Is he or is he not aware of the disgraceful history, current shady practices and the completely unethical basis of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party?
If not, he's too ignorant to serve as a Dept of Motor Vehicles clerk, much less President.
If he is aware of what a crowd of corrupt backstabbers he's surrounded himself with, he's been caught with his pants down (but not in the Democrat pleasing Bill Clinton way).
Either condition, disqualifies him for the Presidency.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Don't kid yourself. Obama is plenty devious. However, his style has always been to play it clean and above board before the public, and throw stink bombs through carefully veiled proxies.
I've written about this some in the past. When Obama won his bid for the Senate, he was either Blessed by the Scandal Gods, or extremely devious: while appearing to remain above the fray, not one but TWO of his opponents dropped out of the race because of scandals -- the two most likely to beat him.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
As I said, if was aware of the bagful of vipers he's associated with and chose not to take appropriate actions, his lack of fitness for office goes beyond his obvious inexperience.
He's also lazy and careless.
Inexperience does not couple well with skylarking.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Olson made some great points here, but should have included more of the background as to how the Dems got in this mess, namely how they were responding to the election of 1972, where their candidate got creamed 49 states-to-1, and the following election, where an "outsider" got the nomination.
Ted also should have included some of the more delicious ironies of Florida 2000. He only mentioned the second SCOTUS ruling, the 5-4 one, without noting it was the other decision SCOTUS made that day in the case that really decided the election (that would be the 7-2 ruling).
In addition, he leaves out the fact that the Bush team's major lawyer on the ground in Florida was a guy from Tallahassee named Barry Richard-a Democrat.
TJM
· 1 year ago
Florida was a scream. You had a judge from the Florida Supreme Court appealing to the United States Supreme Court, in effect saying, please save us from left-wing loon members of the Florida Supreme Court who are trying to re-write the election laws ex post facto.
In 2000 Dems hated the Electoral College and wanted it dispensed with because it would elect the Gorebot. Fast forward to 2004 and they loved the Electoral College after Monsieur Kerry lost the popular vote and the Dems were nursing a fantasy that if they could overturn the results in Ohio, presto chango, Kerry would win the presidency via the Electoral College vote. You can't have it both ways, lefty clowns.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
One of my great pleasures in the past 10 years was reading Ruth Bader Ginzberg's terse rebuttal of the Florida Supreme Court's first ruling on Gore. In three terse paragraphs, the most liberal member of the SCOTUS summed up the unanimous opinion of the nine judges regarding the nonsense the Florida judges had written. I've never seen another court decision like it. She actually could have done it with four words and a disbelieving tone of voice: "You can't be serious." It was too funny for words.
After Ginzberg's scolding, three of the seven Democrat operatives comprising Florida's Supreme Court ruefully acknowledged that they'd been caught and wrote the truth, but four continued the pretense and wrote a decision that the liberals on SCOTUS could get behind. It only mauled the law slightly less than their previous attempt that had been laughed out of the US Supreme Court, but it was enough.
My soul was chilled as I reflected on the fact that the highest court in Florida contained seven members for whom the law was nothing but an inconvenient shadow over the Democrats' right to rule. As evidenced by such fiascos as the Delay persecution and the Libby indictment, the Republic remains in real danger to this day from liberal domination of the legal system. But at least on that day, SCOTUS admitted that even liberals could not bend the law that far.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
That original Ruth Buzzi ruling was from the first SCOTUS decision against the Florida Supremes. That decision was 9-0.
A good read on Floriduh 2000 is "The Perfect Tie", written by a couple of professors. It's pretty much unbiased, unlike the pro-Gore book Dershowitz wrote (which I read and found very badly researched) and the pro-Bush book. In the end, the authors of "The Perfect Tie" in fact conclude that Gore was the bad guy.
The Gore-Lieberman campaign and the Democrat Party dispatched lawyers to all of Florida's counties with a five page memorandum outlining their plan to disqualify every possible overseas absentee ballot cast by the brave American men and women in the military, who vote predominantly Republican. In addition, the Clinton-Gore Administration implemented a policy that prohibited election polls on military bases. Furthermore, approximately 3,000 absentee ballots from American military personnel were found stored aboard one or more military ships. It is clear that these ballots were stored in order to delay their delivery until after the election deadlines. These ballots would have affected the Florida election results because a large percentage of Navy sailors are based in Florida.
Democrat operatives sued to invalidate the entire elections and disenfranchise more than 215,000 voters in Florida's Seminole and Martin Counties, because a large majority voted for Republican George Bush and disenfranchising these voters would change the outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election to make Democrat Al Gore the winner. The lawsuits were based on nonsubstantive technical deviations from statutory election procedure.
The Gore-Lieberman campaign and Democrat Party attorneys have fought in the courts and at the County Canvassing Boards in large population, heavily Democrat Florida counties to count euphemistically labeled "under-voted ballots" for Al Gore. These ballots indicated no vote for any candidate for president during the first and second machine counts. Ballots where the voter failed to clearly indicate their intention to vote for any candidate for President can only be counted as "none of the above" ballots, especially where the voter clearly indicated their vote for other offices and ballot measures. There can be no legitimate assumption that a ballot voted for "none of the above" for president was really a vote for Al Gore because the ballot contains clearly marked votes for Democrat candidates for other offices.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
That was the Floriduh Supreme's Chief Justice. He correctly predicted that his colleagues' attempt to re-write Florida election law after the electio would be bitch-slapped, and he was right.
FYI as I recall all of the Florida Supreme Justices were Dems.
And let's not forget that the assorted Federal Judges on the Florida circuit that Gore went thru also all sided with Bush's arguments.
Poor Al, all he had to do was win his home state of Tennessee, and he would have never even needed to win Florida. I feel his pain.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"And let's not forget that the assorted Federal Judges on the Florida circuit that Gore went thru also all sided with Bush's arguments."
Sorry, I left a line out of this-all of these Federal Judges who sided with Bush were...Democrats.
Law
· 1 year ago
You write "Florida Dems" disenfranchised themselves? Huh? Party leaders "disenfranchised" Florida Dems. Why shouldn't your average Florida Dem not have a say in the selection? Believe me, I carry no water for Clinton, and she would be going back on her word, but were national party bosses right to tell Florida it couldn't move up its primary? And don't you think that political calculations were inherent in Obama's decision?
Nothing that happens to Obama in this election is a problem for me. Barack Obama's slimy embrace of the Jena Six justifies just about anything.
RBMN
· 1 year ago
It's because they're picking delegates to a national convention, where the national party makes the rules. When Florida's Democrats decided to move up the primary, they didn't care about losing delegates. They thought it was much better being early to Hillary's coronation. "Who cares about surplus delegates?"
AC Thomas
· 1 year ago
Democracy: FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE
If so why is so called 800 super-delegates determining who is the choice of Democratic Party nominee?
What about the millions of PEOPLE (BY THE PEOPLE) voted for Obama, and Clinton?
What about the millions of dollars donated by common people to change Washington.
Do you really think the 800 so called super-delegates are not influenced by special interest groups (PAC)? So what about the FOR THE PEOPLE?
If Democratic Party stands for the social equality; where is the fairness if the super-delegates decide the nominee?
jerry
· 1 year ago
AC:
I repeat what I said in long past gone thread. The WE the People part refers to the elections that occur in November. That is the constitutional process that elects our leaders. The primary election process is the We the Party process and the parties are free to make their own rules. Political parties are not bound to select their candidates through a democratic process. The Constitution does mention or regulate how candidates are selected. Traditionally, parties have used a combination of state conventions, caucuses, party leadership and during the modern era, primary elections to choose candidates. I am not sure that modern emphasis on primaries has resulted in better candidates. What it has done is lengthened the process to the point where the next election campaign starts the day after the last election.
jerry
· 1 year ago
er...doesn't mention
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
That's just the point, the Left as no word in its lexicon even remotely descriptive of "FAIRNESS". Expedient is their rule of thumb in all things.
