Third Party & Independents Archives

Revote is NOT FAIR

Giving two states a revote is just as bad as telling them their votes don’t count.

Why is this being considered a solution?
The atmosphere was completely different when Florida and Michigan voted.

Hillary was the one with the momentum.
Now it seems Obama has it.
We all know most voters want to vote for the winner.

I have not heard how the revote would work.
Will people who did not vote the first time be allowed to vote?
Should those who did not show up the first time be allowed?
What about the absentee ballots? Would there be time for that?
Who will pay for it? It does not seem fair for all taxpayers to pay.
Will they seed half the delegates like the republicans?
Too many questions, not enough answers.
No rules have been set for this revote.

All this talk about those two states voting again and I haven't had my chance to vote once.

'Dean Statement on Florida and Michigan'
Apparently, Dean wants to leave this up to the states that broke the rules to begin with.

Posted by Dawn at March 8, 2008 11:16 PM
Comments
Comment #247418

What’s the problem with this blog? Nobody has anything to say since Hillary & Obama are at each others throats.

Posted by: Sean at March 8, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #247419

Sense when does the Democratic National Committee have any say about when and how states hold their primaries? Talk about a bunch of arrogant fools!
Both states have held their primaries and the delegates should be seated and their votes counted. If this give Clinton the nomination, as much as I hate the idea, then it does. If it give Obama the nomination, as much as I hate it, then it does. If it causes a brokered convention, as much as I’d love it, then it does. If it give someone else the nomination, as much as I’d love it even more, then it does.
The last time I checked the Democrat Party was not a government agency. It has no business telling the states when or how to hold their primaries.
I can see the courts getting involved in this before it’s over. Either Florida or Michigan, or both will take the Democrat Party to court. Or Clinton, or Obama will drag this into court.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #247421

Ron,
I’m not a legal expert, but as I understand it, a political party is a private organization, not a part of any state or federal government. So the GOP and Democrats and Greens and all the other national political parties actually
DO get to choose how and when state organizations hold primaries, what form those primaries will take, and so on. As a matter of convenience, GOP and Democratic primaries and caucuses are held on the same day, but not always.

The courts positively, absolutely will not get involved. Since the Democratic Party wants to keep MI & FL voters happy, there will probably be another vote arranged.

Sean,
At this point, math is a hard thing to overcome, and Obama will almost certainly go into the convention as the party’s recognized nominee. He will not have a majority, but he will have enough. That is why the Clinton camp is already floating trial baloons about Hillary as VP. Count on it. Politics ain’t beanbag, but it’s not about being bestus friendseses either. An Obama/Hillary is pretty much guaranteed.

Because of the math, the MI & FL votes won’t really matter anyway. Serves the state parties right. I hope they get stuck with a big bill.

What is really sad is that this country will be in such terrible shape by November. Iraq & Republican tax cuts are destroying the economy, and Republican filibusters & Bush vetos will stop prevent the financial situation from being addressed until it is too late. We are soooo screwed.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #247422

Sean

The Hilary-Obama fight is the big political news. I could praise John McCain, but everybody already knows all that stuff.

Actually the most interesting part of all this is how it is revealing the character of Clinton, Obama and the Democratic Party. All the nastiness and dishonesty is bubbling out of the swamp. THey are willing to ignore the votes of mllions and/or let party bosses decide the issue. Very interesting, these Dems.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #247423

The only way a revote is not fair is if you are a Hillary supporter. The only way she has a snowball’s chance is with the delegate boost Florida and Michigan would give her. She is simply scrabbling for anything she can get. And I have to disagree, phx8, that a combination of the two is in the future. Hillary won’t want to play second fiddle, and Obama’s luster as an agent for change will just get tarnished by her on the ticket. Not to mention that if the name “Clinton” is anywhere on the ballot, the Republican turnout jumps 15%. Not what anyone on the Left wants, IMHO.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 9, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #247427

Leatherankh,
Personally, I don’t buy into the whole right wing talking point portraying Hillary Clinton as some sort of insane, monomaniacal megolomaniac. She’s an ambitious person, running hard, and fighting the stereotypes typically thrown at women when they enter a male domain. That doesn’t mean I like everything about her. But there are an enormous number of voters who like her enough to vote for her before Obama.

Jack,
There are an enormous number of voters who prefer either Hillary or Obama to McCain. This will be a landslide of epic proportions. Count on it. The only question is whether Democratic supermajorities control both the Senate and the House.

The sad thing is that the economy will be so bad by November. It’s pretty safe to say we are entering the worst economic downturn since 1929. The downturn is 1982 was pretty unpleasant. This one is a lead pipe cinch to be worse.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 1:55 AM
Comment #247428

As a resident of Michigan, who voted in the Democratic primary, I say stick with the rules that were laid out. There shouldn’t be any changing of the rules in the middle of the game just because that snake in the grass Hillary isn’t getting her way. Everyone knew that Michigan and Florida would not count going into this. Michigan cannot afford an expensive re-vote, and it would be unfair to validate the primary for all those who didn’t vote because they didn’t think it would count. Not to mention that Barack wasn’t even on the ballot. BTW, what about the Democratic voters who voted in the Republican primary instead, since the Dem primary wasn’t suppose to count? (I almost did) How do you keep them from voting in a Dem re-vote?

Posted by: JayJay at March 9, 2008 3:10 AM
Comment #247429

Sorry phx8, at one time I didn’t care which candidate won the Dem nomination, I would have supported either one. However, as the primary has progressed, I have seen Hillary for who she really is, a snake in the grass, willing to say and do anything no matter how low. The last straw for me was when she turned to Rovian scare tactics. Then she dropped even further in my eyes when she started praising McCain over Obama. The longer this goes on the more she DOES look like a insane, monomaniacal megolomaniac.

Posted by: JayJay at March 9, 2008 3:20 AM
Comment #247430

Leather,
Will Hillary bring out Republican voters solely based upon their hatred of her? Probably. But that is the nature of the GOP. They are strongly motivated ideology and love of country, but they are also motivated by hatreds and prejudices, and that hatred will motivate them regardless of whether it is Obama or Hillary. There is not one black Repubican in the House or the Senate. Not one. So Obama will face the same underlying forces which cause the GOP to shun blacks in Congress. There’s a lot of GOP hatred out there, and it’s a very powerful thing. Obama and Hillary will be running against a political party which doesn’t like strong women (Out of 535 people in Congress, there are only 20 female Republicans). When it comes to the GOP and hatred, Hispanics don’t fare well either. They receive little representation when it is up to Republican voters.

The facts and statistics are unpleasant, but it is what it is. The GOP does not usually include women, blacks, or Hispanics in positions of power. Administrations can appoint people like Rice or Powell, but GOP voters sure as hell won’t elect them.

The Democrats, by the way, are far from perfect, but at least they’re better and moving in the right direction. That is why the Democrats will form an inclusive coalition of women, blacks, hispanics, young people, gays, and liberals which will win in a landslide.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 3:22 AM
Comment #247432

BTW, Don’t even think about an Obama-Clinton ticket. Barack didn’t get where he is because he is stupid. She needs him and his voters a lot more than he needs her and hers. The big blu states she has won will vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is an the big red ones will stay red regardless if she is on the ticket. Besides, could you imagine a co-vice-presidency?

Posted by: JayJay at March 9, 2008 3:33 AM
Comment #247433

JayJay,
Hillary has been playing hardball, no doubt. Like the saying goes, politics ain’t beanbag, and if we dislike seeing Hillary throw a couple punches, just wait until the campaign for the general election.

Recently a neighbor received a spam e-mail about Obama. I won’t repeat any of it, except to say it was extremely bigoted, hateful, and full of misinformation.

A Republican Congressman, Steve King, just came out with some pretty incredible statements. Something about Obama’s middle name and his Kenyan heritage being a reason for Islamic terrorists to “dance in the streets.”

Oh no. IT HAS BEGUN!!! Islamic Dancism.

Anyway, my guess is that Hillary will have a miraculous change of heart, and embrace Obama, in exchange for the VP position. Really, it’s the obvious political play for all concerned.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 3:38 AM
Comment #247434

JayJay,
You’re probably right, Clinton needs Obama more than he needs her. And yeah, either one would carry the big states. Still, a unified party would be worth the risks. I think after all is said and done, Obama & Hillary will make nice, and we will see a choreographed kumbiyah moment which results in a Obama/Hillary ticket. We’ll find out soon…

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 3:44 AM
Comment #247435

phx8,

I expect those sort of cheap shots from the swamp that is the GOP. However, since there is a slim to none chance that Hillary can catch Obama in the pledged delegates, and there is slim to none chance that the superdelegates will overturn the voters, I really don’t understand her strategy. The way she has been playing it over the last week, It seems that her political play is for the vice-presidency on the McCain ticket.

Posted by: JayJay at March 9, 2008 3:48 AM
Comment #247436

phx8,

Stranger things have happened, I guess.

Posted by: JayJay at March 9, 2008 3:52 AM
Comment #247437

I’m with you all the way, Leatheranhk.

As for the VP slot, Clinton would definitely need Obama on board with her to stand even half a chance in November. Especially since she just endorsed the warmongering McCain over Obama, something which has very deeply angered the Democratic base.
The truth is, Clinton cannot win without the Democratic base, because she doesn’t have enough support from Independents and swing voters - and most Republicans can’t stand her and will come out in droves to vote against her.
Additionally, Obama would have to agree to a position where he’d be competing with Bill in the role of vice president — not something a guy like Obama would likely find too attractive.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t need Hillary on his ticket at all. In fact, I agree that having her be his VP could actually tarnish his entire message of hope and change, and of trying to reach across the aisle to find compromise and consensus.
And after all the dishonest, shrill, scorched earth tactics Hillary has been using on him, I would think she’s been losing a lot of the respect he might have once felt toward her.

One other point, Hillary would not help Obama as far as foreign policy experience goes (despite all of her grandiose claims to the contrary), so it would actually behoove Obama to pick someone who has solid experience in that regard, in order to negate McCain’s perceived corner on that market. Someone like Biden, or Richardson, or even a military guy like Wes Clark (although I know he’s a big Hillary supporter) would work well as a VP choice against McCain.

phx8,
I agree with you about what is going on with the economy. Things are looking very bad indeed - although I keep hoping we won’t end up quite as screwed as you’re implying.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 4:20 AM
Comment #247438

Jay Jay, you beat me to the punch on several points. I was writing as you were posting. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 4:22 AM
Comment #247439

Phx8

You may be right re the economy. Unfortunately, politicians can do little about that. Economic cycles do not correspond to political ones.

We have had a dream economy since 1982, with only minor troubles. We have become so accustomed to this that we consider unemployement under 5% and a growth rate that has not even dipped into the negative to be terrible. These conditions, BTW, are great by historical standard and compare favorably to big economies in Europe, where unemployement hovers above 7% and growth comes only occassionally.

