>Leland wrote:
>Your a programmer, so you know the benefits of standardization. There
>is no reason why parties can't agree to standardize primaries to be less
>confusing and more efficient.
Actually there are plenty of reasons why this cannot be done. If you hang
around pols very much you understand that with them, it is true what they say
about there always being two reasons for anything, the one you are told and the
real reason. Remember, they wouldn't tell us things if they wouldn't want us
to believe them.
It comes down to various feifdoms and power... in both parties. The Ds were a
little more blatant with the superdelegates added to the elected delegates to
pull some power back to the insiders, but the thought of actually making it
easy for the public to understand and give their input is the furthest thing
from the mind of most pols.
In watching a little of the Clemens hearing today, I was thinking I would love
to see someone in that situation telling the assembled personages that they
will show the same respect for the truth that the congressmen do while
campaigning or talking to the press. They probably would be cited for contempt.
--
Larry Miller
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
message/rfc822
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