Georgfelis
· 1 year ago
Schadenfreude: Taking pleasure from someone else's misfortune. Schadenfreudedemocrat: Watching the Dems rip themselves apart day by day and enjoying it.
These are Democrats. They will rationalize heroically and fall into line like the workers in Metropolis.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
Well stated...
The problem however is, most Democrats are pleased with running either Obama or Clinton.
The Clintons showing such desperation only make themselves appear more poorly in this light.
But there simply won't be a groundswell of support from the Democrat Populace to fight over these States.
Yes, the campaigns will make a stink, but most likely, if Obama keeps racking up the wins, it isn't going to matter to the Democrat Base.
They won't be divided with Obama in the General, as Democrats were feeling 'displaced' with GW BUSH.
In the end, I think it will be a wimper of an issue, vs. a big ugly divisive setback for the Democrat Party.
On the other end, the GOP has a 'divisive' mess on their hands...
jerry
· 1 year ago
HNAV:
The issue, at least for the Clinton’s, is power, not a Democrat in the White House. Hill and Bill believe the White House is theirs by right. Your argument about the Democratic Party primary electorate actually makes a Hillary challenge more likely since she will believe that despite the skullduggery involved they wouldn’t really mind if she cheats Obama out of the nomination. Maybe she is right when she starts the action but by the time this makes it through the courts the story will have changed and no Democrat other than Obama would be electable.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
There is a good percentage of Democrats who will stay home or who will vote McCain if this witch manages to get the Dems nomination.
"Conservatives" risk completely marginalizing themselves to Ron Paul-ite status, should they petulantly sit out this election.
pilsener
· 1 year ago
"petulantly sit out the election" ??
Moderates and independents vote, but they don't commit the time, money, passion, or effort to support a candidate. McCain will have "enough" money, and he will get the votes of most conservaatives, but if he does not make an active effort to rally the conservative base, he will find his support on the ground severely lacking.
I recommend to you Andy McCarthy's piece from NRO http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWEzN2EyMD... He addresses what he sees as "McCain’s supporters continue to mock thoughtful, good-faith critics as “deranged.”" or petulant. This will be a bad course for McCain supporters.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Sorry, if someone needs a hug or some warm milk, I ain't your boy.
This is the most consequential Presidential election in decades.
The choices could not possibly be more stark. There just is no argument on this point, and anyone who chooses to argue it insults our intelligence.
The Democrat Party has made it their occupation to insult the intelligence of the American voter and that's par for the course, but I don't think it moves the ball forward on the conservative side, to tolerate it.
Squid_Shark
· 1 year ago
You are called petulant because that is how alot of the conservatives are acting, like petulant little children.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I think this is unnecessarily dismissive. This is a time of crisis for conservatives, who are literally being told "Shut up and play along" by people who hold them in contempt, and have to decide just how to respond. This takes time and reflection. Anybody who calls this "infantile" is dismissing a genuine crisis of conscience.
My decision to vote for McCain is not a decision to shut up and play along. I'm never going to shut up; I'm going to work my butt off and make damned sure a socialist collaborator like McCain never gets the nomination from my party again. (No, I don't think McCain is a socialist; I think he collaborates with socialists.) I not only hope, but invite, my fellow conservatives to do as I've done -- up the ante, put more of my time and energy on the line, and commit to turning the party and the nation around. I've written about this at length today on my blog.
Squid_Shark
· 1 year ago
"who are literally being told "Shut up and play along" by people who hold them in contempt, and have to decide just how to respond. This takes time and reflection. Anybody who calls this "infantile" is dismissing a genuine crisis of conscience." Oh boo freakin hooo, seriously, we moderates have been playing along with you "true" conservatives for years. We were told to "shut up and play ball" by you guys so we could get people in office. You guys think you can go it alone, fine, but thatts not how it works. We cant win without each other but sometimes you need to suck up one of out guys just like we had to choke down yours, for the good of the country.
And if you even try to tell me that "true" conservatives dont have contempt for moderates, I have some swampland for you down here in FL.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
"Oh boo freakin hooo, seriously, we moderates have been playing along with you "true" conservatives for years. We were told to "shut up and play ball" by you guys"
Have you? I hadn't noticed, and don't recall anybody saying that. If you can post a few examples of conservatives showing moderates the sort of contempt we've been hearing from McCain, I'll be convinced. If you cant -- and I don't think you can -- then your rudeness is uncalled for.
By the way, I'm not sure I'd be putting phrases like "boo freakin hooo" in my posts if I were seriously trying to claim that somebody else was acting infantile. You might want to rethink that.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
As you might want to re-think any notion that you can somehow single-handedly prevent John McCain from becoming the Republican nomination.
I can only think of one way you could, and you'd have the secret service on you for that one ;)
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Alright. I don't want to get nasty or start calling names, and I was going to ignore you...
... but if you will REREAD my post from five hours ago that you COMPLETELY BLOODY MISREAD, you FREAKING IDIOT, you will discover that I was saying that I was going to work to prevent a REPEAT of this fiasco IN THE BLOODY FUTURE!!!!!!
In the name of all things great and small, you'd think you would be able to bloody READ if you were going to post stuff on a nationally read blog.
READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
How are you going to make sure he doesn't get the nomination, when he only needs about 1/3 of the remaining delegates to get it?
Unless you can somehow change the way folks vote (most of whom don't read 'blogs like this) in all the remaining primary states, I don't think you have a prayer of preventing it.
pilsener
· 1 year ago
Just so I understand. You are saying that it is the responsibility of Republican voters to support the candidate, not the responsibility of the candidate to gain the support of the voters.
So McCain is now the anointed one who can no longer be questioned? In case you hadn't noticed we are still in the nominating process. If differences among members of the Republican coalition are not hashed out now, when should they be?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
No, I'm saying it's the responsibility for American citizens to take their right to vote seriously and to vote for the best candidate.
That includes the primary and the general election. If McCain's not your choice in the primary or the general, I understand.
But please make that choice responsibly. In my opinion, using your vote to "send a message" or not voting at all, is irresponsible. Brave Americans gave their lives for your right to vote. This is not a game.
As an aside, I heard Rush lamenting that he and other conservative hosts are not getting credit for backing the war from its inception on, but John McCain is.
Perhaps that's because if a Democrat gets into the White House, the war is over and we will lose?
It would have been better to bail on it years ago, than bail on it now, Rush.
Rush is looking for a way to save face and endorse McCain and I predict he will.
Coulter, on the other hand, is McCain's Sister Souljah moment.
Kevin71
· 1 year ago
Since Rush's success has nothing to do with who wins or loses elections, he has nothing to save face about. And he won't endorse McCain, unless (maybe) McCain chooses a solid conservative as his running mate. What he will do, however, is endorse or support conservative candidates running for both the House and Senate to block liberal initiatives from getting passed to a liberal Hillary or Obama for signature. If Huckabee is selected as Veep, there will be no support to that ticket. I don't think Huckabee will be the choice though, I fully expect McCain to throw him under the bus in the next few days. If McCain picks a solid conservative as his running mate, then maybe Rush will support them.
AH_C
· 1 year ago
I am equally responsible if I elect strong conservatives down-ticket and write in anybody but McVain for the top ticket. I'm not being petulant in the least bit. I want to make sure that McVain is under my thumb & not the other way around. Where does he get off, thinking he can call me a racist over illegal immigration and like a battered wife, I'll pull for him to keep the happy family together?