Re the Great Depression - for all the talk and activity of the New Deal, 1937 was worse than 1929. What pulled us out of that downturn was WWII. THere were some useful programs (most of which we still have) but the big government programs (NRA etc) probably made the depression a little worse. We would have the same experience today if we did the big G.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2008 4:24 AM
Comment #247440

The DNC has created a situation where no “fair” solution really exists anymore.

I was leaning toward revote, but now I am inclined to support a much simpler, cheaper solution. They should just split the delegates 50/50.

As it happens, Clinton got 50% of the vote in FL. So this would simply give the Edwards vote to Obama. Is that fair? I dunno. But it is a workable solution, and Clinton can’t say that anything was taken from her.

In Michigan, Clinton got 55% of the vote with no other major candidate on the ballot. So the “split the baby” solution only gives her slightly less than she won in a pretty phony contest.

A practical problem with holding a revote is that it would take months to set up. By the time it actually occurred, one candidate or another will probably have conceded anyway. And even if both candidates are still in the race, the delegates will probably end up getting split roughly 50/50 anyway.

The other problem with a revote is that no one wants to pay for it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 9, 2008 8:31 AM
Comment #247442

First and foremost, the primaries and caucus’s purpose are the selection of delegates for our party. What delegates count and don’t count is our business.

Michigan and Florida were told not to move these contests up. The candidates agreed not to campaign if that happened. Now what happened is that Hillary’s name remained on these ballots. There wasn’t really competition.

Now the real crux of this issue is not whether a vote was held, but whether a race was held, whether candidates were allowed to compete with each other. That didn’t happen here, so it’s kind of an exercise in Soviet revisionism to say that the previous primaries should count, a Castro election. You’re not going to lose when you’re the only person on the ballot.

Though I’m an Obama supporter, I would like a revote to be done, to give him the chance and Hillary the obligation to compete for the votes of her party. That’s real democracy: Choice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2008 9:34 AM
Comment #247443

Jack-
Who’s talking about we, Kemosabe? Personally, my family’s felt a lot of the bumps in this economy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2008 9:36 AM
Comment #247444

phx8

The only question is whether Democratic supermajorities control both the Senate and the House.

I live in the 14th district here in IL. We just denied what would have been Hasterts predecessor from the GOP a seat in congress. This has been for as long as I can remember die hard dyed in the wool republican territory. From what I have read it seems the RNCC spent as much as a third of their cash on hand in support of Oberweis. They failed badly. On top of that they have to turn around and run the same campaign again in November , only this time against an incumbent. I know I live in a blue state. But this district is not and has not been even remotely reflective of that for decades. If this is a true indication of political reality then things are looking promising for a big congressional shift and Obama.

Posted by: RickIL at March 9, 2008 10:33 AM
Comment #247445

phx8

While yes, the Republican base does typify a lot of the biases and dark sides of the American psyche, there is something about the name “Clinton” that really gets their panties in a twist. Hillary will galvanize them far more than any African-American or any other woman.

Stephen D.

Oh, yeah, right there with you. Here I am, a college graduate cum laude, and the best job I’ve been scratch up is retail management at 35K. But the economy is doing great, remember? And we’re certainly not in a recession.

Jack

While yes, WWII ended the Great Depression for good, you intentionally ignore that, between 1933 and 1937, the New Deal cut unemployment by 2/3rds, at which point there was a “recession within a depression”. Don’t cherry pick your data, it comes off as duplicitous. Were Roosevelt’s ideas all perfect? Of course not. He did have a bit of a baby-with-the-bathwater mindset when it came to big business, which did hurt the economy just before WWII, but so do modern conservatives such as yourself who want to undo all the good that programs such as the FDIC, SEC, the minimum wage, and above all Social Security have done. Let’s all have a truthful view of the past, shall we?

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 9, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment #247446

RickIL,

Hey, I’m near your neck of the woods! I’m glad to see Oberweis fall short yet again… that guy scares me. He’s a NeoCon’s NeoCon, and he really thinks that he can buy his way into office. This is, what, the fourth time he’s tried and failed? And my wife wonders why I won’t buy his ice cream.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 9, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #247447

Stephen

As did we all, but nothing in comparison to previous history or comparable places in the world.

No American born after 1980 has really experienced anything like a bad U.S. economy. My father told me that nobody born after 1930 had such an experience. His father came from Poland and told him that nothing anybody experienced in America could compare to the trouble of old Europe. Things have been getting better all along and our standards of measurement have changed. This is natural, but we do have to be realistic. Unemployment rates, for example, cannot go down to zero. No matter how much we demand it. We have achieved almost as much as possible. The economy cannot grow sustainably at more than maybe 3%. We have achieved much of this too. No governent has been able to repeal the laws of supply and demand or the business cycle.

People still are not happy. Perhaps that is because we are strivers who can never be happy. I understand that after a certain level of prosperity, additional riches doesn’t help.

The danger is that in reaching for what is not possible, we may lose freedom. People have been taken in before by promises and lost what they have achieved.

We are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness. Many of us can achieve it time to time. Most of us cannot do it forever. The happiest people, in my experience, are those who take responsibility for their own outcomes, sweet or bitter.

The thing that distresses me about politics in general is that too many people look for meaning to be given to them by forces outside themselves, by political organization. Politics is a means to an end, but not an end in itself.

I know this is more philosophical than political, but ultimately that forms the basis of our outlook.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #247448

Jack

THey are willing to ignore the votes of mllions and/or let party bosses decide the issue. Very interesting, these Dems.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But I do not believe they have much choice in the matter. As dues paying members of the party I think the candidates would be obligated to live by the decisions of the party heads. Seeing as Obama was not on the ticket in Michigan and Clinton was how can they fairly seat delegates who had no chance to vote for Obama? And how would the turnouts have been if voters had gone to the polls knowing their vote mattered as opposed to knowingly placing a vote of no consequence. I am not a fan of dis-enfranchisement. Neither am I a big fan of the whole process. I think that perhaps a bit of reform in our whole election process is in order to avoid such future problems. But I am not holding my breath in wait.

At any rate I seriously doubt that even with do overs there will be little change in the delegate count gap. And if anything they most likely will affect Clinton more adversely than Obama.

Posted by: RickIL at March 9, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #247449

leatherankh

I love his ice cream. But unfortunately for him his persona does not come across nearly as smoothly and sweet. I think the instant turn off for him was his claims of loving everything GW. Talk about a suicide run. It is no wonder with no better judgment than that the guy is a four time loser. The RNCC was footing a lot of money for those ads. Lets hope they continue that ploy into the rest of the nomination season.

Posted by: RickIL at March 9, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #247453

It looks like Florida and Michigan delegates aren’t going to be counted they want to change things around so if Clinton is way behind Florida will pull her in. Looks like they are afraid she will be out and I sure would rather see Obama in there for good. So let Florida suck it up for the 2008 and electios.

Posted by: Glenys Carrigan at March 9, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #247455

Jack said “People still are not happy. Perhaps that is because we are strivers who can never be happy. I understand that after a certain level of prosperity, additional riches doesn’t help.”

Jack I think people arent happy because they are watching their children grow up with less oportunity than they had. The problem is not so much unemployment as is it underemployment. No one like to get trickled on Jack. For most of us additional riches, relative to those that came before us or not, dont enter into the picture so we probably wouldnt know either. Its the opportunity to do better and to leave the world a better place that is disappearing. This is not shown in any of the economics reports, which I guess allows you and others to point to these reports and tell us how good things are and how much better we have it today, but is causing the effects that you try to defend against by using these reports.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #247456
It’s pretty safe to say we are entering the worst economic downturn since 1929. The downturn is 1982 was pretty unpleasant.

Hilarious. Wasn’t the economy of 2003 “the worst since 1929”? And to mention 1982 without acknowledging 1977-1979 is a BIT disengenuous, isn’t it?

It’s that over the top fearmongering partisanship that people are getting tired of from both parties.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 9, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #247457

j2t2,

Your comments have to be the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen…

That you actually believe it is a testement to how much partisan mindwasing works…

Are the reps trying to kill our children this year too? Throwing grandmother down the stairs?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 9, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #247458

Rhinehold,
Was the economy of 2003 the worst since 1929? By some measures, yes. By most measures, no. By traditional measures of recession, the first Bush recession ranked 7th out of 10 postwar recessions in severity. What is remarkable isn’t so much that recession itself, but what happened- or didn’t happen- during the recovery phase. By most measures, it was the weakest recovery of the post WWII period. Jobs were not created, and phenomenal amounts of debt were accumulated. The Federal Reserve kept the Fed Funds Rate very long for too long. They did this out of fear. It was a fragile recovery, and raising the rates ran great risks, as we are now seeing.

As a net result, the dollar has lost half of its value under Bush. We are seeing a resurgence of inflation with a vengeance, in a desperate bid to inflate our way out of debt.

There are some similarities in the economy between today and the post Vietnam period. In both cases, a disastrous war eventually caused economic hard times through stagflation.

The economy of 1977-79 was slow, but the recession of 1982 was the climax of the post Vietnam war period. Remember Ford and the “WIN” pins- “Whip Inflation Now”? But it finally took Volker running up the Federal Funds rates to stop inflation in 1982, at the cost of a hard downturn.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #247459

phx8
How can ya be sure the courts won’t get involved in selecting the Democrat nominee. Specially after the antics of the Democrats in 2000.
And given the weasel that Clinton is I don’t see her letting Obama getting the nomination without exhausting all options. And that includes taking it to court.

phx8 said: There is not one black Repubican in the House or the Senate. Not one.

Has a Black person ever on as a Republican? Or tried to get the nomination as a Republican?
And I can guarantee that if a Black person did run as a Republican that the Democrats would paint them as a traitor to their race. And don’t give me that crap that there’s no way they would. Just look at the way they treat conservative Blacks in general.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2008 2:25 PM
Comment #247462

RickIL

I believe that an election is an imperfect statistical process. I agree that the rule in place before the election should decide the outcome. I understand that it is not possible to count all votes all the time. BUT Dems usually disagree with me. They make a federal case about innuendo and ghost stories from Florida or Ohio. Now they are willing to throw out millions of votes.

I just want to set down a marker on this. I don’t want to hear all that same BS come November that we have had in the last presidential elections.

J2t2

I have three kids who are coming into the labor market. I am perfectly content with their prospectgs. My daughter recently graduated from college and had a lot more opportunities than I did in the 1970s, when I sent out hundreds of resumes w/o result. She found a job a right away. My sons have had no trouble finding good part time jobs during their times in HS and college. The opportunities are simply phenomenal. My son got a job helping load cars at Home Depot. They pay more than $11 an hour. No previous training required. My first job I got $1.65 (adjusted for inflation around $7). I really do not know what people are talking about when they are so depressed. They remember the good old days better than our parents lived them.

