Taxation without representation. Should people in Michigan and Florida hold a "Boston Tea Party"?
I know Boston is in Massachusetts, but Massachusetts people did not have their right to vote taken away from them this time. The spirit would seem to apply everywhere.
Either Clinton or Obama is likely to end up raising taxes, as President. However, would not the people of Florida and Michigan be able to say that THEY were denied a chance to be represented in the choice (assuming a Democrat becomes President), and therefore a right to refuse to pay their taxes?
Hey, maybe Florida and Michigan should refuse to do it over--especially given that Howard Dean is demanding that the taxpayers of those states PAY for the Democratic Party's mistkaes in handling this electon.
Note: The Democratic Party's fundamental mistake here, which was NOT a matter of actions taken in Florida and Michigan, was to totally DISENFRANCHISE the voters of Florida and Michigan. The mistake of Presidential candidates Obama and Clinton was to AGREE to this disenfranchisement of the voters of two states. Remember that ALL Democratic candidates ratified the DNC decision to deprive Florida and MIchigan voters of their right to vote, by agreeing not to campaign in those states.
Does this really terrible decision alone indicate that NEITHER Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama should be President of the United States? Maybe so. Note that the Republican candidates did NOT go along with the idea of depriving Michigan and Florida of a vote. This resulted in the RNC decision there to sanction the states by cutting their delegates in half, but NOT to deprive voters of a meaningful vote. Arguably, in fact, the Flroida vote DECIDED the GOP nomination.