The way I see it, one of 3 things will happen:
a) it's easier for GOP Congress to say no to a Donk POTUS, than one of their own "R"s. IOW, there were times when they should have said no to Bush--recall the arm-twisting over the Prescription Drug plan b) if McVain does win, I'm helping the GOP Congress say no to him on conservative issues because they have see the numbers and know that we put them in while McVain was just lucky to squeak in. IOW, a mandate for conservative Congress, but no mandate for McVain. Mileage will vary from State to State, but in OK, it will work quite well, more so if cHillary is on the opposite ticket. c) If there is a viable 3rd party candidate, wouldn't it be just peachy if he won with 34% of the popular vote & EC vote? Now we'd have a conservative Congress & a conservative POTUS.
Hey, if Huckster can believe in miracles, why can't I? But under no circumstances will I give McVain a mandate to stab me in the back with amnesty, carbon taxes, shutting down Gitmo, demonizing businesses, and other pet liberal causes sure to bankrupt this nation.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I hate to agree with you (don't take it personally, it's not personal), but I have to.
I've been searching my conservative soul for a week now about how I can vote for McCain with a clear conscience, and writing about it. I visited CPAC over the weekend and heard Newt Gingrich lay out his Platform of the American People. Gingrich has observed that Americans are agreed about a remarkable number of issues that legislators are not responding to, and is working towards getting those passed. At CPAC he laid out some principles that we need to consider seriously. I write about those this morning on my own blog site.
Short version: I'm not just holding my nose, I'm gritting my teeth. But I have to vote for McCain. He's bad, but he's better than Hillobama.
SoDoodle
· 1 year ago
It is simply too delicious to contemplate.
FedUp
· 1 year ago
Yup... more fun than reruns of I Love Lucy... and about as socially important! Again... Hill is a lying schemer and Obama does nothing but chant his mantra of Change! Change what and how??? Seems that that part is always left out, but you can bet it will cost us all money!
I want butter on my popcorn!
jpm100
· 1 year ago
The Democratic Party sort of exists separate from the actual governments involved, past precedent might not apply. But, I also believe that weakens Hillary's potential case as the same time though.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Again, Captain, beg to differ with you. In neither Michigan nor Florida do the national parties have any input to the balloting process. The state party committees are the only legally recognized input to the Secretaries of State for the respective state primary ballots and the state Presidential ballot.
There is no post-facto changing of rules here within the states. Hillary won fair and square in both Michigan and Florida. Section 103.021 of Florida's electoral law mandates that the slate of electors proffered by the state executive committee of the Democratic Party be placed upon the presidential ballot. Similarly, in Michigan, Michigan Election Law Act 116 of 1954, Section 168.42 states similarly that the state party's executive committee will present the list of electors to be placed upon the ballot.
This battle is going to be fought, not at the national level, but within the several states, where the existing law is absolutely clear.
Given that the national party organization has chosen to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida's delegates to the national convention, my guess is that, regardless of who wins the national nomination, Hillary's name will appear on the ballot in Florida and Michigan. It's the only weapon Michigan and Florida's state party apparatus has to challenge the national organization, and if I were them, I'd use it.
karenhasfreedom
· 1 year ago
Edwards and Obama managed to get their names OFF the MI ballot in time to comply with their pledge to the DNC. Hillary conveniently left her name on the ballot, and I believe it was with calculation that she did so. She is trying to cover all her bases to be the "inevitable" candidate.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Which is fine by me. Edwards is -- where? And Obama, while still standing, abandoned these two states.
I think what Hillary did was legal and shows the depth of her team's political experience compared to that of newbie Obama.
If I had to choose between the two to go up against, say, Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I'd prefer the one who is politically wisest at playing the game as it's played in reality, not wisest at playing someone's altruistic idea of how the game should be played.
I see your point, but we expect the president to have some modicum of honesty and honor. Obama, though he might well be considered a fool for doing it, played the game by the rules. That's a point in his favor. The Hilldabeast did exactly what anybody with a lick of sense would have expected, i.e. cheated.
Do we want somebody who respects the rules to be our chief law enforcement officer... or somebody who thinks that rules are for everybody else except her?
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
We expect honesty, but we also expect intelligence. I believe that the decisions of the national party organizations are inherently trumped by state law. I have yet to locate a state which defers to the national party organization in preference to the state organization with respect to ballot composition. When I find one, I'll post it here, but I've done 10 of the 50 states and each one requires a state organization to submit its list of electors.
So the national organization can use its big stick and beat those state organizations which promulgated early balloting upon the head, but the state organizations can fight back exactly where it hurts -- ballot content.
I think Hillary's folk recognized this, and Obama's folk didn't.
As I've pointed out in a previous post, Abraham Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote in the Presidential election. 60% of that vote went to his three Democratic challengers combined. Guess who won the election?
If Hillary manages to get those two states to stonewall on Obama's appearance on the ballot, she's got the nomination locked up, because the Democrats as a national organization cannot tolerate the non-appearance of the national nominee's name on the November ballots in Michigan and Florida.
The key to this entire argument is looking at the problem from the viewpoint of the affected states -- Michigan and Florida. How can they consolidate their claims to a right to hold early balloting? How can they protect the expressed will of their voters in those early ballots?
docjim505
· 1 year ago
I see your point. Still, I respect Obama for playing by the rules. Was he stupid to expect the Hilldabeast to do the same? Yes.
If the Hilldabeast wins the nomination because of these shenanigans, it will be FASCINATING to watch what the dems do. It'll be like 2000 all over again, but without a Republican. Tee hee.
If Obama were worthy of the Oval Office he would have foreseen this.
Politics ain't beanbag. If he's too dainty to get his hands soiled, the Clinton crime machine will roll him like a two-bit drunk in a dark alley.
DubiousD
· 1 year ago
Don't overlook Puerto Rico, who could easily end up deciding the nom. They have 63 delegates to the Democratic convention, more than either Georgia, New Jersey, Connecticut, South Carolina, or Oklahoma.
And don't forget, Barack's not doing as well as Hillary with Latinos.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I hope the Hillary campaign cautions the soon to be bribed delegates to not flash their loot too soon.
Otherwise, like Robert DeNiro in Goodfellas, Bill Clinton will be roughly separating mink coats from significant others and shooing off the brand new pink Cadillacs, at the Hillary victory party.
Squid_Shark
· 1 year ago
HA I love it, Legal Karma, it tastes so god to be right.
Mercutio
· 1 year ago
The question in my mind is:
Is the nomination process a CNN network spin-off of some "Surviors 'Reality' " show or were those shows based on presidential election politics?
marinetbryant
· 1 year ago
That's my problem with political parties. Seems they make the rules and change them to suit their needs and power needs. The people? Who are they? The difference between this election and those of the past is this one has been so blatantly manufactured and the people have been manipulated. How can there be a presumed Presidential nominee one day after ST when half the country hadn't even voted? Reckon stupidity knows now political affiliation.
Tom
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
This unfolding of events is a metaphor for left wing ideology itself.
Leftists sincerely believe that human socio-psychological nature is a finite machine that can be engineered to perfection. The election rules, complete with super-delegates, were designed by the democrat best and brightest to achieve a benevolent purpose, to prevent another embarrassing populist candidate from slipping through the nomination process.
The design was plausible in theory, and had good intentions. But just as with other leftist utopian schemes, reality always bucks libs, always shows itself to have other designs, and always tries to humble them. Do they let themselves be humbled? No, their Religion of Progress marches on, oblivious to the trail of failure and destruction it leaves in its wake, blaming neo-cons. It's actually sort of sad.
Larry
· 1 year ago
A perfect voting system is impossible, because some of the criteria are mutually exclusive. Of course, they just want a system that looks good while insuring that the "correct" candidate wins.
