Now, I didn’t watch that football game yesterday – or even keep up with it by smartphone or radio. Later in the evening I heard that the teams were tied at halftime, but one team (the Kansas City Injun Leaders?) was behind at half time by 20 to 10, but then somehow in the third period got 21 points and so beat the other team (the San Francisco 69ers? 99ers?) by 11 points. How could that happen?
Well, it seems obvious. Somebody must have changed the rules in the middle of the game – between the third and fourth inning. From my own (incredibly limited) sports experience (in high school, a long, long time ago), I’m used to that. Although the teachers in those days taught that was wrong. (I understand they are different today, to make sure that underprivileged, underdog, underachievers are treated right.) If the results aren’t what you want, then change the rules.
I guess that is the same thing going on in Democrat politics in this 2020 election year. (Which seems to have gone on for a whole lot longer than a year.)
According to Politico, the DNC has overhauled debate requirements for the rest of the campaign. This is, we are told, opening the door for Bloomberg to play.
“The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.”
Now, I admit that I don’t pretend to understand Democrat political rules and criteria. Any more than I understand what horse-racing has to do with kicking a goat-skin object down a patch of suspiciously green grass. (You know, First Down, Second Down, Churchill Downs, Kentucky Downs…) In fact, they seem to be designed (like football rules) to confuse people.
But you would think that changing rules in mid-campaign (mid-game) would upset a lot of people. And apparently the Dem change has – I just heard one Democratic candidate (Tutsi Granola, maybe?) on the Glen Deck radio program complaining that she can’t go to the next debate. Sure, she’s a minority, but I thought that was what the Dems were all about these days. After a century and a half of keeping minorities down (right up to the 1960s), they were now the party of inclusion and forcing people to help minorities in every way possible.
So if this rules change in the middle of the game would have benefited a minority candidate like dear Ms. Congressperson Granola (Grabart? Grable? Is she related to Betty? Soldiers really liked Grable.)… where was I? Oh, yeah. If the rules change would help a minority, then changing would be a good thing. But if it harms a minority person, then isn’t it bad? Like this Betsy Grabble. Or that Andrew Tang guy?
So why are the Democrats doing it? Is because (as I heard Kansas schoolchildren refer to supporters of LBJ during the 1964 election) they are really Dumbocrats?
Or is it because the thugs that really run the Democratic Party want to make sure that they still run that party now and for the rest of time? (As much time as the Democratic Party has, that is.) Even if that means that they can’t defeat the hated Donald Trump?
Makes you think. As long as you don’t do it too hard, of course. That would tick the Republicans AND the Democrats off.