Of course, this is nothing new. People always think their times are the worst. It gives them an excuse to not perform. When I graduated HS in the 1970s, we thought it was the worst of times. We were wrong, but we were closer to being right than people are today.

Phx8

Just about EVERY year from 1974-1982 was worse than 2003. In fact, almost every year except a few in the late 1990s was worse than 2003. Come on. You just don’t remember a bad economy. We just have become spoiled.

When the biggest health problems for the poor are related to obesity, you know how far we are from starvation times of the not to distant past.

Ron

Alan Keyes ran as a Republican. Both of Bush’s Secretaries of State were/are black.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #247473

What about J.C. watts? Ex congressman from….Oklahoma(?)

BTW, one of the best threads ever!

Posted by: steve miller at March 9, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #247474

Leather:

I’m glad to see Oberweis fall short

And guess who campaigned for him? Old Man McCain.
Obama campaigned for Foster. Coattails!!!
It’s that kind of thing that has got to be making a big impression on the Super Delegates, no?

RickIL:

The RNCC was footing a lot of money for those ads. Lets hope they continue that ploy into the rest of the nomination season.

I heard they spent tons on that race. Did you by any chance hear that they broke House rules trying to get Oberweis elected?
It seems these guys never know how to play fair…

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #247484
And guess who campaigned for him? Old Man McCain. Obama campaigned for Foster. Coattails!!! It’s that kind of thing that has got to be making a big impression on the Super Delegates, no?

A big impression? I don’t think so. Maybe if it hadn’t been in Obama’s home state. If Obama went into Arizona and helped push a Democrat over the top, that would be a big story. But with McCain coming into Obama’s home state, there was much more pressure on Obama to hold the line.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 9, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #247487

Jack said: Alan Keyes ran as a Republican. Both of Bush’s Secretaries of State were/are black.

Right, and left acts like they’re Satan incarnated.
The fact is the left hates any Black person that’s conservative, specially if they’re successful. They can’t tolerate it sense it tells other Black people that they can make it without the government taking care of them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #247491

Ron,
When you mention “any black person that’s conservative,” are you referring to anyone in particular? My guess is we’re talking a very, very short list.

Colin Powell? We’ll never know if Republicans would actually vote for him. He rose through the military as a direct result of “liberal” political doctrines. Alan Keyes? Conservatives would not vote for him. I don’t know if anyone would bother attacking him. His damage is pretty much self-inflicted. Rice? Appointed. Help me here, I’m already running out of names.

Clarence Thomas? He should never have been appointed to the SCOTUS. He sits on the bench while cases are argued and, alone among the justices, says nothing. He never asks a single question. Not one. The guy is in way over his head. It’s pretty sad.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #247493
When you mention “any black person that’s conservative,” are you referring to anyone in particular? My guess is we’re talking a very, very short list.

Just looking at somewhat current political black republicans…

Allen West, congressional candidate Florida’s 22nd
JC Watts, former representative from Oklahoma
Maurice Washington, Nevada State Senator
James L. Usry, former mayor of Atlantic City, New Jersey
Lynn Swann, former Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate
Michael S. Steele, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, former candidate for the U.S. Senate
Joe Rogers, former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado
Vernon Robinson, former candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina
Michael Powell, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
Sherman Parker, Missouri state representative, running for U.S. House of Representatives
Rod Paige, seventh U.S. Secretary of Education
Alveda King, former member of the Georgia House of Representatives
Martin Luther King, Sr., civil rights leader and advocate for social justice
Wallace B. Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas
Gary Franks, former U.S. Representative from Connecticut
Arthur Fletcher, official in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush; considered the “father of affirmative action”
Keith Butler, Republican national committeeman from Michigan, former councilman for Detroit, minister and former U.S. Senatorial candidate
Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals
J. Kenneth Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio, former gubernatorial candidate

That’s a quick list, I’ve left out some of the non-political black republicans, like Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, Sage Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc. I’m sure we could find more. And these are just the somewhat famous ones, there are a lot of regular folks who are black and republican. While not a large percentage perhaps, to discount them, as you do, is a typical attitude of the left, the ones calling for inclusion and a spirit of working together (which means, do as I say and we’ll all get along!)

BTW, I remember the treatment that Steele got recently. I’m surpised any African-American who is a Republican ever would admit it after that treatment…

In fact, when was the last time a black republican been treated with respect by the left…? Your obvious disdain is not atypical.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #247495
I heard they spent tons on that race. Did you by any chance hear that they broke House rules trying to get Oberweis elected? It seems these guys never know how to play fair…

You mean, like trying to get people to commit voter fraud to win a caucus?

To entice people into the school parking lot on the north end of the city, an eight-piece mariachi band played while some tailgaters guzzled Coronas in the back of a pickup truck. An Obama supporter offered free tacos for to anyone willing to join him at the caucus.
Even those rare caucuses that managed to run on schedule experienced turbulence. Both campaigns complained that, at times, the opponent’s supporters fought unscrupulously to gain control of the “envelope”: a package of materials that allowed someone to serve as the temporary chairman. Clinton’s campaign also accused Obama supporters of locking doors early to prevent the opposition from entering.
The campaign legal hotline has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,” Lyn Utrecht, legal counsel for the Clinton campaign in Texas, announced in an e-mail message to reporters late Tuesday night. “This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.”
The volunteers told the voters that they could go home after signing the sheets.

I did like one quote though… “If the Democrats can’t even run an election, why confidence do you have they can run a country?”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment #247496

Rhinehold said “Your comments have to be the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen…
That you actually believe it is a testement to how much partisan mindwasing works…
Are the reps trying to kill our children this year too? Throwing grandmother down the stairs?”

Rhinehold your rant does not seem to counter the particulars of what I said so as I can see you disgaree why not back that disagreement up with some facts or opinions that address my comments.

Jack, Its not about being depressed or worry over performace. In fact that cheap shot is rather cynical and shows a rather narrow view of the current situation many in this country face. Here are a few blurbs from a msn article that tells part of the story.
“Income statistics don’t tell the whole story. Across America, people seem to be making better salaries year after year. The median household income has risen from $36,847 in 1967 to $48,201 in 2006, according to U.S. Census Bureau inflation-adjusted data. Though the bureau doesn’t define “middle class,” the income of the middle half of the households in this country now seems to fall roughly between $25,000 and $95,000 a year.”

“Today, parents race home from workdays that tend to stretch well beyond the traditional eight hours — extended further by ever-lengthening commutes. They fret about the lack of “family time” as they step on the gas but fear losing their jobs if they leave work earlier. Meanwhile, employers are cutting pension plans, eliminating jobs and passing along more and more of skyrocketing health-care costs, even as insurance companies raise deductibles and shave reimbursements.”
“Julia Boone is a lawyer and her husband is a small-business owner, but they still can’t afford to buy a house in their home community of Falls Church, Va., a suburban enclave within commuting distance of Washington, D.C.
“Who are all these people buying million-dollar homes in our neighborhood?” she asks. “We feel like outsiders.”

Boone works in a small family firm and makes what she considers a competitive, even upper-middle-class, salary. Certainly it’s enough that she and her husband, Tim, can shop regularly at Whole Foods and Costco for organic fruit, bags of romaine hearts and cases of Pellegrino. They can even splurge occasionally — on the “ridiculously expensive” camera she just bought, for instance, or the crib they really do need, since they recently had their first child.

But put it all together, and the nursery the Boones crave — a nursery in their own home — is just not in the cards right now. The $2,000 they pay in monthly rent isn’t breaking the budget, but Julia believes owning a home would double that cost, and she isn’t confident her family could make that leap.

Her frustration is shared by millions of Americans now struggling to maintain a lifestyle that was taken for granted even a decade ago. A home of our own, a vacation in summer, a college education for our kids — it’s still the American dream, but it’s all getting harder and harder to attain.”

“Take a hypothetical one-child family in Chicago in the middle-income range. Both parents work, together earning about $95,000, with a take-home pay of roughly $5,800 a month after taxes and some deductions for medical insurance.

Then consider that the average sale price for a four-bedroom, 2.5-bathroom single-family home in Chicago was $732,000 in 2007, according to Coldwell Banker’s Home Price Comparison Index. At that price, a 30-year mortgage with 20% down clocks in at about $3,600 a month.
Add to that bill the $850 a month for infant care that Illinois residents pay, on average, for full-time coverage, according to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. Financial experts also suggest that workers save at least 10% of their gross income for retirement. That’s an additional $800 less disposable income for this family.
What’s left over? About $550 a month for food, commuting costs, utilities, doctor bills and diapers. It’s not enough.”

This article is about well educated people making good money. Just think of those with less than an advanced degree trying to make ends meet and its easy to see how people could feel as I described previously.
Maybe thats why hope is selling so well this election cycle. Obama seems to be much more in tune with the people of this Country than your guy Jack.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2008 1:58 AM
Comment #247497

j2t2,

It’s crap, because you gloss over the problems that these people are having…

Housing costs are insane, because we let them be. That is being corrected, or at least would if the government would leave the market alone, but they just can’t, can they?

I live in Indianapolis, IN. I make roughly 83,000 a year (before any bonsus) and am the only one in my family working. My house costs $55,000, though I am moving to one with 40 acres outside of the city that will cost me around $140,000. I *COULD* afford to buy a nicer home, pay around $250,000 or more in town… But that is more than I can afford, and it is not worth it.

THAT is the key. I do not make idiotic decisions on things in my life that I have control over. People do not have to buy million dollar homes, they choose to. They choose to pay 40% of their income on housing, they do not NEED to do that. THAT is the difference between the people of today and their parents or grandparents, they would never ever have lived that far beyond their means.

Now, if you want to help all of these people, here’s a small hint. STOP RAISING THEIR TAXES. Maybe if you compared what percentage of income we are taking out of someone’s pay now compared to their parents or grandparents, you *MIGHT* see where a lot of that money has been going…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 2:28 AM
Comment #247498

Rhinehold,
Yeah, it’s no surprise that all kinds of cheating goes on everywhere, but you’d think Congressmen would at least attempt to be a little more circumspect. The GOP truly seems to have institutionalized their shameless behavior in Washington during the Bush years.
Btw, I noticed your link was only about accusations of possible fraud, here’s some fraud from the Clinton camp that is a little more substantial.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 10, 2008 2:43 AM
Comment #247499

While it would not surprise me that this occurred (Democrats ARE involved, Republicans wouldn’t surprise me at all either, btw), I am a little more than sceptical. Right now there is one guy making the claim, with no verifiable physical evidence that I see, and in the end is asking people to send them their personal information and who they voted for?