TomHolmes
· 1 year ago
If Clinton somehow manages to leverage Florida and Michigan to wrest the nomination from Barrack Obama, she will loose the general and reshape the political horizon for the next twenty years. I am no proponent of identity politics, but if blacks feel that Obama has been screwed, it will very much become a "black thing", and there will be hell to pay for Clinton at the ballot box. Clinton cannot afford to win the nomination through any other means than a clear and unambiguous numerical victory.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
"...and there will be hell to pay for Clinton at the ballot box. Clinton cannot afford to win the nomination through any other means than a clear and unambiguous numerical victory>"
Another delicious irony is that Barbara Olson, Ted Olson's wife, wrote a book about the unethical Hillary! called Hell to Pay.
Labamigo
· 1 year ago
"Would the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case after having been excoriated for years by liberals for daring to restore order in the Florida vote-counting in 2000?"
Come on Ted, you know better. Federal courts don't get involved in intra party disputes. Remember LBJ stealing the 1948 democrat senate primary from Coke Stevenson with the famous Box 13. The federal courts said "none of our business."
essucht
· 1 year ago
Isn't it amazing? After all the criticism of the electoral college, the Democrats are still running a *significantly* less representative system for their own elections, and see no disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions...
I hope that someone is paying close attention to the bankrolls of those superdelegates, Bill Clinton just got $31M from the dictator of Uzbekistan*, and I'm sure the money is burning a hole in his pocket.
* And if the Uzbeks are coming up with that kind of sum as a bribe, ah, fee for consulting, makes you wonder how much money the Saudis and the Chinese are bankrolling the Clintons...
Roy Lofquist
· 1 year ago
Dear Ed,
It wasn't the Democrats who broke the rules in Florida but rather the Republican controlled legislature. The Democrats litigated and lost. They have a legitimate beef. As Mr. Olson said, it's delicious.
Regards, Roy
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
Roy, That is not how it really was, as we all know. But it is nice to see that democrats are still immune to reality.
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that even though history shows President Bush to have won the 2000 election, the question is somehow still open, and in some metaphysical sense, Al Gore "really" won. That's what I see Roy Lofquist implying (democrats "have a legitimate beef"). Don't flatter yourself, Roy, that's no legitimate beef, it's putrid and rancid and it's time to throw it down the garbage disposal.
The result of the 2000 election is exactly what our process decided it was: Bush defeated Gore. That's a tautology. Its truth-value is not open for negotiation.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
But then the dhimmie party has never been strong in recent years in dealing with reality, has it?
Gahrie
· 1 year ago
Actually, it was the Florida Democratic Party and Democratically dominated Florida Supreme Court who violated Florida law in 2000. The Florida legislature, Republican controlled or not, could not break the rules, since they are the ones the U.S. Constiution mandates to make the rules.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure what "rules" the legislature supposedly violated.
There was talk of the legislature picking the EC delegates. That wouldn't have been violating the rules. The US constitution gives them that authority.
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
See my above.
Roy Lofquist
· 1 year ago
Hey, guys,
I've been voting Republican for more than 40 years. My very first vote was for Goldwater. I live in FL and have followed this closely. The Democrats in the legislature opposed the move because of the promised sanctions. The Republicans played a little hardball. Us Republicans ain't all angels, you know. Good thing, too.
Regards, Roy
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
With any luck the SC would stay out of this fight, as there is no constitutional issue involved.
The Democrats and Republicans get to set their own rules for their primaries. If either party wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, they have a right to do so.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"The Democrats and Republicans get to set their own rules for their primaries. If either party wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, they have a right to do so."
What if the Dems had already promised to abide by their own rules, and then decided to change them becauuse they didn't like the results? That's what happened in Florida in 2000 and that's what is about to happen here.
faulkner
· 1 year ago
Huh?
At issue in Florida was trying to determine the winner in an election where the machines had an accuracy of 99.99 percent and the vote difference was 0.0001. Below the threshold of accuracy. A total toss-up. The law in Florida never contemplated this.
I don't blame either side for playing every card they had. At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side. It was as fair a standard as any, but the idea that one side was clearly right in Florida and one side all wrong is just laughable, even if you liked the final result.
If the shoe had been on the other foot -- 400 votes out of several million, a Democratic Secretary of State (and Gore state campaign chair) certifying the winner, significant grey areas in the application of a poorly written law -- you bet Republicans would have fought every angle and walked away in the end with bitter feelings. Don't even pretend otherwise. This "we're always right and the forces of light, while Democrats are always bad and the forces of darkness" does our party (and our country) no favors.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"The law in Florida never contemplated this."
Sure it did. The Florida law in force at the time of the election said that if the candidates' vote totals were within 1/2 of 1 percent of each other, a recount was mandated.
The problem the Dems had was that they then tried re-qriting the election laws when they didn't like the election results, which is what Hillary will try to do in 2008.
As for the "evil" Katherine Harris, please cite, from credible sources, which laws she broker and how and why she broke them. You can't because she did nothing wrong. In the end, as the SCOTUS rulings proved, the only ones guilty of trying to break the law in Florida were the Democrat hacks on the Florida Supreme Court.
Remember that it was the Florida Supreme Court, Democrats all, who injected themselves into this cae without being asked by either plaintiff to do so. And it was that body's Chief Justice, Charles Wells, who bitterly dissented when his cohorts on the bench tried to break the law and steal the election.
Here'a a part of Chief Justice Wells' dissent:
""... [T]he majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.
"Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.
"... Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters — not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to be embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is 'the right thing to do.' Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns."
As I noted in another post here, you need to read an objective account of Florida 2000's aftermath, not the biased ones you've obviously read in the past. It's called "The Perfect Tie".
faulkner
· 1 year ago
Actually, I never accused Katherine Harris of breaking any laws. I sad the Sec of State was in Bush's corner, which was absolutely an advantage on his part -- and a legal one. If Dems wanted that card in their deck, they could have won that race. But the fact you jump to that conclusion indicates the spirit in which you read the post and in part makes my point for me.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
So which books about Florida 2000 have you actually read? Obviously only Dershowitz's, which as I said above was horribly researched, and also only used "sources" that he agreed with.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I don't blame either side for playing every card they had. At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side. It was as fair a standard as any, but the idea that one side was clearly right in Florida and one side all wrong is just laughable, even if you liked the final result.
You don't blame either side? I do. Compare what happened in 2000 to what happened in 1960. The 1960 election, unlike the 2000 election, really was stolen by fraud; Kennedy won in John Connolly's Dallas by fewer than 5,000 votes, and in Richard Daley's Chicago by fewer than 2,000. But Richard Nixon, despite his reputation for hardball and history's designation of him as a "crook," was a far better man than Al Gore, and loved his country far more; contemplating what a divisive challenge would cost the country, he chose not to challenge, but rather to bide his time and try again later.
The rest of your analysis is a strained attempt at bipartisanship where none is called for. The Democrats had signed off on the ballot design, according to the rules of the election. The law for certifying the election was very, very clear. The fact that it favored the Republicans had nothing whatsoever to do with the party affiliation of the Secretary of State. The decision by the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court were so silly as to earn the contempt of the liberals on the US Supreme Court.
What happened in Florida was that Al Gore cynically and deliberately undermined the public's confidence in the voting process in a vain attempt to change the outcome of an election HE KNEW HE HAD LOST. Any attempt to paint it as anything else simply ignores the plain facts.
And no, I would not have been saying the reverse if the tables were turned. If you're that vicious and cynical, you may speak for yourself, but don't you dare speak for me.
faulkner
· 1 year ago
So, if Obama wins Ohio by 537 votes of 5.8 million, thus winning the Presidency, at what point should McCain concede? When CNN declares Obama the winner at 4 a.m.? Should he completely trust the recount efforts by Ms. Brunner and Mr Strickland? How much "trust but verify" is appropriate in a situation like this? Should he call off legal challenges by outside but interested parties? Does he even have the power to do that? Should he just walk away and concede to avoid a nasty scene?
