WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
There simply are no party provisions for people running "as if" they were a member, you have to BE a member of the party. And so, because Bernie was NOT a member of the party, the party chose someone else. I'm fairly certain that, if it had been anyone else instead of Hillary, they would have done much the same thing, namely: PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.
Because in the end, whether you and I agree what they did was immoral or even sometimes illegal, they did what a party is required to do, select a candidate and then protect them.
OK Jeff. Breaking my posting hiatus after reading this gem. If you don't see the contradictions here then I'm afraid you have been clinically traumatized with what is being commonly called Hillary Clinton Defeat Syndrome
You seem to have me confused with a Hillary fan. Yes, Hillary Clinton is at least partly responsible for my son being alive, given all the hard work she did to make sure that the S-CHIP program survived. But that doesn't mean that I wanted her to run for President...again. 2008 was enough for me, I knew she was a terrible candidate back then. I also knew she was a terrible candidate after watching her dip her toe into the water in the first part of the 2016 campaign, and by that time I was already aboard the Bernie Sanders train.
I was maybe the very first "citizen-journalist" to cover his announcement, because he stopped by Canter's Deli right before his appearance on Bill Maher. There wasn't even enough time for most of his fans, which were already legion, to get to Canter's, so the room was sparsely populated. It was June 20, 2015.
But, putting aside your slightly condescending outlook toward what is basically a common sense look at how parties conduct their business, let's analyze what it is you think I'm trying to prove.
Originally Posted by chunkstyle
There was a widely publicized contest where the VOTERS got to both, listen to the arguments, and then cast their votes in whatever state primary system they reside in.
Yes, there was. Yes, people did. And the Democratic Party had indeed already "crowned" Hillary before the first primary was even planned, and even released funds to her campaign ahead of time. But that's beside the point, and the point, which you steadfastly appear to be ignoring, is this:
The Democratic Party would, under any other circumstances, open the field to any challenger, much the same as the Republicans did to seventeen of them, had it been a different stable of candidates. Only one requirement was needed - they had to actually BE Democrats.
Can I point to a specific party rule in either party that flatly states that a party candidate has to be a member of that party? Wow, where do I even go to look for such a rule in order to copy and paste the link? Maybe Democrats.org...
Section 9. The Democratic National Committee shall maintain and publish a code of fair campaign practices, which shall be recommended for observance by all candidates campaigning as Democrats. The Democratic National Committee Chair shall put in place a code of Democratic National Committee conduct concerning Presidential candidates and campaigns prior to each presidential cycle to ensure fairness and transparency. The code shall address areas including, but not limited to: providing information to campaigns; agreements between the Democratic National Committee and campaigns; fundraising; and common vendors. This code shall be made readily available to Democratic National Committee and all bona fide Democratic presidential candidates.
Except, what IS a "bona fide" candidate? Let's look further...
Well, Section 4 of Article One says:
Quote
Section 4. Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, the formulation of policy, and the conduct of other Party affairs, without prejudice on the basis of sex, race, age (if of voting age), color, creed, national origin, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic identity or disability, and further, to promote fair campaign practices and the fair adjudication of disputes.
So it appears it might be a bit of a quandry, because while Article One/Section 4 talks about the DNC's responsibility to all MEMBERS, Article Nine/Section 9 talks about "all candidates campaigning as Democrats" but makes the vague stipulation that they must be bona fide, and apparently there is no further definition of what exactly constitutes "bona fide".
You know, it could be that this sort of thing has happened so rarely that the issue has never even come up. Teddy Roosevelt tried setting up his own unique party called the Bull Moose Party but he was basically running on a Republican Party platform, just not AS a Republican. It didn't go anywhere.
I cannot think of a single other instance in our entire history where a candidate for POTUS ran "as if they were" a party member. Plenty of people have run as third party members, but Bernie might be unique.
As for the media ignoring Sanders (AND giving Trump almost two billion in free air time) there has never been a dispute between you and me about that ever. I've said in earlier discussions that I grant you everything in that regard. Maybe you forgot, because you appear to have forgotten that I was a Sanders supporter.
I think where I must have failed in your eyes is the moment where I decided, all alone in my voting booth, not to throw my vote down a blank hole marked "write in candidate" in the futile hope that the laws of the universe would suddenly change and thousands of electors would suddenly "go faithless" and choose Bernie after he had already bowed out of the process. (thus in effect giving my vote TO Trump)
And now you appear to have decided that, in reality, it must just be a temporary form of madness and that I am suffering from some kind of Hillary syndrome. Talk about a perverse form of cognitive dissonance.
No major political party will EVER lend support to candidates who are OUTSIDE of their own party. That's because in all our 242 years, no party ever HAS. Pretending that they suddenly would is a fool's errand. It's like trying to look for anti-matter in a jar of Crisco shortening.
PS: Why are you on a posting hiatus? I sure hope it's not because no one is willing to accept your pronouncements on my mental health. My mental health is as good as it can be under Trump. I wanted Bernie to be President, it didn't happen, and I happen to believe that Bernie could have made the DNC his bitch.
You seem to think that a political party would be willing to lay down a brand new rule for a unique and otherwise unheard of situation, and I must be suffering from a syndrome to excuse a candidate I didn't even want to run.
Hmmmm...
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD deepfreezefilms.com