Skidmore is asking for all students who voted in Precinct 148 at the Jester Center caucus to send him an e-mail verifying their name, presidential preference and, if possible, voter ID number. He asks that those students e-mail him from the e-mail address they listed on the caucus sheet

Talk about ‘sketch’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 2:57 AM
Comment #247501

What are you talking about? There is an actual physical record that the same handwriting was used, and three people thus far that have already verified that Clinton was NOT the candidate they voted for.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 10, 2008 3:17 AM
Comment #247503
and three people thus far that have already verified that Clinton was NOT the candidate they voted for.

You are right, I misread a paragraph.

And this is wrong.

But voter fraud or confusion? Even Skidmore admits that this MAY only affect six votes of the precinct, so far only 3 confirmed. From the description, it looks like they got bad instructions and left that section blank and ‘someone’ filled them in with Clinton. If it is voter fraud, it is a pretty bad attempt…

However, it is just another example of the Democrats not really believing all of their own hype about every vote counting. And the mindless beauracracy is evident in how much trouble they are having just getting a candidate selected.

Even funnier is how people are now claiming that the superdelegates are obligated to vote for the owe who has the most regular delegates when clearly that is NOT the case. In fact, there would be no reason to have the superdelegates if they were supposed to just follow the regular delegate’s lead… They are supposed to be the buffer, the party insiders, who are to help make the best decision for the party in the case of what is happening right now ever were to happen.

Obama hurts himself with people like Daschle being involved in his campaign, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 3:34 AM
Comment #247509

If they do allow a re-vote the democratic party will prove it’s self to be the weak, crowd pleaser’s they are. Clinton is proving she will not accomplish anything she is talking about because she is willing to fight her own party and turn the people against her party. Barrack Obama should run as an Independent if this re-vote is permitted. The people of Michigan and Florida should take it out on their state leaders and not further drive this Hilary wedge into the democratic party. In four years other states will break the rules, since they know there will be no reprehensions.

Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 10, 2008 8:57 AM
Comment #247517

Rhinehold

Re- My house costs $55,000, though I am moving to one with 40 acres outside of the city that will cost me around $140,000. I *COULD* afford to buy a nicer home, pay around $250,000 or more in town… But that is more than I can afford, and it is not worth it.

That 55,000 where I live would buy me a nice renovated two car garage. And your $83,000 a year is well above the take home pay of an average worker. My youngest son is a newly tenured teacher and his wife is a physical therapist with her masters. They live in an older home, have no children, are 28 years of age and rake in around a $120,000 a year. Life is good for them. But they are not the norm.

I can say that I know only a few people that live truly day to day. And that is mostly because they choose to. I do not see that people in general are living any worse than they are used to. I think they simply are cutting back on the frills. They are not driving as much, going to the movies a lot, or eating out as much etc.

While non of this is a drastic or harmful change in lifestyle, it is never the less a change. The long term effects of not spending so freely will and is trickling into the rest of the economy and will eventually affect all except the most wealthy at some point. People are simply adjusting to what they see as coming bad times. The realities of energy costs and the short and long term effects are the stimulus that is driving them to dump the debt and live a little more cautiously.

None of this bids well for the credit industry or the free market strategies that are so readily encouraged and thrown upon us to perpetuate money and wealth. All the fed cuts in interest rates are testament to the fact that spending is what drives our economy. They are nothing more than band aid fixes at an attempt to avoid the realities of a changing consumer society that I think may have run its course in terms of carefree spending.

Times must and probably will get worse before they get better. Exactly what worse means remains to be seen. It is all relevant to ones standard of living. That standard of living for all intent and purposes is much different now than it was when I was a child or that of my parents, grand parents etc. Free market strategies of encouraging consumer spending based on seemingly infinite debt has created a false sense of need in the consumer. It is my opinion that we are now correcting for a few decades of irresponsible carefree spending.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #247519

These are PARTY primaries to select a candidate for and by PARTY members…if you don’t like the way your PARTY acts, then join the PARTY and work like mad for the changes you desire…

Posted by: Rachel at March 10, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #247520

Rhinehold,
That’s an unintentionally funny list of black conservatives. Lots of “former”, “candidate for”, one or two appointed positions, even a state senator, for crying out loud. Well, actually, it’s just sad, and with that list, you made my point for me.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 11:14 AM
Comment #247526
That 55,000 where I live would buy me a nice renovated two car garage

And if you could not afford to live there, I would recommend NOT living there. The alternatives are to a) live beyond your means and b) bitch and moan about how the government is at fault…

Somehow, I do not feel sorry for people who have choices and make the wrong ones and then look for someone else to solve it.

It is my opinion that we are now correcting for a few decades of irresponsible carefree spending

And it is necessary and about time. But it is not the fault of ‘government’, it is a realization that we cannot keep making bad decisions and not have to pay for them eventually. We are, as a society, realizing the end result of abusing credit. We are adjusting and getting ourselves back to where we should be and not a moment too soon. Once we as a society are financially more sound, perhaps we can start to address the government, which is going to be a much bigger pill to swallow. We are technically bankrupt as a country now, we just haven’t admitted and tried to fix it.

And on top of all of that we still have candidates promising us huge spending increases for programs that will not solve their stated goals, just as the current ones do not. And we still eat it up. Perhaps once we go through this credit education we will smarten up…

Perhaps.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 11:41 AM
Comment #247529
Well, actually, it’s just sad, and with that list, you made my point for me

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what your point was…

But to say that it was sad, I agree. It’s a shame that so many black republicans have been hounded out of public office, like Micheal Steele was, by ‘caring liberals’ who stoop to the level of calling people Uncle Tom and throwing Oreo’s at them when they speak in public.

It just proves the point you were trying to debate against that liberals treat black republicans with respect. You still have yet to name *ONE* black republican that liberals respect in any shape or form…

BTW, I did say that the list was specfically short by me because 1) I’m not a republican and it’s not my job to stand up for their party, 2) It was late and I didn’t feel like spending that much time countering a pretty stupid point and 3) I knew no matter what list I put together you would say it ‘wasn’t good enough’ and try to turn the conversation towards how great and loving the liberals are… Which, I can assure you, is a load of horse crap. Just ask, well, any prominent black republican.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 11:46 AM
Comment #247532

phx8,

I think you’re absolutely wrong about the Republicans and Conservatives.

I consider myself very Conservative and I can still remember the excitement in the Conservative movement when Colin was put forward as a potential candidate for president in 2000. I also remember the disappointment when he declined to run.

I also remember the excitement over the possible candidacy of Condi. Much of that excitement is still there, even though she declined to run in 2008.

Even though I consider myself very Conservative, I would vote for either in a heartbeat. That from someone who was in the “Youth For Nixon” in 1968.

As far as a “do-over” in Michigan and Florida, Hillary “Screw fracturing the Democtratic Party…say anything and do anything to win” Clinton would hate it. She wants the delegates seated with the outcomes of those elections intact.

Posted by: Jim T at March 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #247547

Jim & Rhinehold,
There was a time when Colin Powell would have been an excellent and electable candidate. But even before he destroyed his reputation with that speech in front of the UN about Iraq & WMD’s, Powell was rejected by his own party for not being conservative enough on social issues.

I give you both credit. We may disagree on issues, but the motivations are based on decency, so nuff said. And I would also agree that liberals throwing oreos and whatnot is wrong.

Moving right along… GOP and conservatism both face big problem, an inability to attract minority conservatives/Republicans and elect them to office. I don’t think that originated with McCain at all. When it comes to minority issues, I think McCain is a good man. The problem was an inherited one for the GOP & conservatism, but it is very real, it is very serious, and the upcoming election will highlight this failing like none previous.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 1:56 PM
Comment #247551

phx8 wrote:

“Moving right along… GOP and conservatism both face big problem, an inability to attract minority conservatives/Republicans and elect them to office.”

You’re absolutely right. I feel that there is a change in the air about that…but too small of a change to really measure. I am reading more and more how African-Americans are rebelling against their “leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, saying that they are “out of touch” and that “they don’t represent me”.

Sure, there are many more African-American conservatives today than there were, say, 20 years ago…but not enough to really say that there is a significant change.

One thing that confuses me, though. You can see an entire segment of African-Americans that espouse conservative beliefs (Bill Cosby comes to mind), but they still vote Democrat at the polls.

Another thing. Census trends show that by 2050, whites will be in the minority. Why don’t minorities get together and form a political party that will surely be electable by 2050? To start now would mean that they would have an established and politically respected party by that time. Where is that party? Why hasn’t it been started already?

Posted by: Jim T at March 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #247555

Jack said: “You may be right re the economy. Unfortunately, politicians can do little about that.”

Now. There was plenty REpublicans could have done over the last 7 years that would have helped tremendously.

1) Don’t try to set a new record for everyone having a home, instead Republicans could have shot for everyone who could afford one, having one.
2) Regulation over mortgage backed lending industry akin to current bank oversight, would likely have prevented this Recession entirely. But, no, Republicans were all about DEregulation and this is what we get for it.
3) Even if there is a cyclical component to this recession, (I doubt it), a 5.65 trillion dollar national debt would have allowed a much more protracted and targeted stimulus package which we cannot now afford as our national debt has been raised by Republicans to more than 9.3 trillion and this president is still submitting deficit budgets.

As for the revote, forget it and abide by the rules, or, seat the delegates of both states with each candidate receiving half the delegates. This is these are the only two plans that keep integrity of the party and primary/caucus system relatively intact.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #247557
Jack wrote: phx8, You may be right re: the economy. Unfortunately, politicians can do little about that. Economic cycles do not correspond to political ones.
That is only party true. That may be true short term, but what politicians do most certainly can and does affect the economy long-term.
Jack wrote: We have had a dream economy since 1982, with only minor troubles.
Think so?

It was definitely better than the 1930s.
The problem is what does the next decade hold, with so much debt ($48 Trillion nation-wide), largest wealth disparity since the Great Depression, average home equities below 50% (lowest level in 16 years), millions of foreclosures, rising unemployment, record trade deficits, growing lawlessness, and a number of other economic factors and abuses that have been worsening over the last 30 years; abuses which did not all come about by mere coincidence.

Jack wrote: We have become so accustomed to this that we consider unemployement under 5% and a growth rate that has not even dipped into the negative to be terrible. These conditions, BTW, are great by historical standard and compare favorably to big economies in Europe, where unemployement hovers above 7% and growth comes only occassionally.
That’s not really the issue.

The real issue is a large number of factors that have been worsening for decades.
And just because it is always worse somewhere else doesn’t mean we should accept things they way they are … especially when there is the potential for things to get much worse.

After all, a while back, you [Jack] wrote

Jack wrote: It [the federal deficit] would be fine EXCEPT for the entitlements iceberg we are sailing toward.


The demographics are just going to smash us unless we do something.
That doesn’t exactly sound all that rosy.