As for Florida, Bush won, and he's a legitimate president. He and Gore moved on. Apparently you and Delmonte have not. Both of you read things into my post that aren't there (please show me where I accuse Ms. Harris of nefarious behavior or defend the legal footing of the Florida Supreme Court decision). No, that's not quite right -- both of you seem to be enraged over things I never said (or even hinted at) in my post. All because I dare suggest that there are two sides to the story there.
There was no procedure in place in Florida to verify the ACCURACY of a vote or recount to a probability better than 0.001 percent. I'm not saying there should have been or could have been. But in that absence, there was simply a procedure for legally certifying an election, and yes, that process favored Republicans, and yes, it was entirely legal -- and probably the best that could be done under the circumstances. But I understand why my Democratic friends got angry at some things, and they make some excellent (independently verified) points. I could pretend these friends have no merit, no brains or no values, or some lethal combination of the three, but I know better.
If that's vicious and cynical, so be it.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"There was no procedure in place in Florida to verify the ACCURACY of a vote or recount to a probability better than 0.001 percent. I'm not saying there should have been or could have been. But in that absence, there was simply a procedure for legally certifying an election, and yes, that process favored Republicans, and yes, it was entirely legal -"
When you can credibly prove this, we'll talk. As I have already explained, the standard in Florida at the time of the 2000 election was that if the margin of "victory" was 1/2 of 1 % or less, Florida law called for an autoimatic recount.
The ballots that were disputed in Palm Beach County were designed by and approved by Democrats, and fully vetted with the public before the election. It was only after the candidate they wanted seemed to be losing that they claimed the ballot design was "faulty". That would be an intereresting election story in another more repressive country, but not here.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Faulkner writes, "...please show me where I accuse Ms. Harris of nefarious behavior."
Ok, here's the quote from your earlier post:
"At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side.
And my comment about this -- my ONLY comment about this -- was that the rule of law had nothing whatsoever to do with whom the Secretary of State was, nor which party. I said so, because to imply that the rule of law was on the side of the Republicans because the SoS was Republican is to suggest that the rule of law is about partisan interpretation, not about objective law.
Seems pretty clear to me. And yes, that's both cynical and vicious, not to mention false.
As to when McCain ought to concede, what I want to see is an attitude that says "What's important is the health of the nation, not my personal achievement." Nixon had that attitude. Gore did not. No amount of excuse-making about the closeness of the election or the inaccuracy of the counting process can erase this clear, undeniable difference in personal character.
Finally, regarding the honor of your Democratic friends, their unwillingness to characterize properly the deliberate assault on the public's confidence in the voting process eliminates any defense they might otherwise have had. The public outcry was manufactured by push polling. The tactic of endless recounts is known to every political hardballer in the country. Whatever else might be said about this or that, the simple fact is that if Gore had a half a gram of honor, none of this would ever have happened.
karenhasfreedom
· 1 year ago
I thought the Extra Texas votes in the 1960 election came from South Texas, where there were more Democrat votes counted than there were residents in those counties. Same outcome, but the fraud was somewhere else in that state.
Gore did not do the noble thing and I believe that set the stage for such bitter partisanship for the Bush Presidency.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
The 1960 fraud in Texas was mainly in Angelina and Fannin counties. Both of these are up in the northern part of the state.
Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.
Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.
Texas refused to conduct a recount. The Texas Election Board consisted entirely of Democrats, and the Board certified John Kennedy the winner in Texas.
essucht
· 1 year ago
Isn't it odd how things like this never seem to tarnish "Camelot"?
faulkner
· 1 year ago
JFK's margin in Texas was about 46,000 votes. You can't get a voter fraud number anywhere close to that without going north, south, east, and west in Texas. A lot of people feel LBJ's machine was capable of that level of fraud, but no hard evidence exists. Absence doesn't mean innocence, but it does leave us speculating.
For Nixon, he would have had to overturn Texas and Illinois. The RNC did contest Illinois, and the Cook County state's attorney -- a Republican -- turned over a lot of leaves, including several that favored Nixon. A Republican-majority state board of elections ultimately denied the challenge.
Nixon did steer clear of a constitutional confrontation, and he lobbied the press to the high road as well.
I am not saying there wasn't fraud, but again, this stuff is hardly as neat and clean as people present it. Two sides to every story.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"JFK's margin in Texas was about 46,000 votes."
That's what Kennedy defender "historian" Arthur Schlesinger says. Arthur also claimed that Dubyah Bush's action in Iraq was comparable to the Japanese Imperial Navy when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Please pardon my laughing in your general direction.
"At around 5:00 AM, a Kennedy aide approached Bobby Kennedy (JFK had already gone to bed) and glumly reported that Nixon had a lead of almost 10,000 votes in Illinois with just a few precincts in Chicago still out.
Kennedy smiled a tired smile and told the aide not to worry, that Daley had those downstate Republicans right where he wanted them. And indeed, despite Nixon taking 91 out of 103 counties in Illinois, Kennedy won the state by nearly 9,000 votes. He did it thanks to Daley’s machinations which gave the Democrat an unbelievable 450,000 vote margin in Cook County.
No such drama was necessary in Texas. In counties along the Mexican border, it has been alleged that simple vote buying by the Lyndon Johnson political machine ended up giving that crucial state to Kennedy as well. By winning both states by razor thin margins, Kennedy was able to best Nixon in the electoral college 303-219 while beating the Republican by 110,000 in the popular vote."
Source for Popular Vote data: Texas Secretary of State, County by County Tabulation of the votes cast at the General Election, November 8, 1960, for the offices of the President and Vice-President (Austin, 1960)
What's Schlesinger got to do with anything we've been talking about? Or, for that matter, pajamasmedia, whatever the heck that is?
"Richard Nixon turned to his campaign secretary, smiled, and said, 'We got plenty of help down south. We're waiting for Daley to release his numbers so we can cook the books just enough.' " http://imadethisupbutitsonthewebsosomeonewillbe...
Seems I've picked a fight with the Fox Mulder of elections results. Night all.
All Comments
Sucker.
Is he or is he not aware of the disgraceful history, current shady practices and the completely unethical basis of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party?
If not, he's too ignorant to serve as a Dept of Motor Vehicles clerk, much less President.
If he is aware of what a crowd of corrupt backstabbers he's surrounded himself with, he's been caught with his pants down (but not in the Democrat pleasing Bill Clinton way).
Either condition, disqualifies him for the Presidency.
I've written about this some in the past. When Obama won his bid for the Senate, he was either Blessed by the Scandal Gods, or extremely devious: while appearing to remain above the fray, not one but TWO of his opponents dropped out of the race because of scandals -- the two most likely to beat him.
He's also lazy and careless.
Inexperience does not couple well with skylarking.
Ted also should have included some of the more delicious ironies of Florida 2000. He only mentioned the second SCOTUS ruling, the 5-4 one, without noting it was the other decision SCOTUS made that day in the case that really decided the election (that would be the 7-2 ruling).
In addition, he leaves out the fact that the Bush team's major lawyer on the ground in Florida was a guy from Tallahassee named Barry Richard-a Democrat.
In 2000 Dems hated the Electoral College and wanted it dispensed with because it would elect the Gorebot. Fast forward to 2004 and they loved the Electoral College after Monsieur Kerry lost the popular vote and the Dems were nursing a fantasy that if they could overturn the results in Ohio, presto chango, Kerry would win the presidency via the Electoral College vote. You can't have it both ways, lefty clowns.
After Ginzberg's scolding, three of the seven Democrat operatives comprising Florida's Supreme Court ruefully acknowledged that they'd been caught and wrote the truth, but four continued the pretense and wrote a decision that the liberals on SCOTUS could get behind. It only mauled the law slightly less than their previous attempt that had been laughed out of the US Supreme Court, but it was enough.
