<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Florida And Michigan Delegates Get Full Voting Rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2008/08/24/florida-and-michigan-delegates-get-full-voting-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/08/24/florida-and-michigan-delegates-get-full-voting-rights/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:35:23 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: kranky kritter</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/08/24/florida-and-michigan-delegates-get-full-voting-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-414015</link>
		<dc:creator>kranky kritter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=7120#comment-414015</guid>
		<description>Justin, this &quot;end&quot; is purely cosmetic. These delegates were not given &quot;full&quot; rights until after it was ascertained via backroom agreements that they would not swing the outcome.

During the whole time when there was any worry that these delegates might be able to affect the outcome, their rights were denied. That&#039;s a problem.

You&#039;re right to suggest it needs fixing. The DNC actions regarding the early voting states created a big embarassment. They ought to fix this, but they probably won&#039;t. The right thing to do is let the states decide when they want to have their primaries, since its the states who PAY to have this primary. Instead, the DNC will do what it can behind the scenes to help avoid a 2012 repeat of the 2008 brinksmanship. But not if it means ceding any authority whatsoever to the states.

I&#039;d love to see some plan involving rotating dates that let the primary spotlight be shared, instead of hogged by NH, Iowa, and so on. But I seriously doubt its going to happen. The even bigger embarrassment SHOULD be the insider baseball of the caucuses, of whose workings I can guarantee 95 or more out of 100 Americans has no understanding. But that&#039;s also likely to chug along merrily due to apathy and inertia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justin, this &#8220;end&#8221; is purely cosmetic. These delegates were not given &#8220;full&#8221; rights until after it was ascertained via backroom agreements that they would not swing the outcome.</p>
<p>During the whole time when there was any worry that these delegates might be able to affect the outcome, their rights were denied. That&#8217;s a problem.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right to suggest it needs fixing. The DNC actions regarding the early voting states created a big embarassment. They ought to fix this, but they probably won&#8217;t. The right thing to do is let the states decide when they want to have their primaries, since its the states who PAY to have this primary. Instead, the DNC will do what it can behind the scenes to help avoid a 2012 repeat of the 2008 brinksmanship. But not if it means ceding any authority whatsoever to the states.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to see some plan involving rotating dates that let the primary spotlight be shared, instead of hogged by NH, Iowa, and so on. But I seriously doubt its going to happen. The even bigger embarrassment SHOULD be the insider baseball of the caucuses, of whose workings I can guarantee 95 or more out of 100 Americans has no understanding. But that&#8217;s also likely to chug along merrily due to apathy and inertia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
