsibility.  I am NOT responsible for what the Democrats have done to themselves.  I am NOT responsible for their dictatorial style.  I will NOT support it by trying to save the country from so-called evil Republicans.  At the very least, the Republicans at least respect their delegates' votes.  The same cannot be said for the Democrats.

I will say it one more time.  Tainted is as tainted does.  A house built on a shoddy foundation will not stand the test of time.  The ends do not justify the means. You can't keep me hostage through fear.  And, you can't use me to defend you against your own stupidity and dictatorial styles.  I am NOT here on planet earth to rescue you.  Democrats, are you listening?

You see how a two-party system DOES NOT WORK WELL.  Limited choices allow voters to be manipulated by fear, to be held hostage by false claims and a false reality of "there are only two choices," one evil, the other not so evil.  I won't vote third party this time around.  I want to use what little power I have to make sure that the Democrats are NOT rewarded for their egregious, anti-democratic behavior.   This is accountability, the American way.

Let me say this one final way, in case you just aren't getting it yet -- "You can't put lipstick on a dictatorship and call it a democracy." 

Update No. 1 (September 6, 2008): Krugman at his Elitist Best.   Did I say I hate the New York Times?  I think so -- here, here, and, of course, here at DowdReportCard.com.

Generally, Paul Krugman is spot on about most of his analyses with respect to the economic and political realm, BUT this time around he missed the most significant factor in his discussion of how Republicans exploit voter's various resentments for the purpose of winning elections -- the appropriate reaction to a dictatorship, in this case, the DNC dictatorship.

I found it very significant that out of most of the comments to Krugman's article (I didn't have time to read all 500 or so), literally no one talked about the appropriate resentment, the appropriate anger, the appropriate reaction to the DNC's recent dismissal of democracy.

I did, but they wouldn't publish my comment. Huh?

Figures.  Even Krugman, with his generally astute analysis apparently purposefully skewed his analysis to leave out the most important point of this recent primary history and one of the most "exploitable" appropriate resentments an American can have -- the anger over the use of force and anti-democratic procedures by the DNC.  I say "purposefully skewed" because even when the comments editor of the NY Times had the opportunity to include my comment about the most significant exploitable valid resentment, they didn't.

Why would they do that unless they just want to play at the level of propaganda and not at the level of competent journalism?  Why would they do that unless their hate for Republicans exceeds their love for journalism?  Why would they do that unless their own elitism (elitism, by the way, Mr. Krugman, is a simple concept -- it is easy to analyze and spot -- it consists of any "holier-than-thou" attitude). This is a nation that allegedly stakes a claim to "equality" -- equalism is the opposite of the "holier-than-thou" or "smarter-than-thou attitude."

Unfortunately, Krugman in his own article about how Republicans exploit resentment with respect to "elitism" is, in his own backward way, "elitist."

He portrays the potential resentments allegedly exploited by Republicans as "contrived" (imagined, stupid, false).

Let me say this clearly, Mr. Krugman, the Democrats, this year, not only "look [ed] down their noses at regular people" they slapped regular voters squarely in the face.  Interesting that you missed that, Mr. Krugman.  You would have us believe that there is no valid reason to resent Democrats. Hmmmm.... now that is what I call elitism at its worst.

Hint to Republicans:  Start running those ads about "Tired and angry about how the Democratic Party dismissed democracy this year. Want to send a message to the DNC about its disrespect of the American way and its abuse of the American voter?  Think Republican at the top of the ticket." 

You get my drift, eh?

I am completely overwhelmed by how much there is to say about what has happened to the Democratic Party and how it has been turned into a dictatorship (the "Obama Tyranny").   I would have said Obamanazis, but that might be too inflammatory and just make people angry.  As if....

The whole sham of the 2008 Democratic convention, and delegates and superdelegates NOT being allowed to exercise their rights to vote in accordance with the results of their home districts, is beyond disheartening.  It is morally corrupt.  It has pushed me beyond my endurance for any more, not one more, not even one more word about "the ends justify the means."  Fuck that.  And, fuck that big time.

This whole Obamacrats-gone-wild scenario reminds of the movie Mars Attacks.  If you haven't seen it, it is a classic from the mind of Tim Burton.  In it, the Martians, as they ruthlessly gun earthlings down shout "Don't run, we are your friends."

There is no such thing as a "benevolent dictatorship."  The means to an end are more than extremely important.  Winning may be important, but how you win is even more important.  Those who feel they can skip the process and cheat their way into power in a nation that strongly demands democratic practices, cannot be trusted, not matter how benevolent or correct their policies may be.

Tainted is as tainted does.  We all know what happens to buildings built on shoddy foundations.  They don't last for long, no matter how nice they look on the outside.