Jack wrote: Re: the Great Depression - for all the talk and activity of the New Deal, 1937 was worse than 1929.
A recession started in May of 1937, but the toughest time was probably between 1932 and 1935, based on higher unemployment, huge deflation, double digit negative GDP in 1933, federal debt almost doubling between 1930 and 1935, with falling GDP, Debt-to-GDP jumped from 18% in 1930 to 39% in 1935.

____ _ Tax ______ Federal __ GNP ______ Unemployment
Year _ Receipts __ Spending _ Growth ___ Rate
————————————————————————-
1929 ___ ?.?% ____ ?.?% _____ ?.?% ____ 3.2% (Hoover era, Great Depression begins)
1930 ___ 4.2% ____ 3.4% ____ -9.4% ____ 8.7%
1931 ___ 3.7% ____ 4.3% ____ -8.5% ___ 15.9%
1932 ___ 2.9% ____ 7.0% ___ -13.4% ___ 23.6%
1933 ___ 3.5% ____ 8.1% ____ -2.1% ___ 24.9% (FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March)
1934 ___ 4.9% ___ 10.8% ____ +7.7% ___ 21.7%
1935 ___ 5.3% ____ 9.3% ____ +8.1% ___ 20.1%
1936 ___ 5.1% ___ 10.6% ___ +14.1% ___ 16.9%
1937 ___ 6.2% ____ 8.7% ____ +5.0% ___ 14.3% (recession begins, May)
1938 ___ 7.7% ____ 7.8% ____ -4.5% ___ 19.0% (recession ends, June)
1939 ___ 7.2% ___ 10.4% ____ +7.9% ___ 17.2%
1940 ___ 6.9% ____ 9.9% ____ +
1941 ___ 7.7% ___ 12.1% ____ +
1942 __ 10.3% ___ 24.8% ____ +
1943 __ 13.7% ___ 44.8% ____ +
1944 __ 21.7% ___ 45.3% ____ +
1945 __ 21.3% ___ 43.7% ____ +

Jack wrote: What pulled us out of that downturn was WWII.
Maybe. But war certainly isn’t a good thing by any means. And WWII also left the U.S. with huge debt. GDP and productivity increased significantly for the war effort. However, many things were already improving by 1941, GDP had turned positive, unemployment was still high but decreasing.
Jack wrote: There were some useful programs (most of which we still have) but the big government programs (NRA etc) probably made the depression a little worse.
The programs that produced value were worthwhile.
Jack wrote: We would have the same experience today if we did the big G.
Maybe. However, the difference between the Great Depression and now is that the nation was not already swimming in massive debt, and didn’t have huge trade deficits.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest mistakes was that the usurious pyramid-scheme (9-to-1 fractional banking) monetary system was restarted after the Great Depression.
Unfortunately, nothing was learned and that debt cycle was restarted, and the massive debt is now growing out of control again.
No one can tell us where the money will come from to pay the INTEREST on $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #247559

phx8
No, I;m not talking about anyone particular Black conservative. And not necessarily talking about Black politicians. I’m talking about any Black conservative that’s successful in anything they do. The left makes out like they’re Satan incarnated just because they don’t fall for the lies that’s been told them by the left that they’re to stupid to make it without their help.
In order for me to say if I’d vote for Colin Powell I’d have to know where he stands on the important issues facing this country. I don’t believe he’s state where he really stands on anything. He doesn’t seem interested in politics anyway.
Condi Rice is a liberal just like Bush. She wouldn’t have a job in his administration if she wasn’t. So I doubt any true conservative would vote for her based on her politics.
I don’t have any idea where Alan Keyes stand on anything. Again until I here him state his stand on the problems this country faces I can’t say if I’d vote for him. But given his past I kinda doubt it.
Clarence Thomas aint a true conservative although he’s more so than the rest of that bunch appointed by Republican Presidents.
But I’ll bet if any of them ran for office that the left would attack them. And attack them more viciously than they would a White conservative.

phx8 said: GOP and conservatism both face big problem, an inability to attract minority conservatives/Republicans and elect them to office

I can see why the Republicans would have a hard time attracting minorities. But conservatism shouldn’t. The big reason I think it has a hard time attracting minorities is the perceived notion that conservatives are racist. A notion that the left is very willing to propagate.
Fact is no true conservative is racist. They believe in helping anyone that truly needs it, regardless of race, with a hand up. Not a handout.
The left has, with a lot of success, used this to convince minorities that conservatives are racist and want to keep them down. Fact is it’s the left that wants to keep folks down by giving them handouts and telling them that they’re to stupid to make it on their own.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #247582

RE- I can see why the Republicans would have a hard time attracting minorities. But conservatism shouldn’t. The big reason I think it has a hard time attracting minorities is the perceived notion that conservatives are racist. A notion that the left is very willing to propagate.

In my region I know many self claimed conservatives who are indeed racist. I also know many self claimed liberals who are racist. They may claim that they are not. But their actions affirm the opposite. Of course this is all dependent on how one defines conservative or liberal. To be either, one actually has to practice those defined values. Just talking about or claiming those values will not make them so. It is obvious that you hold conservatives to a high moral value. That is a good thing. Unfortunately many who truly consider themselves as conservative do not in reality live by your standard.

Most people in this country closely associate conservatism with the republican party. I realize that one can be conservative without being republican. But conservative values are what the republican party claims. As a result it is natural to associate the two.

.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 8:53 PM
Comment #247585

RickIl said: “A notion that the left is very willing to propagate.”

No! A fact represented by the all those caucasion faces of the initial cadre of Republicans running for President. The GOP does not promote minority leaders because their base won’t tolerate them. Their base would not even tolerate a Caucasion Mormon for president, just too much minority for the base to identify with.

Though there has been some progress, at least the GOP base will now tolerate a caucasion leader appointing a minority as a subordinate like Condi Rice or Colin Powell. Definitely progress compared to 40 years ago. But, there is no question when it comes to minority political support, the Democratic Party is the only safe harbor for minorities. And not surprisingly, this years presidential nominee final choices are a woman and a dark skinned man. The evidence of the difference between the parties could not be starker.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #247586

When discussing conservatives, one has to identify which group. Those conservatives trying to preserve Jim Crow and keeping minorities in their place? That is one kind of conservative in the GOP base. Those trying to preserve the symbiotic relationship between the military industrial complex and government established in WWII? That would be another conservative group within the GOP. Those conservatives trying to preserve a wealthy elite and American form of aristocracy via trickle down supply side economics? That would be another conservative group within the GOP.

When one discusses conservatives, one must identify which group of conservatives, by the part of our history they seek to conserve and preserve into the future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2008 9:21 PM
Comment #247587

phx8 said: “There was a time when Colin Powell would have been an excellent and electable candidate.”

Not electable. Current polls show 20% of the Democrats will not vote for a Black candidate, and will vote for McCain instead of Obama if the race is between just these two. And that is the Democratic Party. Though not reflected or inquired into of the GOP voters in exit polls, there is no doubt, that percentage would significantly higher in the GOP, those whites who simply would not vote for Colin Powell for no other reason than his dark skin.

I agree, Colin Powell ‘may’ have proven to be an excellent candidate, but, on GOP votes alone, it is highly doubtful he ever could have been electable at the time his candidacy was being discussed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #247598

phx8,

Your neighbor reads spam email? What a Noob!

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 10, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #247605

David, you assume a lot. And those assumptions seem to be based on unsupported stereotypes. On what basis do you maintain that the number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate equals, much less surpasses, the number of Democrats? The Bush administration, as you must know, is the most ethnically diverse in history.

Also, it’s ridiculous to say that there is a conservative faction in the GOP that wants to “preserve Jim Crow.” There are no Jim Crow laws to preserve, and the Jim Crow laws were entirely the invention of southern Democrats.

The only way you could make such statements if you think that anti-affirmative beliefs and opposing special government set-asides and programs based only on race is exactly the same as having Colored only drinking fountains and making Blacks ride on the back of the bus. Which is really ridiculous.

Posted by: Liam at March 11, 2008 12:08 AM
Comment #247629

RickIL said: In my region I know many self claimed conservatives who are indeed racist. I also know many self claimed liberals who are racist.

Racism has no political boundaries. Just like it has no regional or racial boundaries. Unfortunately it’s every everywhere and among all races.

RickIL said: It is obvious that you hold conservatives to a high moral value. That is a good thing. Unfortunately many who truly consider themselves as conservative do not in reality live by your standard.

I hold everyone conservative or liberal to a high moral value. And unfortunately none of us live up to it 100%. And that includes me.
It’s been my experience that folks that are truly conservative have a higher moral value and try harder to live up to it than most other folks. That doesn’t mean that liberals can’t have high moral values, and try to live up to them. I know some that do. But the crap I see a lot of them condoning I can’t believe that very many have any values at all.


David: Comment #247586
I don’t consider any of the groups you described as true conservatives. And there’s a lot of over lap in them.
You can’t be a true conservative and want to keep folks down just because they look different, believe different, or think different than you do.
You can’t be a true conservative and believe that government should favor one industry over another or that it should automatically award contracts to someone just because they claim they have a better weapon. In fact a true conservative would question the need for the new weapon and if the cost would justify replacing the ones we already have. The B1 is a good example. It was a good idea. But was it really needed then? And just how useful would it be today?
You can’t be a true conservative and not want to see everyone have the opportunity to gain financially. Supply side economics and trickle down economics just flat don’t allow for that.
The groups you described might be Republican. But I can assure you they aint conservative.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 11, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #247630

David:

As for the revote, forget it and abide by the rules, or, seat the delegates of both states with each candidate receiving half the delegates. This is these are the only two plans that keep integrity of the party and primary/caucus system relatively intact.

After listening to what is being discussed regarding a revote, I think you’re absolutely right here. There really is no other way out of this mess that could be labeled fair other than these two options.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #247651

Liam asked: “On what basis do you maintain that the number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate equals, much less surpasses, the number of Democrats?”

Very hard data, Liam. Hillary is beating Obama in the vast majority of Republican dominated counties in the country that are predominantly Caucasion by race. The data doesn’t get harder than that on this kind of question, because the data gives the respondents no opportunity to consider being politically correct in their response. They haven’t a clue how they vote could ever show up as reflecting such an enormously high correlation between conservative white districts and opposition to a black candidate, preferring a white woman instead. The correlation was extremely high in Texas for example. But shows up in nearly every other state as well, including upstate N.Y.

Given the universe for sampling is voters who votes, there is virtually sampling error, and while correlations cannot be construed as cause and effect, very high correlations beg all probable explanations as potential cause and effect, and in this case, their appears to be only one probable cause. Still not proof. Just a correlation. But, one whose effect is unignorable and unexplainable by any other factor in play.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #247652

Ron Brown, so who is the leadership of this particular brand of ‘true’ conservativism you define along economic lines? I know people by their actions, far better than their words. If they vote Republican, then they vote for Republican definitions of conservativism. Actions speak louder than words.

