Monday, March 10, 2008

Democratic Mulligans?

Anyone who has played golf has probably been given a "mulligan" when they are learning to play the game. According to Wikipedia ,

“The term ("mulligan") has found a broader acceptance in both general speech and other games, meaning any minor blunder which is allowed to pass unnoticed or without consequence. In both senses, it is implied that a mulligan is forgiven because it was either made by a rank beginner, or it is unusual and not indicative of the level of play or conduct expected of the person who made the mulligan.

Often though in the realm of a fantasy sport, especially baseball, certain team owners who drop a player only to regret it several hours later, call on their respective commissioners to Undo or grant a mulligan in order to reverse the transaction, even though the player is in the waiver pool. While mulligans are typically reserved to the sound discretion of the league commissioner, they should be used extremely sparingly and only in such instances of legitimate human error, rather than in cases of mistake resulting from carelessness, laziness, or inexcusable neglect.”


During the presidential campaigns we get insight into people’s judgment and the decisions they make and relate that to how their forecasting and political acumen is.

Recently, Hillary Clinton ran the 3.a.m. ad incinuating that in her mind she is most qualified to handle a national emergency. However, it appears most Americans want John Mc Cain to answer that call and the child in the ad want Barack Obama to. But this has been indicative of the poorly planned presidential campaign she has run to date, bringing into question ‘ready on day one’

In contrast, John Mc Cain went out on the limb to call for a troop surge which was a make or break political move. It worked. If it had not it is unlikely he would be the gop candidate this fall.The reason why we examine people so closely for POTUS is because we try to guess how they will fulfill their duty as President and the judgment they will use.

We could not be more fortunate to see how seriously the democratic candidates take the rule of law and their personal integrity. The stands that both Senators Clinton and Obama take on the Florida and Michigan delegation will give us a clear chance to see how they view the role of law enforcer.

The POTUS is in charge of the executive branch of federal governmentwhose job is to enforce the law of the United States. Both Florida and Michigan were told by the DNC before hand if they moved up their primary dates, they would not have their delegations seated, disenfranchising their voters. But both Florida and Michigan made “in your face” decisions to the DNC and held their primaries to make a statement.

On Hundred Sixty years ago, Henry David Thoreau gave his Concord Lyceum speech “The Rights and Duties of the Individual in Relation to Government”. He recognized then as people since then have realized, there is a price attached to the privledge of civil disobedience.

Two states who felt that it was wrong that the little states of Iowa and New Hampshire were the “kingmakers”, took a noble stand to protest by moving their primary up before Super Tuesday after fully understanding it would cost them their delegates.

The candidates did not campaign in their state in acknowledgement of this and Senator Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot. Now the ramifications of not having a delegation seated are being realized and the candidates, specifically Senator Clinton, now doesn’t want the voters disenfranchised. Of course, it is to Mrs. Clinton’s political advantage to have those delegates counted. They also warn that there could be ramifications on the democratic candidate in Novbember if these two large states are not given a voice.

Florida and Michigan chose to exercise their voice that they objected to the primary system and wanted it changed and voted knowing their delegation would not be seated. We will get a chance to see just how presidential the candidates are when it comes to demanding the rules be enforced. Will one? Will both? Will neither?

It will be ironic to see Al Sharpton in federal court fighting a seating of the January delegations. Will either of the candidates have the political courage to join him as a co-plaintiff?

1 comment:

Roland said...

Hey, John.
What would you have listed as an answer to my question? Let me know. I'll add it.