Posted on 02/12/2008 3:43:53 PM PST by GeorgiaDawg32
(SNIP)
In a letter to party chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond is expressing "great concern" at what he says is the prospect that millions of voters in the two states could "have their votes completely discounted." And he says the refusal to seat the delegations could remind voters of "racially discriminatory primaries."
(SNIP)
(Excerpt) Read more at 9wsyr.com ...
Can anybody guess wwhich of the two evils won for the dimmo side in those two states dimmmo?
The Hildabeast will come forth with “disenfranchised BLACK voters” as the reason they MUST allow those delegates (which just happen to be in her column, due to her being the only Democrat on their ticket in their “non-Primary” Primaries......)
OOOOOPS !!! Add the last word — “primary”
Hey Julian: actions have consequences.
The states when up against Dean and they lost. End of story (should be).
The voters were disenfranchised for a specific reason. And they knew going in what was going to happen.
So now they whine? Why am I not surprised? I hope Dean kicks ‘em in the ass!
Support the “ho” not the “bro”!
Precious!
Here’s a thought ... since the vote was tainted by the ballot absence and gamesmanship, why not demand that the delegates be seated but as uncommitted, free to vote their conscience based on their read of the people of the state? (IOW, for Obama)
-PJ
Obama collects the afrique vote without the help and fading influence of the tired old crew of race hustlers like Bond, Rangel, and Jackson-Lee.
Hillarious is in a panic. Maggie Williams. Please pick up the red pander-to-blacks phone in the lobby.
Just a part of the primary process Mr. Bond.
Millions of voters never had a choice to even vote for their candidate of choice after 5% of the states voted.
so the process is equally unfair for both democrats and republicans. Live with it.
NAACP= National Association of Always Complaining People
You know what’s the most fun about this thing is that it’ll end up in the courts, and Obama’s lawyers will be citing a certain Supreme Court case that says you can’t change the rules after the election. That would, of course, be Bush v. Gore, 2000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.