My soul was chilled as I reflected on the fact that the highest court in Florida contained seven members for whom the law was nothing but an inconvenient shadow over the Democrats' right to rule. As evidenced by such fiascos as the Delay persecution and the Libby indictment, the Republic remains in real danger to this day from liberal domination of the legal system. But at least on that day, SCOTUS admitted that even liberals could not bend the law that far.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
A good read on Floriduh 2000 is "The Perfect Tie", written by a couple of professors. It's pretty much unbiased, unlike the pro-Gore book Dershowitz wrote (which I read and found very badly researched) and the pro-Bush book. In the end, the authors of "The Perfect Tie" in fact conclude that Gore was the bad guy.
But now -- does anybody who knows the facts of the case doubt for a second who the bad guy was?
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The Gore-Lieberman campaign and the Democrat Party dispatched lawyers to all of Florida's counties with a five page memorandum outlining their plan to disqualify every possible overseas absentee ballot cast by the brave American men and women in the military, who vote predominantly Republican. In addition, the Clinton-Gore Administration implemented a policy that prohibited election polls on military bases.
Furthermore, approximately 3,000 absentee ballots from American military personnel were found stored aboard one or more military ships. It is clear that these ballots were stored in order to delay their delivery until after the election deadlines. These ballots would have affected the Florida election results because a large percentage of Navy sailors are based in Florida.
Democrat operatives sued to invalidate the entire elections and disenfranchise more than 215,000 voters in Florida's Seminole and Martin Counties, because a large majority voted for Republican George Bush and disenfranchising these voters would change the outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election to make Democrat Al Gore the winner. The lawsuits were based on nonsubstantive technical deviations from statutory election procedure.
The Gore-Lieberman campaign and Democrat Party attorneys have fought in the courts and at the County Canvassing Boards in large population, heavily Democrat Florida counties to count euphemistically labeled "under-voted ballots" for Al Gore. These ballots indicated no vote for any candidate for president during the first and second machine counts. Ballots where the voter failed to clearly indicate their intention to vote for any candidate for President can only be counted as "none of the above" ballots, especially where the voter clearly indicated their vote for other offices and ballot measures. There can be no legitimate assumption that a ballot voted for "none of the above" for president was really a vote for Al Gore because the ballot contains clearly marked votes for Democrat candidates for other offices.
FYI as I recall all of the Florida Supreme Justices were Dems.
And let's not forget that the assorted Federal Judges on the Florida circuit that Gore went thru also all sided with Bush's arguments.
Poor Al, all he had to do was win his home state of Tennessee, and he would have never even needed to win Florida. I feel his pain.
Sorry, I left a line out of this-all of these Federal Judges who sided with Bush were...Democrats.
Nothing that happens to Obama in this election is a problem for me. Barack Obama's slimy embrace of the Jena Six justifies just about anything.
If so why is so called 800 super-delegates determining who is the choice of Democratic Party nominee?
What about the millions of PEOPLE (BY THE PEOPLE) voted for Obama, and Clinton?
What about the millions of dollars donated by common people to change Washington.
Do you really think the 800 so called super-delegates are not influenced by special interest groups (PAC)? So what about the FOR THE PEOPLE?
If Democratic Party stands for the social equality; where is the fairness if the super-delegates decide the nominee?
I repeat what I said in long past gone thread. The WE the People part refers to the elections that occur in November. That is the constitutional process that elects our leaders. The primary election process is the We the Party process and the parties are free to make their own rules. Political parties are not bound to select their candidates through a democratic process. The Constitution does mention or regulate how candidates are selected. Traditionally, parties have used a combination of state conventions, caucuses, party leadership and during the modern era, primary elections to choose candidates. I am not sure that modern emphasis on primaries has resulted in better candidates. What it has done is lengthened the process to the point where the next election campaign starts the day after the last election.
Expedient is their rule of thumb in all things.
Schadenfreudedemocrat: Watching the Dems rip themselves apart day by day and enjoying it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d682xV0n1YY
The problem however is, most Democrats are pleased with running either Obama or Clinton.
The Clintons showing such desperation only make themselves appear more poorly in this light.
But there simply won't be a groundswell of support from the Democrat Populace to fight over these States.
Yes, the campaigns will make a stink, but most likely, if Obama keeps racking up the wins, it isn't going to matter to the Democrat Base.
They won't be divided with Obama in the General, as Democrats were feeling 'displaced' with GW BUSH.
In the end, I think it will be a wimper of an issue, vs. a big ugly divisive setback for the Democrat Party.
On the other end, the GOP has a 'divisive' mess on their hands...
The issue, at least for the Clinton’s, is power, not a Democrat in the White House. Hill and Bill believe the White House is theirs by right. Your argument about the Democratic Party primary electorate actually makes a Hillary challenge more likely since she will believe that despite the skullduggery involved they wouldn’t really mind if she cheats Obama out of the nomination. Maybe she is right when she starts the action but by the time this makes it through the courts the story will have changed and no Democrat other than Obama would be electable.
"Conservatives" risk completely marginalizing themselves to Ron Paul-ite status, should they petulantly sit out this election.
Moderates and independents vote, but they don't commit the time, money, passion, or effort to support a candidate. McCain will have "enough" money, and he will get the votes of most conservaatives, but if he does not make an active effort to rally the conservative base, he will find his support on the ground severely lacking.
I recommend to you Andy McCarthy's piece from NRO http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWEzN2EyMD... He addresses what he sees as "McCain’s supporters continue to mock thoughtful, good-faith critics as “deranged.”" or petulant. This will be a bad course for McCain supporters.
This is the most consequential Presidential election in decades.
The choices could not possibly be more stark. There just is no argument on this point, and anyone who chooses to argue it insults our intelligence.
The Democrat Party has made it their occupation to insult the intelligence of the American voter and that's par for the course, but I don't think it moves the ball forward on the conservative side, to tolerate it.
My decision to vote for McCain is not a decision to shut up and play along. I'm never going to shut up; I'm going to work my butt off and make damned sure a socialist collaborator like McCain never gets the nomination from my party again. (No, I don't think McCain is a socialist; I think he collaborates with socialists.) I not only hope, but invite, my fellow conservatives to do as I've done -- up the ante, put more of my time and energy on the line, and commit to turning the party and the nation around. I've written about this at length today on my blog.
Oh boo freakin hooo, seriously, we moderates have been playing along with you "true" conservatives for years. We were told to "shut up and play ball" by you guys
so we could get people in office. You guys think you can go it alone, fine, but thatts not how it works. We cant win without each other but sometimes you need to suck up one of out guys just like we had to choke down yours, for the good of the country.
And if you even try to tell me that "true" conservatives dont have contempt for
moderates, I have some swampland for you down here in FL.
Have you? I hadn't noticed, and don't recall anybody saying that. If you can post a few examples of conservatives showing moderates the sort of contempt we've been hearing from McCain, I'll be convinced. If you cant -- and I don't think you can -- then your rudeness is uncalled for.
By the way, I'm not sure I'd be putting phrases like "boo freakin hooo" in my posts if I were seriously trying to claim that somebody else was acting infantile. You might want to rethink that.
I can only think of one way you could, and you'd have the secret service on you for that one ;)
... but if you will REREAD my post from five hours ago that you COMPLETELY BLOODY MISREAD, you FREAKING IDIOT, you will discover that I was saying that I was going to work to prevent a REPEAT of this fiasco IN THE BLOODY FUTURE!!!!!!
In the name of all things great and small, you'd think you would be able to bloody READ if you were going to post stuff on a nationally read blog.
READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME.
Unless you can somehow change the way folks vote (most of whom don't read 'blogs like this) in all the remaining primary states, I don't think you have a prayer of preventing it.
