Meh. Their blind acceptance of truthiness is yet another in the long, long, long, list of ways in which they resemble Dubya’s early followers.

p.s. They have lost EVERY.SINGLE.SCOTUS-related talking point with Obama’s embrace of DOUG KMIEC, whose personal dream is probably to give every woman who gets an abortion the death penalty.

The next time they bring up “BUT THE SUPREME COURT!!!” remind them that Obama’s new boyfriend, Kmiec, is a member in proud standing of the Federalis Society; was a huge defender of Alberto Gonzalez and intervened on Gonzalez’s defense during AttorneyGate; was a prime mover in the impeachment drive of Bill Clinton; thanks Samuel Alito is the greattest justice EVAH; and thinks warantless wiretapping is totally kewl!

Be sure to remind them of all this EVERY single time they try to scare you with SCOTUS appointments. There is NO WAY McCain could pick someone as bad as Kmiec–because Kmiec for some reason hates McCain, and there is nobody worse than Kmiec as a potential judge pick.

They can thank Mr. HopeyChangey for handing you THAT stick to beat them with! LOLOLOL…

Ignoramus!

According to Rule 11, Iowa could hold its caucus no earlier than January 14, New Hampshire no earlier than January 22, and South Carolina no earlier than January 29.

Further, in accordance with Rule 20.C: “The number of pledged delegates elected … shall be reduced by 50 percent.”

Moreover, Wayne Barrett, an esteemed political journalist since 1979, reveals that before Rule 20.C or any rule stripping delegates can be enforced, the DNC, under its rules, is required to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a “good faith” effort to abide by the party’s electoral calendar, and to only impose the full weight of penalties (i.e. nullifying the entire delegation), only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved.

In addition, the rules require the 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee to conduct “an investigation, including hearings if necessary” in order to ascertain if Democratic leaders in a state in violation of Rule 11 “took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith” to keep the state in compliance by either promoting legislation to avoid or preventing legislation that would cause a state to fail to comply to Rule 11.

The Democrats begrudge the 2000 Bush-Gore Florida recount. They blithely complain when Republicans seek valid measures preventing voter fraud. Why then, are the Democrats suddenly blind, deaf, and dumb when Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee openly avow to disenfranchise voters 1,749,920 in Florida and 594,398 in Michigan? Not only are Obama and the DNC perpetrating a “hi-tech” lynching, but it is blatantly unconstitutional and may even be criminal.

The Democrats allege Florida and Michigan violated the DNC Rule 11.A prohibiting a caucus or primary before Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. DNC Rule 20.C.1 specifies the punitive measures that both states lose 50% of their vote: Florida 210 delegates, Michigan 156 delegates. The DNC Rules Committee will be meeting this coming Saturday, May 31 to hear Obama’s utterly bizarre plan allowing only the superdelegates (ironically the votes he desperately needs to capture the nomination) to be seated, while delegates elected by popular suffrage are repudiated by being half-counted, oddly reminiscent of a colonial enumeration of freed “Black Men and Indians.”

By why is there even a debate? Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that “once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), now the Senate Judiciary’s ranking minority member, asserted to us in an exclusive interview, that although as a learned attorney he remains obliged to see “how it plays out,” that “it may well be worthwhile” to hold Congressional hearings on the Democrats’ refusal to seat Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention. “It’s certainly something I want to consider,” said Specter, ruefully hinting things might be different if he was still the Judiciary Chairman. “The essence of democracy is the right to vote,” asserted Specter, the Democrat’s contemplation of not seating Florida and Michigan may constitute a fundamental violation of democratic principles. He believes that the Congress must act “very promptly
:scared:

What’s with the weird language, too. He should have a snopes page or name it something like fact file or something lame.

Wishful thinking does not a conspiracy make.