Thank God for Newt Gingrich.
Where would we be without him wisely guiding us to the path of reason and understanding?
The august Mr. Gingrich is dispensing advice on the conundrum the Democratic Party may soon confront if one of their presidential candidates does not win the nomination outright.
The race for the nomination is tighter than (what would Dan Rather say here?) tick on a dog’s ear (is how Katie Couric, Mr. Rather’s successor, now says it). There’s talk now that 796 super-delegates, elected officials and other party functionaries, may now decide who gets the nomination, Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama.
The question is what to do about the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries, which have at stake 366 delegates. Both states, in violation of Democratic Party rules, moved their primaries up in the calendar to increase their states’ influence in the presidential nomination contests. As consequence, the party punished them by taking away their delegates. All the candidates running at the time also agreed not to campaign in the states (although Sen. Hillary Clinton found ways to squeeze in appearances in Florida and even showed up to claim her almost Pyrrhic victory there). Mrs. Clinton wants the delegates from both states seated, which is understandable. She ‘won’ both states.
Mr. Gingrich, who cares deeply about our democratic process as well as the Democratic Party, is saying this would be bad: “Democrats are headed for a trainwreck in campaign ’08 that threatens to produce a tainted Democratic presidential nominee and, worse, a divisive and delegitimized presidential contest,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.” He added:
Superdelegates are really “politician delegates.” Superdelegates are technically uncommitted party insiders who can vote for whomever they choose. They were created by the party that prides itself on supposedly representing the common man to be the palace guards of the Democratic establishment. Bill Clinton is a superdele-gate, as is Al Gore. They are Democratic Party insiders whose purpose is to put down insurgent campaigns and protect the interests of Democratic politics as usual.
Nothing Gingrich said in the article is wrong and the solution he is advocating, a re-vote in both states, is probably the best possible outcome. I just wish I’m not hearing it from him. Taking advice, any sort of advice, especially a good one, still creates the dilemma of the source you’re getting the advice from.
Newt Gingrich is a disgraced political figure who conducted himself abominably as a public official. He was cynical and hypocritical in both his public and private affairs. He demeaned political discourse in this country the entire time he was a public official. He does not now belong in any discourse concerning what happens with out political system.
Leave a Reply