So McCain is now the anointed one who can no longer be questioned? In case you hadn't noticed we are still in the nominating process. If differences among members of the Republican coalition are not hashed out now, when should they be?
That includes the primary and the general election. If McCain's not your choice in the primary or the general, I understand.
But please make that choice responsibly. In my opinion, using your vote to "send a message" or not voting at all, is irresponsible. Brave Americans gave their lives for your right to vote. This is not a game.
As an aside, I heard Rush lamenting that he and other conservative hosts are not getting credit for backing the war from its inception on, but John McCain is.
Perhaps that's because if a Democrat gets into the White House, the war is over and we will lose?
It would have been better to bail on it years ago, than bail on it now, Rush.
Rush is looking for a way to save face and endorse McCain and I predict he will.
Coulter, on the other hand, is McCain's Sister Souljah moment.
The way I see it, one of 3 things will happen:
a) it's easier for GOP Congress to say no to a Donk POTUS, than one of their own "R"s. IOW, there were times when they should have said no to Bush--recall the arm-twisting over the Prescription Drug plan
b) if McVain does win, I'm helping the GOP Congress say no to him on conservative issues because they have see the numbers and know that we put them in while McVain was just lucky to squeak in. IOW, a mandate for conservative Congress, but no mandate for McVain. Mileage will vary from State to State, but in OK, it will work quite well, more so if cHillary is on the opposite ticket.
c) If there is a viable 3rd party candidate, wouldn't it be just peachy if he won with 34% of the popular vote & EC vote? Now we'd have a conservative Congress & a conservative POTUS.
Hey, if Huckster can believe in miracles, why can't I? But under no circumstances will I give McVain a mandate to stab me in the back with amnesty, carbon taxes, shutting down Gitmo, demonizing businesses, and other pet liberal causes sure to bankrupt this nation.
I've been searching my conservative soul for a week now about how I can vote for McCain with a clear conscience, and writing about it. I visited CPAC over the weekend and heard Newt Gingrich lay out his Platform of the American People. Gingrich has observed that Americans are agreed about a remarkable number of issues that legislators are not responding to, and is working towards getting those passed. At CPAC he laid out some principles that we need to consider seriously. I write about those this morning on my own blog site.
Short version: I'm not just holding my nose, I'm gritting my teeth. But I have to vote for McCain. He's bad, but he's better than Hillobama.
I want butter on my popcorn!
There is no post-facto changing of rules here within the states. Hillary won fair and square in both Michigan and Florida. Section 103.021 of Florida's electoral law mandates that the slate of electors proffered by the state executive committee of the Democratic Party be placed upon the presidential ballot. Similarly, in Michigan, Michigan Election Law Act 116 of 1954, Section 168.42 states similarly that the state party's executive committee will present the list of electors to be placed upon the ballot.
This battle is going to be fought, not at the national level, but within the several states, where the existing law is absolutely clear.
Given that the national party organization has chosen to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida's delegates to the national convention, my guess is that, regardless of who wins the national nomination, Hillary's name will appear on the ballot in Florida and Michigan. It's the only weapon Michigan and Florida's state party apparatus has to challenge the national organization, and if I were them, I'd use it.
I think what Hillary did was legal and shows the depth of her team's political experience compared to that of newbie Obama.
If I had to choose between the two to go up against, say, Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I'd prefer the one who is politically wisest at playing the game as it's played in reality, not wisest at playing someone's altruistic idea of how the game should be played.
I wonder if Barack would read other people's mail, or if he would ban that, given the chance.
Do we want somebody who respects the rules to be our chief law enforcement officer... or somebody who thinks that rules are for everybody else except her?
So the national organization can use its big stick and beat those state organizations which promulgated early balloting upon the head, but the state organizations can fight back exactly where it hurts -- ballot content.
I think Hillary's folk recognized this, and Obama's folk didn't.
As I've pointed out in a previous post, Abraham Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote in the Presidential election. 60% of that vote went to his three Democratic challengers combined. Guess who won the election?
If Hillary manages to get those two states to stonewall on Obama's appearance on the ballot, she's got the nomination locked up, because the Democrats as a national organization cannot tolerate the non-appearance of the national nominee's name on the November ballots in Michigan and Florida.
The key to this entire argument is looking at the problem from the viewpoint of the affected states -- Michigan and Florida. How can they consolidate their claims to a right to hold early balloting? How can they protect the expressed will of their voters in those early ballots?
If the Hilldabeast wins the nomination because of these shenanigans, it will be FASCINATING to watch what the dems do. It'll be like 2000 all over again, but without a Republican. Tee hee.
Politics ain't beanbag. If he's too dainty to get his hands soiled, the Clinton crime machine will roll him like a two-bit drunk in a dark alley.
h/t Michael Barone
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/pue...
And don't forget, Barack's not doing as well as Hillary with Latinos.
Otherwise, like Robert DeNiro in Goodfellas, Bill Clinton will be roughly separating mink coats from significant others and shooing off the brand new pink Cadillacs, at the Hillary victory party.
Is the nomination process a CNN network spin-off of some "Surviors 'Reality' " show or were those shows based on presidential election politics?
Tom
Leftists sincerely believe that human socio-psychological nature is a finite machine that can be engineered to perfection. The election rules, complete with super-delegates, were designed by the democrat best and brightest to achieve a benevolent purpose, to prevent another embarrassing populist candidate from slipping through the nomination process.
The design was plausible in theory, and had good intentions. But just as with other leftist utopian schemes, reality always bucks libs, always shows itself to have other designs, and always tries to humble them. Do they let themselves be humbled? No, their Religion of Progress marches on, oblivious to the trail of failure and destruction it leaves in its wake, blaming neo-cons. It's actually sort of sad.
Another delicious irony is that Barbara Olson, Ted Olson's wife, wrote a book about the unethical Hillary! called Hell to Pay.
Come on Ted, you know better. Federal courts don't get involved in intra party disputes. Remember LBJ stealing the 1948 democrat senate primary from Coke Stevenson with the famous Box 13. The federal courts said "none of our business."
I hope that someone is paying close attention to the bankrolls of those superdelegates, Bill Clinton just got $31M from the dictator of Uzbekistan*, and I'm sure the money is burning a hole in his pocket.
* And if the Uzbeks are coming up with that kind of sum as a bribe, ah, fee for consulting, makes you wonder how much money the Saudis and the Chinese are bankrolling the Clintons...
It wasn't the Democrats who broke the rules in Florida but rather the Republican controlled legislature. The Democrats litigated and lost. They have a legitimate beef. As Mr. Olson said, it's delicious.
Regards,
Roy
That is not how it really was, as we all know. But it is nice to see that democrats are still immune to reality.
The result of the 2000 election is exactly what our process decided it was: Bush defeated Gore. That's a tautology. Its truth-value is not open for negotiation.
There was talk of the legislature picking the EC delegates. That wouldn't have been violating the rules. The US constitution gives them that authority.
I've been voting Republican for more than 40 years. My very first vote was for Goldwater. I live in FL and have followed this closely. The Democrats in the legislature opposed the move because of the promised sanctions. The Republicans played a little hardball. Us Republicans ain't all angels, you know. Good thing, too.
Regards,
Roy
The Democrats and Republicans get to set their own rules for their primaries. If either party wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, they have a right to do so.
What if the Dems had already promised to abide by their own rules, and then decided to change them becauuse they didn't like the results? That's what happened in Florida in 2000 and that's what is about to happen here.
At issue in Florida was trying to determine the winner in an election where the machines had an accuracy of 99.99 percent and the vote difference was 0.0001. Below the threshold of accuracy. A total toss-up. The law in Florida never contemplated this.
