<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Quote Of The Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rich Horton</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/#comment-392041</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Horton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/#comment-392041</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure "unfair" is the right word.  They certainly are less democratic, but I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing.  I'm the sort of person that is uneasy with open primaries becuase I feel it gives an unfair advantage to the two main parties.  The Democratic and Republican parties are private organization and how they decide upon a candidate shouldn't seem so quasi-governmental, as it sure does now.

That being said, the open caucus system we run in many states also has its problems.  If the point of a caucus is to allow the "card carrying" members of a party decide who best represents their values, beliefs, etc., then how do you justify allowing anyone to come in and have an equal voice in the process?  Were I to go to a Democratic caucus (or a Republican one for that matter), there is a sense in which it is illegitimate IF the idea is to let real party members decide the matter.  It certainly opens the process up to being influenced by money in a way that a primary system isnt.  Like it or not, "organization" is something that can be bought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure &#8220;unfair&#8221; is the right word.  They certainly are less democratic, but I&#8217;m not sure that is necessarily a bad thing.  I&#8217;m the sort of person that is uneasy with open primaries becuase I feel it gives an unfair advantage to the two main parties.  The Democratic and Republican parties are private organization and how they decide upon a candidate shouldn&#8217;t seem so quasi-governmental, as it sure does now.</p>
<p>That being said, the open caucus system we run in many states also has its problems.  If the point of a caucus is to allow the &#8220;card carrying&#8221; members of a party decide who best represents their values, beliefs, etc., then how do you justify allowing anyone to come in and have an equal voice in the process?  Were I to go to a Democratic caucus (or a Republican one for that matter), there is a sense in which it is illegitimate IF the idea is to let real party members decide the matter.  It certainly opens the process up to being influenced by money in a way that a primary system isnt.  Like it or not, &#8220;organization&#8221; is something that can be bought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TerenceC</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/#comment-392024</link>
		<dc:creator>TerenceC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/02/26/quote-of-the-day-26/#comment-392024</guid>
		<description>Hillary found her voice in New Hampshire and it said "shut up Bill" - I agree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary found her voice in New Hampshire and it said &#8220;shut up Bill&#8221; - I agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.345 seconds -->