If they vote Republican in November, then they vote in approval of what the Republican Party has done by and large these last 7 years, in effect, if not intent. These ‘true’ conservatives you speak of must be a very small minority within the Republican Party since the GOP has so completely ignored them and what you say they believe in.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 11, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #247663
Liam asked: “On what basis do you maintain that the number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate equals, much less surpasses, the number of Democrats?”

Very hard data, Liam. Hillary is beating Obama in the vast majority of Republican dominated counties in the country that are predominantly Caucasion by race. The data doesn’t get harder than that on this kind of question, because the data gives the respondents no opportunity to consider being politically correct in their response. They haven’t a clue how they vote could ever show up as reflecting such an enormously high correlation between conservative white districts and opposition to a black candidate, preferring a white woman instead.

David, that makes no sense at all. You judge Republican attitudes by how many Democrats vote for Hillary? Hillary-voters by definition do not reflect the political beliefs of Republicans. What’s worse is that you think this data also shows that Republicans are not only equally racist but more racist than Democrats. How in the world can you get that from polls of Democrats? Hard data—LOL!

You’re also assuming that the only reason to vote for Hillary or for Democrats saying that they’d vote for McCain over Obama is racism. Believe it or not, there are reasons to like either McCain or Clinton besides the fact that they are white, just like there are reasons to dislike Obama besides the fact that he’s black.

Also, way more whites vote for Obama than African Americans vote for Clinton. According to the kind of analysis you offer, African-Americans must be both racist and sexist. Anybody who didn’t vote for Romney must be anti-Mormon. Anybody who didn’t vote for Bill Richardson must be anti-Hispanic. Accusations of bigotry based only on the race and gender of the candidates is typical liberal thinking, but it is not based on hard data or anything close to it.

Posted by: Liam at March 11, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #247673
unexplainable by any other factor in play

LOL *snort* Seriously, I haven’t read anything that funny for a while, thanks for the laugh.

You heard David, if you don’t support Obama, you’re a racist… because he’s black…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #247680

‘FERRARO VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS REMARKS’

She has a point.

Posted by: Dawn at March 11, 2008 9:56 PM
Comment #247694

Ferraro is 100% right and the real scandal should be that people are attacked and accused of racism for stating the obvious about Barrack Obama’s complete and total lack of experience and accomplishments as an elected official.

Here is a man who set records for voting “present” as a state legislator instead of taking strong positions, and who has spent his entire one term as a Senator jet-setting around the country as he runs for president.

The guy is a blank slate. If he wasn’t black, African-Americans wouldn’t be almost unanimously voting for him. And neither would PC white liberals who feel good about themselves because they’re voting for a black man.

This is so obvious it shouldn’t even have to be said. But thank goodness the Democratic primary is stretching out, because if Republicans were the one stating the obvious like this the screams of racism would be deafening.

Posted by: Liam at March 11, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #247699
She has a point.

No Dawn, Ferraro doesn’t have any point at all. She is a typical racist of a certain age.

Let’s look at what she said:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist,

What reality or problems in this world we’re facing were you actually addressing, Ms. Ferraro?
NONE. Because you’re working for Hillary and she’s losing, you attacked and insulted Obama, and did so based upon his RACE alone. It’s total bullsh*t, and in many ways even worse than Obama’s adviser calling Clinton a monster, but I don’t see you quitting the way that adviser did after putting her foot in her mouth. No, I just see you giving Obama the finger while with absurd self righteousness you insult everyone with a functioning brain in their heads.

so you have to shut up,’ Ferraro said.

You should have had the decency to shut up Gerry, but you obviously don’t have the good sense to close that gob.
You make me ashamed that a Democrat would actually make such comments. But, no doubt knowing the depths to which the Clinton’s will sink in order to win (because they’ve already stooped so low) this was perhaps done on purpose.
I’d be willing to bet you’re fully aware of the large number of seething racists who live in Pennsylvania, and so you figured it might be a choice time to throw them a big bigoted chunk of red meat that may garner the Monster a few more votes.

‘Racism works in two different directions.

Obama is HALF WHITE, and you’ve made yourself into a national disgrace with this crap.

I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.

No Gerry, we’re attacking you because you’re a racist and obviously a total moron.

How’s that?’…

Immature, intellectually stunted, and unnecessarily hateful. Also, it is quite possibly intentionally, cynically, and despicably motivated, as well.

How about if we just say Hillary got where she is because of her husband, and you yourself were chosen as a vice presidential running mate not due of any of your own achievements, but just because you’re woman, and it was time for some tokenism, and that really made everything a whole lot easier for you?

How’s that grab you, Gerry? You see, how easy it is to be dismissive and insulting when one chooses to focus on superficialities, rather than on people as full and complex human beings?
Btw, I am a white woman and a staunch feminist who has sadly just lost all the respect I ever had for you.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 11, 2008 11:54 PM
Comment #247703
How about if we just say … you yourself were chosen as a vice presidential running mate not due of any of your own achievements, but just because you’re woman, and it was time for some tokenism, and that really made everything a whole lot easier for you?

Erm, she actually did admit that was true… Not exactly to that extent, that nothing she did mattered, but that she wouldn’t have been picked as VP had she not been a woman…

Ferraro said she was not trying to diminish Obama’s candidacy, and acknowledged up front that she would not have been the vice presidential nominee in 1984 if she had been a man.

Personally, I don’t believe that the notion of race is a valid one, but people’s perceptions and lack of intellect when they show theirs certainly are…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #247705

Veritas, instead of just venting with an emotional response against Farraro and throwing out unsupported PC allegations of racism, explain this: what precisely is racist about Farroro’s remarks?

Did she say that Obama is not qualified to be president because he’s black? Did she? Did she say anything about African Americans in general being less qualified to hold office than whites?

No. So what exactly is racist here?

How about this. I don’t personally think that Chris Rock is qualified to be President of the United States. I guess I must be racist for saying this because Chris Rock is black. It’s no different with Obama. He’s a good guy. He has a good stage presence. But so does Chris Rock, and there’s nothing racist about saying that somebody with slim to no experience isn’t the best choice for our president.

Posted by: Liam at March 12, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #247712

Liam said: “Ferraro is 100% right and the real scandal should be that people are attacked and accused of racism for stating the obvious about Barrack Obama’s complete and total lack of experience and accomplishments as an elected official.”

Welcome to Earth, let me bring you up to speed since you are so out of touch.

Obama has been in elected office longer than Hillary. That is more experience in elected office. Obama is educated in Constitutional Law, which parallels Clinton’s education and supercedes John McCains, ergo more educational experience.

Obama was unheard outside of his own state prior to running for president because his public service raised neither national criticism nor praise. Clinton’s reputation divides this nation into critics and supporters, and preceded her public office by 8 years. Gives Obama an edge.

I hear you when you say Obama is a blank slate, and I am glad Republicans view him that way, and it explains why they DO NOT want him running against McCain. He has been involved in promoting and passing major legislation in his one term as US Senator while ‘jetsettting’ as you put it, but, I don’t want to educate Republicans before the general election as to his accomplishment and give them time to create attacks on a positive record.

VV is dead on right, Ferraro was on the subtle inferential attack against Obama because Clinton’s campaign is quagmired in lower states won, lower popular vote, and lower delegates than Obama, and Ferraro supports Clinton. I see this as much ado about nothing however, because most voters would not have understood her inference, as your comments demonstrate. Thank you for that, btw.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 12, 2008 1:49 AM
Comment #247713

I love it when Democratic supporters take sides with one Republican over another, or vice versa, Republican supporters takes Democratic sides, it SO reveals the opposition’s preferences and agenda.

Republicans DO NOT WANT to run against Obama. McCain cannot beat him and they are convinced of it, though they would never admit it in public. They think they are being so subtle in singing Clinton’s campaign praises. HaH!

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 12, 2008 1:53 AM
Comment #247719

Liam:

what precisely is racist about Farroro’s remarks?

Let’s look at what she said the first time she should have kept her mouth closed:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

This is not only racist, but wrong in every way it could possibly be.

Has Obama run his campaign as a “black man”? NO! He’s run his campaign without using his half black status as a major factor or reason for why anyone should want or choose to vote for him. He has instead asked everyone who wants change to vote for him.
Clinton on the other hand, has talked a lot about being a woman, and about how important it should be for Democrats to want to vote for the first woman president.
Neither Clinton nor Ferraro seem to realize that most Liberals have moved on from where they still stand — basically still stuck back in a 1970’s mentality, angrily waving their fists in the air metaphorically — acting as if race and sex are major stumbling blocks, and assuming most of us can’t ever get past them in order to judge a person on their individual strengths and merits alone.
But most of us can, and do.

Ferraro says Obama is lucky to be a black man and that if he was white, he would not be in this position — as if all that matters is blackness or whiteness or maleness. In this way she discounts and chooses (perhaps intentionally) to ignore everything else about who Barack Obama is: a person of obvious intelligence, and amazing eloquence, who has worked very hard to get where he is now — a candidate with a strong and clearly authentic desire to create change in Washington. He has not only inspired people, but like the community organizer he once was, he has actually made folks get involved and come out in droves to caucus and vote to make that change happen.
This is the “concept” that people are so caught up in, and it has nothing to do with his skin color OR the fact that he happens to be a man.

That Ferraro thinks it does says a lot more about her than it does about Obama, or about the people who are voting for him — no matter what color or sex we happen to be.

But let’s talk about Obama’s blackness for just a moment. Ferraro chooses to ignore the fact that black people haven’t had a very good or easy chance of being elected a U.S. Senator. Indeed, Obama is only the THIRD black person ever elected to the Senate since 1865. Yet she thinks that his getting there has to do with how “very lucky” he is to be a black man? That’s bunk. It clearly has to do with the fact that despite how damn hard it is for people of color to be viewed exactly the same as white people — due to dimwits who think just like Ferraro — Obama’s articulate intelligence and innate charisma seems able to reach past those barriers that so very many people erect in their narrow little minds.

If you ask me, it’s not Obama who is very lucky, it’s America who will be very lucky to elect him to be our next President.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 12, 2008 2:26 AM
Comment #247728

The reason I said she has a point goes way back to the beginning of this race for president.

Anyone remember the hype about how the dems have a woman and a black man in the mix?
Anyone remember how many times it was said that this can be a historic race if either of these two make it to the nomination?
Anyone remember how the rest of the people in the race for president were ignored to push this historic election?

Now we are witnessing a divide in the democrat party.
Look at the results from yesterday.
92% of blacks voted for Obama.
70% whites voted for Clinton.
‘Mississippi - Democrats’
We have been asked if whites will vote for Obama because he is black. Has anyone asked if blacks will vote for Hillary because she is white?