I don't blame either side for playing every card they had. At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side. It was as fair a standard as any, but the idea that one side was clearly right in Florida and one side all wrong is just laughable, even if you liked the final result.
If the shoe had been on the other foot -- 400 votes out of several million, a Democratic Secretary of State (and Gore state campaign chair) certifying the winner, significant grey areas in the application of a poorly written law -- you bet Republicans would have fought every angle and walked away in the end with bitter feelings. Don't even pretend otherwise. This "we're always right and the forces of light, while Democrats are always bad and the forces of darkness" does our party (and our country) no favors.
Sure it did. The Florida law in force at the time of the election said that if the candidates' vote totals were within 1/2 of 1 percent of each other, a recount was mandated.
The problem the Dems had was that they then tried re-qriting the election laws when they didn't like the election results, which is what Hillary will try to do in 2008.
As for the "evil" Katherine Harris, please cite, from credible sources, which laws she broker and how and why she broke them. You can't because she did nothing wrong. In the end, as the SCOTUS rulings proved, the only ones guilty of trying to break the law in Florida were the Democrat hacks on the Florida Supreme Court.
Remember that it was the Florida Supreme Court, Democrats all, who injected themselves into this cae without being asked by either plaintiff to do so. And it was that body's Chief Justice, Charles Wells, who bitterly dissented when his cohorts on the bench tried to break the law and steal the election.
Here'a a part of Chief Justice Wells' dissent:
""... [T]he majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.
"Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.
"... Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters — not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to be embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is 'the right thing to do.' Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns."
As I noted in another post here, you need to read an objective account of Florida 2000's aftermath, not the biased ones you've obviously read in the past. It's called "The Perfect Tie".
You don't blame either side? I do. Compare what happened in 2000 to what happened in 1960. The 1960 election, unlike the 2000 election, really was stolen by fraud; Kennedy won in John Connolly's Dallas by fewer than 5,000 votes, and in Richard Daley's Chicago by fewer than 2,000. But Richard Nixon, despite his reputation for hardball and history's designation of him as a "crook," was a far better man than Al Gore, and loved his country far more; contemplating what a divisive challenge would cost the country, he chose not to challenge, but rather to bide his time and try again later.
The rest of your analysis is a strained attempt at bipartisanship where none is called for. The Democrats had signed off on the ballot design, according to the rules of the election. The law for certifying the election was very, very clear. The fact that it favored the Republicans had nothing whatsoever to do with the party affiliation of the Secretary of State. The decision by the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court were so silly as to earn the contempt of the liberals on the US Supreme Court.
What happened in Florida was that Al Gore cynically and deliberately undermined the public's confidence in the voting process in a vain attempt to change the outcome of an election HE KNEW HE HAD LOST. Any attempt to paint it as anything else simply ignores the plain facts.
And no, I would not have been saying the reverse if the tables were turned. If you're that vicious and cynical, you may speak for yourself, but don't you dare speak for me.
As for Florida, Bush won, and he's a legitimate president. He and Gore moved on. Apparently you and Delmonte have not. Both of you read things into my post that aren't there (please show me where I accuse Ms. Harris of nefarious behavior or defend the legal footing of the Florida Supreme Court decision). No, that's not quite right -- both of you seem to be enraged over things I never said (or even hinted at) in my post. All because I dare suggest that there are two sides to the story there.
There was no procedure in place in Florida to verify the ACCURACY of a vote or recount to a probability better than 0.001 percent. I'm not saying there should have been or could have been. But in that absence, there was simply a procedure for legally certifying an election, and yes, that process favored Republicans, and yes, it was entirely legal -- and probably the best that could be done under the circumstances. But I understand why my Democratic friends got angry at some things, and they make some excellent (independently verified) points. I could pretend these friends have no merit, no brains or no values, or some lethal combination of the three, but I know better.
If that's vicious and cynical, so be it.
When you can credibly prove this, we'll talk. As I have already explained, the standard in Florida at the time of the 2000 election was that if the margin of "victory" was 1/2 of 1 % or less, Florida law called for an autoimatic recount.
The ballots that were disputed in Palm Beach County were designed by and approved by Democrats, and fully vetted with the public before the election. It was only after the candidate they wanted seemed to be losing that they claimed the ballot design was "faulty". That would be an intereresting election story in another more repressive country, but not here.
Ok, here's the quote from your earlier post:
"At the end of the day, Republicans controlled the Sec. of State position and hence had "rule of law" on their side.
And my comment about this -- my ONLY comment about this -- was that the rule of law had nothing whatsoever to do with whom the Secretary of State was, nor which party. I said so, because to imply that the rule of law was on the side of the Republicans because the SoS was Republican is to suggest that the rule of law is about partisan interpretation, not about objective law.
Seems pretty clear to me. And yes, that's both cynical and vicious, not to mention false.
As to when McCain ought to concede, what I want to see is an attitude that says "What's important is the health of the nation, not my personal achievement." Nixon had that attitude. Gore did not. No amount of excuse-making about the closeness of the election or the inaccuracy of the counting process can erase this clear, undeniable difference in personal character.
Finally, regarding the honor of your Democratic friends, their unwillingness to characterize properly the deliberate assault on the public's confidence in the voting process eliminates any defense they might otherwise have had. The public outcry was manufactured by push polling. The tactic of endless recounts is known to every political hardballer in the country. Whatever else might be said about this or that, the simple fact is that if Gore had a half a gram of honor, none of this would ever have happened.
Gore did not do the noble thing and I believe that set the stage for such bitter partisanship for the Bush Presidency.
Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.
Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.
Texas refused to conduct a recount. The Texas Election Board consisted entirely of Democrats, and the Board certified John Kennedy the winner in Texas.
For Nixon, he would have had to overturn Texas and Illinois. The RNC did contest Illinois, and the Cook County state's attorney -- a Republican -- turned over a lot of leaves, including several that favored Nixon. A Republican-majority state board of elections ultimately denied the challenge.
Nixon did steer clear of a constitutional confrontation, and he lobbied the press to the high road as well.
I am not saying there wasn't fraud, but again, this stuff is hardly as neat and clean as people present it. Two sides to every story.
That's what Kennedy defender "historian" Arthur Schlesinger says. Arthur also claimed that Dubyah Bush's action in Iraq was comparable to the Japanese Imperial Navy when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Please pardon my laughing in your general direction.
"At around 5:00 AM, a Kennedy aide approached Bobby Kennedy (JFK had already gone to bed) and glumly reported that Nixon had a lead of almost 10,000 votes in Illinois with just a few precincts in Chicago still out.
Kennedy smiled a tired smile and told the aide not to worry, that Daley had those downstate Republicans right where he wanted them. And indeed, despite Nixon taking 91 out of 103 counties in Illinois, Kennedy won the state by nearly 9,000 votes. He did it thanks to Daley’s machinations which gave the Democrat an unbelievable 450,000 vote margin in Cook County.
No such drama was necessary in Texas. In counties along the Mexican border, it has been alleged that simple vote buying by the Lyndon Johnson political machine ended up giving that crucial state to Kennedy as well. By winning both states by razor thin margins, Kennedy was able to best Nixon in the electoral college 303-219 while beating the Republican by 110,000 in the popular vote."
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/the_fine_art_of...
Source for Popular Vote data: Texas Secretary of State, County by County Tabulation of the votes cast at the General Election, November 8, 1960, for the offices of the President and Vice-President (Austin, 1960)
What's Schlesinger got to do with anything we've been talking about? Or, for that matter, pajamasmedia, whatever the heck that is?
"Richard Nixon turned to his campaign secretary, smiled, and said, 'We got plenty of help down south. We're waiting for Daley to release his numbers so we can cook the books just enough.' " http://imadethisupbutitsonthewebsosomeonewillbe...
Seems I've picked a fight with the Fox Mulder of elections results. Night all.