In our case, that is, in the case of we Democrats in Exile (here, here, and here), it still remains to be seen how Obama's Big Fat Greek Tragedy will play out.  So, we don't know yet if we are to be tragically defeated, fooled by the Obama Trojan Horse, or duped by our own potential misperceptions of the new kid on the block.   It takes time and due diligence to discover Trojan Horses, and, you must have the will and the tools to seek the truth.   In this primary season, believe me, it takes discipline, time, and lots of willpower to seek the truth in the midst of Obama megalomania, media male domination, money, and mob-astute and relatively uncritical (power hungry) youngins.

It could go either way, but, like Laocoon warned the people of Troy in Virgil's Aeneid, I thus warn you of a likely Trojan Horse in our midst this summer, Senator Barack Obama.   Obama is more-likely-than-not NOT what he seems to be or what he represents himself to be, and the "flips" and "frauds" keep piling up.  I wonder if Oprah will bring Obama back on her show to ask him to apologize for facilitating fraud, similar to the lambasting she gave the cynical author, James Frey, about the lies contained in his book, Million Little Pieces.

A Greek tragedy is essentially defined as any story with a sad and unfortunate outcome, but the term also applies specifically in Western culture to a form of drama defined by Aristotle often involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune.  This quote from Aristotle's Poetics says it all.

A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character. . .

The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first the poets recounted any legend that came their way. Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses. . . A tragedy, then, to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction. Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as we have said, the right ending.

Like Christ said as quoted in Matthew, Chapter 7, a house built on sand will not likely withstand rain, floods and wind.   Denial can only take you so far.

My advice about the Obama/DNC Trojan Horse?   Just Say No Deal!

Here's the hot links to keep your PUMA fires burning.

• You Can Effect Real Change.  Highly recommended post with link to survey to influence Democratic Party platform.  This is another opportunity to influence the DNC.

• Hustlenomics! Super Delegates Listen When CASH Is Talking.  Go there to find the names of superdelegates who have endorsed against the will of the voters in their districts (you know, for Obama WHEN Hillary won in their districts).   Write or call them and let them know how you feel about their undemocratic practices and choices.  This is another opportunity to influence the DNC.

• The Denver Group's New Ad -- What does Senator Obama's grandmother know that Senator Obama and Howard Dean don't?

• Are the Superdelegates for Sale?

• Who Kidnapped Digby?

• Chris Matthews Says Something that Makes Sense

• Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem, PART 2 [REVISED]

• The Plan to Kill PUMA

• The Shallow Left

Over at The Democratic Daily and a few other spots on the Internet, I have been running an advertisement (see graphic to the right). In addition, I wrote a letter back on July 11 to the New York Times asking them to follow-up on Senator Feinstein's promise to them to hold hearings on primary reform in July 2008. Of course, I never heard back from the New York Times.

I thank Ms. Leavey for making me aware of The Hill's article, because, otherwise, I may not have found it so soon.

I am not a regular reader of The Hill, and although I requested updates directly from Senator Feinstein's office, none were ever made.  So, the "news" about possible primary reform hearings, now to be scheduled allegedly in September 2008, was conveniently low-key.  And, apparently the hearings are going to be conveniently low key -- "the hearings will be limited and won’t be conducted in a way that diverts Democrats’ focus from the general election."   I recommend reading the whole article.

It is clear that whatever Senator Feinstein's motivations are for holding primary reform hearings, whether it is to hold out a carrot of hope for the disenfranchised voters of this last primary season, or it is for genuine reform, she is not going to be "controversial."   In other words, Feinstein is not going to actually take testimony about how bad things went this last primary season, but is going to try to stick to "constitutional issues" and "general testimony."

Her excuse for NOT starting the hearings of which she is quoted as saying "there will be more than one hearing" was essentially "we couldn't start the hearings without the participation of DNC and RNC leaders, who are preoccupied at this time with the conventions."   My thoughts?  There is a lot of testimony to gather, so hearings could get started using the testimony of experts on primary reform, and gathering data about what happened this last time that indicates a need for change.  We don't need the DNC and RNC leaders to get the hearings started.

It is. Politics. As. Usual.

Senator Feinstein plays the good cop by holding out the idea that Obamacrats are (really) interested in maintaining some kind of high moral ground when it comes to the primary process, while the rest of the Obamacrats gleefully stomp down the principles of democracy in their megalomaniac march to the November elections.

Good luck. Where I come from, overkill usually UNDER-impresses.  And, where I come from, you know, the planet we live on, anger consistently trumps fear, any day of the week.

Dear Honorable Senator Clinton:

Thank you for asking about what matters.  As noted in your "About HillPac" page, what matters to me is that democracy and voters are respected -- "HILLPAC respects voters and works to protect their votes. We believe that every vote should be counted and that voters' voices should be heard, not just on Election Day but every day."

I understand that, so far, you believe in party unity, but there can be no unity when the party ignores the popular vote, disenfranchises voters, and opts for centralized power over the will of the people.  Unity cannot take place in an atmosphere of disrespect for democracy, democratic processes, and the will of the people.