Obama is not the first black man to run for president. He is the first one who can inspire people of all races.
Or is he? Did I miss all the hype about Alan Keyes being black, running for President, and how historic it was? Maybe he wasn’t as articulate.

What would happen now if Michigan and Florida get that revote?

Posted by: Dawn at March 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Comment #247729

since it was a question that popped up here is a list of African Americans in the United States Congress from 1868 to today.
you might notice that a large majority are democrats.

Posted by: napajohn at March 12, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #247730

that is most are democrats if you look at our modern era. in times past until the turn of the 20th century mostly in the 1870’s and 1880’s the republicans led the count in african american leaders voted into office.

Posted by: napajohn at March 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #247737

VV,

You might be taking a lot of heat, but here’s some more ammunition for your arguement.


Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, “Millions of Americans have a point of view different from” Ferraro’s.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, “We campaigned across the South … without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro … . Some people are making hysteria while I’m making history.”

So, you see, Gerry has done it before…

Posted by: Jim T at March 12, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #247738

WOW!!

The blockquote didn’t go far enough. It should be:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, “Millions of Americans have a point of view different from” Ferraro’s.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, “We campaigned across the South … without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro … . Some people are making hysteria while I’m making history.”

(Emphasis mine)

Posted by: Jim T at March 12, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #247742

David
Most, if not all, the true conservatives have left the Republican Party. A whole heap have looked to the Libertarian Party for a leader. Unfortunately it aint really giving one.
A few, like me, are independent and will vote for the person they feel is best qualified for the office being voted on. And I can assure ya that neither of the major parties have had a qualified candidate for more years than I care to remember.
Of all the parties out there the Constitution Party is the only one I can come close to identifying with. And it has problems that will keep me from identifying with it. One being that it seems they want to legislate it’s own brand of morality. While I can agree with them on it’s ideas of morality, I’m against passing laws telling folks what kind of morals they should have. It just flat won’t work.
But I agree that ya can tell folks by their actions more than their words. And folks that claim to be a true conservative and vote Republican aint really a true conservative.
I personally don’t believe that a true conservative is all that far right on the political scale. That area is reserved for the kooks just like the extreme left is reserved for the kooks. A true conservative falls somewhere between the liberals like both Bushes, Nixon, and McCain, and the kooks. The Republican party tries to cater to both these ends and those in the middle have been left out. This is why the true conservatives have left the party.
It’s the kooks on the very far right and the liberal wing of the Republican Party that’s giving conservatism the bad rap. They’re the ones that are racist and will fit into some or all the categories ya mentioned earlier.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #247744

David said: Republicans DO NOT WANT to run against Obama. McCain cannot beat him and they are convinced of it, though they would never admit it in public. They think they are being so subtle in singing Clinton’s campaign praises. HaH!

I’m not so sure McCain can beat Hillary either. I think we’re gonna have a Democrat President.
Unless the voters suddenly get wise to the duopoly and kick both parties out of the White House. And if that happens we’ll see fewer Reppblicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #247748

Ron Brown said:

“Most, if not all, the true conservatives have left the Republican Party. A whole heap have looked to the Libertarian Party for a leader.”

I would like to believe that. I know that statement is true for me.

Posted by: Jim T at March 12, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #247752

Funnily enough, I left the Democratic Party when I realized I was really a Libertarian… And they aven’t changed much since then, they are still controlled by the progressives that want to legislate morality just as much as the neo-cons do…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #247779

Ron Brown said: “And if that happens we’ll see fewer Reppblicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress too.”

I would settle for just a whole bunch of new Democrat and Republican, as yet, uncorrupted faces in Congress. That would be a vast improvement in a single 2 year jolt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 12, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #247783

Jim T quoted Gerry Ferraro:

“if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

And if you weren’t born with a vagina Gerry, you’d have never had a national stage in which to spout your obvious and deep-seated racism.

Jim T:

So, you see, Gerry has done it before…

Not surprised. Hey, I’ll bet Gerry’s planning on wearing her white gown with the attached hoodie to Hillary’s inaugural — in honor of her proudly KKKing her candidate to victory!!! :^/

Dawn:

The reason I said she has a point goes way back to the beginning of this race for president.

Anyone remember the hype about how the dems have a woman and a black man in the mix?
Anyone remember how many times it was said that this can be a historic race if either of these two make it to the nomination?
Anyone remember how the rest of the people in the race for president were ignored to push this historic election?

I remember well how the media choose to ignore Edwards and his supporters, and they certainly tried to sell America on the idea that this primary was all about Hillary Clinton’s inevitability as the first woman president. That’s something that I’ve felt was an offense to the intelligence of Liberal voters from the very beginning.
I also watched how Obama, despite that well enforced media tagline, began to dominate this race, even though he wasn’t well known before, because he was able to impress the hell out of voters everywhere he goes. So much so, that the inevitabilty meme which they tried so hard to sell was erased bit by bit, with every succeeding election, and all throughout the country.

Now we are witnessing a divide in the democrat party.

Look at the results from yesterday.
92% of blacks voted for Obama.
70% whites voted for Clinton.
‘Mississippi - Democrats’

No, it’s only Mississippi. There is no serious divide in the Democratic party over race, because if there truly was, we wouldn’t have seen so many Obama victories, including several landslides, in places like Iowa, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, and Wyoming that don’t have a large population of Black folks residing in them. This is about Obama capturing the minds, hearts and imaginations of people everywhere regardless of race.

We have been asked if whites will vote for Obama because he is black. Has anyone asked if blacks will vote for Hillary because she is white?

Why should these be considered important questions at all? Should we start taking polls asking if it is vitally important for the president to have a vagina too? Don’t these questions avoid talking about issues that really matter? Issues like the war, and the economy, and the environment, and the desperate need to improve public education?

Obama is not the first black man to run for president. He is the first one who can inspire people of all races.

I agree. And Hillary is not the first woman candidate to run for president.
She is however, the first one to endorse the abilities of the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. The first to cynically and diabolically use race-baiting and Baracks middle name, Hussein, to try to scare up votes among uneducated Democrats for herself. And definitely the first to turn off and drive away so many former admirers, and fill them with disgust and loathing for her desperately Rovian-Republican tactics.

What would happen now if Michigan and Florida get that revote?

Well, one thing is certain to happen if a re-vote is allowed to go forward: there will be many more Democratic voters wanting to cast their vote since many didn’t even bother to vote at all before.
The DNC had warned them that the results weren’t going to be considered valid, and so, a great many people sat out the election there. This is why the delegates from either state should never be allowed to be alloted as it now stands, and the way the Hillary has been insisting they should be (because she won). Ironically she’s been talking a lot about her deep respect for “democracy” as she vociferously advocates for these states results to count in this primary!
A mail-in vote is a nightmare of logistics, is too expensive, and runs a lot of risks of being full of fraud.
The only fair thing to do is to split the delegates in these states 50/50 and allow them to be seated. And, to mete out a measure of punishment to the defiant politicians who were the cause of all this chaos and confusion, NONE of the super delegates from either of these states should be allowed to cast a vote at the Convention.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 12, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #247784

I don’t like those questions any more than you Veritas.
I wish the media would discuss the issues myself.

Posted by: Dawn at March 12, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #247805

Veritas, Ferraro admitted herself that she wouldn’t have been selected as a VP running mate if it weren’t for her being female. I can’t see how making the same statement about Obama that she makes about herself (about race, obviously, instead of gender) is racist.

I fear that once the primary season is over, the PC police are going to absolutely over the top with allegations of racism, sexism, and every ism possible.

I suppose if John McCain feels like it, he can start talking about how he’s a victim of ageism.

Posted by: Liam at March 12, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #247810
The only fair thing to do is to split the delegates in these states 50/50 and allow them to be seated.

How is that fair exactly? Isn’t that just saying that half of the people voted for one and the other half voted for the other, in effect, ignoring the will of the people and casting their votes for them?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #247812

It’s not fair. Splitting 50/50.

Having a vote where they bring out the books from the first time around and letting people vote who did not the first time MAY be fair.
Noone should get to vote over.
The circumstances are not what they were and people should not be given the opportunity to change their vote.

The states screwed up. When they were told the votes would not count they should not have gone ahead anyway.

Posted by: Dawn at March 12, 2008 10:35 PM
Comment #247819

Liam, I’ll stand on what I’ve already said about the despicable race-baiting of the Clinton campaign. While you may not understand or have agreed with what I’ve said here in this thread, Keith Olbermann certainly does, and with one of his trademark Special Comments, he raked the Clinton campaign over the coals for it tonight.

Rhinehold and Dawn,
In my view 50/50 is the only way to go, because the entire thing has been grossly unfair from the get-go, and as a result, there seems no better way to go forward.

First, we had these states governors in Michigan and Florida deliberately choosing to ignore the Democratic Party rules. They could have vetoed the bill, or told their state legislatures they didn’t want this, but they chose to go forward with it, effectively disenfranchising their own people. Now they claim it’s horribly unfair to those people they screwed over, and are demanding a do over — and they want Howard and the DNC, or the two candidates left in the race to cough up millions of dollars to foot the bill for their arrogance?! That’s nuts.
It’s up the people in these states to vote out the bums that willfully and knowingly disenfranchised them.

Secondly, and speaking of willfully and knowingly: the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, is a passionate Hillary supporter and true believer of the “inevitability” meme, who thought that by moving her states primary up it would be a enormous bump for Clinton in January — even if the people of her state only held a mock election that wasn’t going to be counted. Now of course she claims that it’s “reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence” Michigan’s voters. It’s hypocritical hogwash of the highest and most shameful order, because she’s the reprehensible one. Btw, it’s also well known that Granholm would love nothing more than an appointment in Hillary’s administration.

Third, wasn’t it unfair of Hillary to sign the four states pledge not to “campaign or participate” and then shrug her shoulders when it turned out her name remained on the ballot in Michigan with the nonchalantly tossed off statement that “it’s clear this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything.”
Now of course, she claims it counts for EVERYTHING because she’s losing, and so she must now act like it’s the end of the world if these votes in these states aren’t counted — in her favor. Oh, but it’s all about “the people!” It’s all about “democracy!” She’s not fooling anyone. We all know it’s all about her and her ability to wield the power, and she’s obviously willing to stoop to anything in order to win this primary.

Or at the very least, make sure that Obama doesn’t have as good a chance to win in the general, after she loses. That’s just how the Clinton’s operate. She loves to call herself a “fighter”, but she’s actually the worst kind of fighter there is. The kind that always takes it to the extreme, flailing wildly, trying to make every punch into a knock-out, and hitting below the belt — to the death.

Fourth, Obama has played by the rules from the beginning, and is still playing by the rules when he says he’ll go along with whatever Dean and the DNC finally decides to do at this point. He’s not out there demanding things be done his way or the highway. Unlike the state officials, who willingly and knowing broke the rules, and now want a free do-over, or like Hillary who broke her pledge, and said it didn’t matter, but now it does, and who wants to break all the rules of fairness AGAIN in order to have things go her way.
Can we at least agree that people who play by the rules of the game shouldn’t end up only getting screwed by people who didn’t?

So, in this unfair morass of broken rules and selfish, arrogant people, clearly a compromise is called for. And in my opinion, that compromise should definitely be a draw: 50/50, seat the delegates of each state, and don’t reward the state officials who are super delegates for giving the finger to the Party, and screwing over their own people with disenfranchisement, by giving them the honor of voting at the convention.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 13, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #247823

Why do anything at all, if the only answer is to give them each 50% of the votes…..? won’t that only give them ?? more..apiece…with no ultimate difference in the count? Nothing gained. Whoever is ahead will still be ahead. The delegates awarded by vote count should stay relative to the count as well, so no ultimate change there, either…right? If I’m too stupid to get it, then you can all jump at being first to let me know.
And Dawn’s point is correct, too….that a re-vote can change significantly from what it was before. Who’s going to make sure the votes cast will be the same way there were the first time?
We’re just going to have to eat this one and maybe learn something before the next go-‘round.

Posted by: Jane Doe at March 13, 2008 2:23 AM
Comment #247827
Noone should get to vote over.

But that’s just it, no one has voted yet. Since the original vote was invalid and everyone knew it going in, Michigan and Florida have not held their primaries yet, technically.

There is nothing preventing them from scheduling another one and it would meet the rules set out by the DNC to have their primary after a specific date and before the convention. It would be well within the rules and is the *ONLY* fair way to ensure that the will of the people is heard from.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2008 7:05 AM
Comment #247830

If everyone knew it, why did they go to the polls?
‘But that’s just it, no one has voted yet.’
How can you say that Rhinehold?

Technically?
They still had results and everyone knows who got what, even if some votes were cast for ‘uncommitted’.
They can’t just give the ‘uncommitted’ votes to Obama? It was basically between the two of them anyway.

Posted by: Dawn at March 13, 2008 7:44 AM
Comment #247832
Sense when does the Democratic National Committee have any say about when and how states hold their primaries?

The states don’t hold primaries, the political parties do…

Posted by: Rachel at March 13, 2008 8:37 AM
Comment #247833

‘The states don’t hold primaries, the political parties do…’

Who pays for it?

Posted by: Dawn at March 13, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #247859

Jane:

Why do anything at all, if the only answer is to give them each 50% of the votes…..? won’t that only give them ?? more..apiece…with no ultimate difference in the count? Nothing gained. Whoever is ahead will still be ahead. The delegates awarded by vote count should stay relative to the count as well, so no ultimate change there, either…right?

Right, even though the delegates would stay relative to the vote count, because it the only way to make it into a draw without a re-vote, and without harshly punishing the delegates who are representatives for the Democratic voters of their state. At least this way, they can be seated at the convention.

Dawn, quoting Rhinehold:

If everyone knew it, why did they go to the polls? ‘But that’s just it, no one has voted yet.’ How can you say that Rhinehold?

The officials who are guilty in this mess told their people that Michigan’s rebelling against the DNC rules would automatically spark a national campaign to change the primary process, so that New Hampshire and Iowa would not always be first.
Now that debate is perfectly legitimate and should be allowed, in my view — but not by breaking the rules right before the primary election, by disenfranchisement of the people in that state, and by using a mock election to attempt to to give a bump to one particular candidate.

As for no one voting yet, State Democratic party officials in Michigan are intending to restrict any re-vote only to Democrats, and prevent those who have already voted in the Republican primary from participating, but since Michigan doesn’t even have party registration, I don’t see any way that this could be accomplished fairly.
In fact, it sounds to me like Republican voters there could end up getting to vote for McCain, and also vote for who they want him to go up against in the general — and we all know that’s Hillary. Basically Democrats would be leaving the winner of our primary up to Limbaugh’s dittohead’s.
It would be criminal.

Dawn:

Technically? They still had results and everyone knows who got what, even if some votes were cast for ‘uncommitted’. They can’t just give the ‘uncommitted’ votes to Obama? It was basically between the two of them anyway.

Because that is a terrible insult to Obama after he played by the rules that all the candidates, including Hillary, had signed on to uphold in a written pledge. And the idea of his name becoming “Uncommitted” while Hillary’s name appeared on the ballot and got more votes as a result, doesn’t sound like American Democracy to me. In fact, it’s about as unfair a thing as I’ve ever heard.

Who pays for it?

I don’t think anyone should have to pay out millions of dollars now. Sadly though, the people in these states end up paying for it — because their votes were totally ripped off by their state officials.
The whole thing stinks from one end to the other.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #247864

I meant the states pay the expense for people to vote. Not the parties.

You are right. It all stinks. They had to buck the system to try to make a change. That may be the only impact they make in the end.

50/50 is the same as 0/0.

Posted by: Dawn at March 13, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #247900

Regarding all this talk of a do-over, a mail-in ballot, or of trying to find a formula to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates at the convention…

Does anybody, Obama supporter, Clinton supporter, independent or Republican actually think that all of this fuss would be taking place if Hillary Clinton were ahead right now instead of behind?
To me, it seems like everybody is scrambling for a way to give Hillary Clinton a mulligan.

It just seems inconceivable to me that if Hillary Clinton were narrowly ahead in the delegates right now that any of these solutions would even be entertained. By anybody. In fact, the very idea would be laughed at.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 13, 2008 10:22 PM
Comment #247903

It is unfair that left wingers of the Democratic Party are trying hard to kidnap the party’s leadership. If they really achieve that goal, I can see Democratic Party continuing to be only an opposition party…Hillary is the only candidate who can get a broader range of voters in November elections & win. Obama does not have a good amount of white votes, women, Latinos & Asians… The only ones that he has are Blacks & ultra lefties. That means that a good amount of her supporters might not vote or go for McCain
Also do not forget, in Florida majority of the voters voted for her. That’s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution.

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 13, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #247939

LO:

Does anybody, Obama supporter, Clinton supporter, independent or Republican actually think that all of this fuss would be taking place if Hillary Clinton were ahead right now instead of behind?

I don’t. I think that if Obama were in Hillary’s place, he’d have been asked by the party to graciously step aside well before now. And I’m certain he would have done so, too.

To me, it seems like everybody is scrambling for a way to give Hillary Clinton a mulligan.

She was Inevitable, therefore her supporters, and many in the Media are treating this as though it’s all perfectly normal. It’s pretty sickening and desperate, and it is definitely weakening our chances in November by the day. Hillary obviously doesn’t care.

It just seems inconceivable to me that if Hillary Clinton were narrowly ahead in the delegates right now that any of these solutions would even be entertained. By anybody. In fact, the very idea would be laughed at.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with the Media. Since they’re still attempting to take her seriously, America isn’t laughing — the way they should be.

ARBEN:

It is unfair that left wingers of the Democratic Party are trying hard to kidnap the party’s leadership.

No, Democrats are right now fighting for the soul of our party after the DLC and Clintonian Corporatism hijacked it after Reagan won in 1980. We want our party to return to being the party of the people again.

If they really achieve that goal, I can see Democratic Party continuing to be only an opposition party

If we can take our party back, it will begin to stand for something again. If we don’t, there will be no reason for most of us to remain Democrats any longer.

Hillary is the only candidate who can get a broader range of voters in November elections & win.

This is patently false. Hillary is an extremely divisive candidate. People on the Right absolutely hate her, and an enormous number in the center, and on the left don’t have any respect for her.

Obama does not have a good amount of white votes, women, Latinos & Asians… The only ones that he has are Blacks & ultra lefties.

African Americans make up approximately 13% of our population, yet Obama at this moment has won more states, more delegates, and holds a large lead in the popular vote. Do the math.

That means that a good amount of her supporters might not vote or go for McCain

Or vote for the Green Party, or not vote at all. That can only to be expected if and when the nominee has stolen a primary election.

Also do not forget, in Florida majority of the voters voted for her.

A huge number of people didn’t even vote in both Florida or Michigan, because the DNC had announced that the vote wasn’t going to count in either state. Additionally, there was no campaigning in either state by any of the candidates. In every state where Obama has campaigned, he has shrunk or erased any large lead that Hillary had.

That’s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution.

It seems to me that Hillary’s supporters are only looking for a solution to the fact that she has lost the Democratic nomination. So, what you’re actually looking for is a way to cheat Obama out of his victory.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 4:16 PM
Comment #248091

Looks like Obama may get cheated, as you put it, in another way.

Posted by: Dawn at March 15, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #248853

If Obama was white he would not have been still running after all of that scandal with his “uncle” pastor. We, the “white people”, cannot use the word “black” in public, only African-American; while on the other side, a person that attends an African-American racist church every Sunday and listens to the bias of anti-white preaching, can still be running for president!!! Do you really think Wright has preached that kind of preaching just that one time?
Obama said “the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning”. I don’t think so! I never ever heard of any white priest preaching from the altar such racist ideas against blacks, or any other segments of the American population. Probably that is happening in Obama’s neck of the wood…
Well, if lefties (Kerry & Co.) succeed in hijacking the Democratic Party leadership, I can see that a lot of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain. Obama’s candidacy has been artificially blown out of all proportion. Does he really believe that he stands a chance to win the General Election? Everyone I know would vote Republican this time if Hillary is not going to be the nominee…
Obamatics forget that the majority of the US are not lefties. Bill Clinton knew this very well. That’s why he was able to build a centrist oriented coalition & won both elections.
Also, it was in Obama’s interest for Florida & Michigan not to rerun their primaries. Do not forget the majority of the voters in both of these states voted for Hillary. That’s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution. He knew full well he would lose both of them. So, how he is going to win without Florida & Michigan?
What a sad joke!!!

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 22, 2008 5:00 AM
Comment #248911

Rene, the abject lack of accurate information contained in your comments and ignorance of what Obama has said before all the world, strains my credulity in your title.

But, welcome to WatchBlog, where partisan views and perspectives, however well or poorly justified and defended are always welcome, and usually critiqued for their flaws and weaknesses.

D.R. Remer, U.S. Army, 6-72 to 12-75.

Titles like that don’t mean crap to me in blogs where identities are so easily fabricated and unverifiable. So forgive me, but, I will just refer to you going forward as Rene. Suits the anonymity of blogs better, I think. And feel free to call me David, or David R, as there are a couple Davids at play here.

Nice to meet you in cyberspace. BTW, Love your line: “Americans should not listen to the media that suggests”… anything I personally don’t believe.

Thanks for the chuckle and presumption to tell Americans what they should and should not watch, listen to, or consider.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Post a comment