So, what matters to me is that you stand up for democracy and honor the will of the people and make sure that you are on the nomination ballot at the Democratic Convention.

In my opinion, this country needs a viable third party, and the women of America, along with a bunch of men could create a viable, long-term, third party.  True coalition building does not happen in two-party systems. You have the potential to be the first modern-day independent president.

Thank you for your consideration.  Take care, and best wishes.

Mark (www.DemcratInExile.com)
Proud Member of PUMA

Why?  Because, as you will note from the links, they have done it all, and more -- UPDATED - The New American Disenfranchisement and Democratic Disenfranchisement -- the Final Report.

You CAN see the Republican ads now, can't you?

Update No. 1 (July 27, 2008) -- More About the DNC's Low Moral Ground.  Here are a few more excellent posts about how the DNC has caught up with the Republicans in bamboozling voters.

• The Donna Brazile - Karl Rove Connection -- In order to "save" the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call "The Architect", by Rosemary Regello, posted at The City Edition on July 24, 2008.

• Bamboozling the American electorate again. "Strategy involved G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama, stripping battleground delegates, threatening violence at the convention, and (if necessary) declaring martial law to prevent November's general election. Meanwhile, revelations about the Illinois senator's ties to Chicago political fixer Antoin Rezko and Iraqi war profiteers are downplayed by the press. For their part, Democratic Party leaders have circumvented the official nominating process, declaring Obama the nominee by breaking their own rules and allowing superdelegates to 'vote' before the convention."

• The Caucus Factor.

• Texas Caucus Fraud.

Check these PUMA-licious posts:

• It’s not about Obama vs. McCain
• The Title Bout at Alegre's Corner
• Fowler’s Foul Note Contradicts February Remarks
• I’d rather cocktail with Riverdaughter than Taylor Marsh, anyway!
• PUMA Politics for Dummies
• Preston on Politics: PUMAs stalking Obama at CNN.com

None of the plans described at FairVote.org or CenterForPolitics.org exclude caucuses. Neither does Senator Feinstein's 2007 legislation nor, apparently, Senator Nelson's recent legislation. This is a major drawback.  There is just no way that caucuses should be allowed, unless only for the purposes of having an advisory role.  They clearly do not measure up to the primary principle of democracy -- one person, one vote.  This is widely accepted among experts and the population, but runs up against stiff resistance from certain states and power brokers, who apparently want to hold on to archaic forms of power.

The best elucidation of what an ideal primary process would consist of is found in the New York Times editorial of June 8, 2008 -- Primary Reforms.  The NYT editorial points out clearly the need to (1) eliminate caucuses, (2) revise the schedule of voting, (3) revise how delegates are allocated, and (4) eliminate superdelegates. The NYT also recommends clear rules with respect to penalties for violating scheduling rules.

In my opinion, if the primary scheduling process was done fairly (like a rotating lottery, or eliminating state schedules entirely -- see below -- there would likely be no states who would feel "left out" and want to seek exemptions from the scheduling rules.)

Memo to Feinstein: If you want the most democratic process to occur during the primary season, this is what you would do.

• Eliminate caucuses.   Do you need any proof as to why they are fatally flawed?   If so, I will elucidate.   Just request more information, if you can't get that concept.

• Eliminate all state schedules.   I don't know why this hasn't caught on, except for maybe states just want to have more power and don't believe in voters' rights and powers.  This is so easy.  The concept is "Vote Anytime, Count Often."   My understanding is that Jonathan Soros originated this idea which you can read more about at Vote Early, Count Often at the NYT.   I think Mr. Soros should have named the concept Vote Anytime, Count Often, because it is NOT really about voting early.

The idea is to establish a national primary period that allows any voter in any state to mail in or go to a voting center to vote ANY TIME between, let's say, January 15 and June 15.  The votes would be tallied by the states about every three weeks and reported.  This voting scenario allows the voter to be in charge, not the states, and thus, there is no basis for states to try to jockey for an early voting position. It gives ultimate power to the voter to decide to vote early or vote later, to declare early, or to wait and contemplate.  The downside, of course, is power brokers lose (oh, cry me a river....) and those who desire a centralized DNC or RNC lose (oh, cry me a river, again....). The other downside is that exit pollsters lose, and the mainstream media loses power (oh, cry me a giant river...).  This is the way it should be, not centralized power, and not structured for the media's benefits and control.

The upside for states is that the process of making ballots and counting votes is actually simplified. Votes would come in spread out over a period of time that would allow states to likely NOT have to hire additional workers to process ballots.

This is the ultimate concept in voter power and thus, it is the ideal democratic scheduling scenario, bar none.

• Apportion delegates rationally.  Apportion delegates pro-rata, per state, on the basis of percentage totals at the end of the voting season.

• Eliminate most superdelegate tasks.  Eliminate superdelegate tasks except for emergency situations that might take place close to or after a convention, and set firm rules as to what would trigger superdelegate participation.