Third Party & Independents: Archives

David

All you say makes perfect sense to an Obama supporter.

I admit that I am enjoying the mud wrestling among Democrats and I don’t care which of them wins. That is my caveat.

However, when you look at Hilary’s side, she has some good points. This election, despite all the hype, is essentially a tie. The Dems have disenfranchised all the voters in Florida and Michigan for procedural reasons, but if you include them (as we often do in democracies) more people have actually voted for Hilary than for Obama.

Okay, the Dem procedural rules disenfranchised the voters of Michigan & Florida so they don’t count. Obama wins on the technicality. Not quite. The same procedures that eliminated the votes of the people of Michigan and Florida give the super delegates absolute discretion to choose as they wish. They don’t have to vote with their districts.

Should they vote with their districts? That is not what Obama supporters say. Kennedy and Richardson come from states that voted for Hilary, yet they are voting against the wishes of their constituencies.

I have a legitimate question. Has anybody ever really counted up the super delegates based on their states? They are NOT representative of the total U.S. population. There would be fewer total and a smaller % of Dems in place Obama won (Wyoming? Three out of the four Dems may have voted Obama, but it ain’t much) Relatively more of them come from places like New York, Massachusetts, California or Pennsylvania where more Dems live. Obama has won a lot of Red States. I bet that if ALL the super delegates vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, Hilary wins.

So none of the arguments give a clear winner. Obama and Hilary have almost the same numbers of popular votes. They have almost the same number of won delegates. If the super delegates go with the voters of their states, Hilary wins. If they decide to go with the majority of voters nationwide, we don’t know who should win.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2008 08:47 PM

“By 7 votes, Obama won the caucus in Guam today. This helps Obama get his momentum back.”
This is a joke, right?

If all the college towns and the black vote in NC goes for BHO, HRC doesn’t stand a chance, except that it’s an actual election instead of a caucus. The same goes for IN. They are both red states, but with elections instead of caucuses. I think that will be the main thing that superdelegates will be looking at here. Real election results instead of caucuses.

McCain is a well respected political figure, among all parties, except with people who are a little silly. HRC is well known, and wins actual elections, like Truman, in spite of VRWconspiracies. BHO is in the category of Bryan, Smith, Humphrey, Dukakis. Pay attention to elections in years ending in 8. Even Grover Cleveland lost in 1888, although he got more popular votes. The elections closer to reapportionment are bad for Democrats.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 09:49 PM

Jack, your own comments reflect a lack of touch with reality and way over-generalization.

“The Dems have disenfranchised all the voters in Florida and Michigan for procedural reasons,”

Absolutely untrue. Some voters in Fla. and Mi. MAY either not vote Dem. or vote for McCain, but, most Democrats in both states will still turn out heavily for the Dem. nominee for one simple reason. They know they can’t survive 4 more years of McBush or GOP exporting of blue collar jobs and a dearth of job retraining money. Such over-generalizations reveal wishful or biased assessment rather than critical assessment.

No question Hillary can make some arguments for her side, but, they don’t and won’t outweigh the super delegates fidelity to the future of the party. And the future of the party rests with the solidarity of the Black vote conjoined with the new voter youth vote and a split on the blue collar white vote, which is lost if Clinton is chosen with Obama having the majority of states, pledged delegates, and popular vote. Hillary has no arguments that can supercede that one in the minds of the majority of the super delegates, no matter how much they would love to have Bill back in the White House.

Jack said: “Okay, the Dem procedural rules disenfranchised the voters of Michigan & Florida so they don’t count.”

But, their votes will count in the general election - and that is the whole ball of wax.

Jack said: “That is not what Obama supporters say.”

Doesn’t matter what the Obama or Clinton biased supporters say. The Party is the criterion and the future is the battle ground, and with that criteria, Obama wins the super delegates, whose first and foremost concern is the Party holding onto power once they have it in Nov. The best chance for that is Obama, not Clinton, and they know it.

Jack said: “I bet that if ALL the super delegates vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, Hilary wins.”

Not sure about your math on that, but for the sake of argument let’s assume your bet is safe. The fact remains, the super delegates, many of whom don’t even have constituents as they don’t hold elected office, have an entirely different agenda than voting their constituents. Voting the constituent’s preferences is what the pledged delegates are for, not the super delegates. The super delegates are there to insure the viability of the Party present and future.

Jack said: “So none of the arguments give a clear winner.”

If you IGNORE every argument in the article, that might be a true statement. But, the arguments in the article are un-ignorable, now. And there are plenty of insiders indicating this on the whisper network, as partly evidenced by the fact that the Clinton continues to lose super delegates to Obama despite the Wright controversy.

Obama has the states, the pledged delegates, and the popular vote. That is un-ignorable by the super delegates who must calculate that the electorate’s sense of fairness demands Obama wins on that criteria or, the Party is regarded as rigged and not worth the loyalty proffered by Black and first time voters, as well as the White male blue collar constituents likely to bolt if Obama is not chosen.

Your use of the word “almost” does NOT equal the word ‘equal’ in this super delegate equation. Almost means Obama leads, and fairness and democracy demand that the one with the most, even by a small margin, wins. Your attempt to make ‘almost’ mean tie, just flies in the face of the reality of the situation, Jack. And therefore reflects your own wishful or biased assessment rather than a critical and objective one.

Anyone listening closely to the GOP media and pundits know from what is being said that the GOP would much rather run against Hillary than Obama. As that tidbit becomes more widely discussed in the media, it also favors super delegate’s choice of Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2008 10:09 PM

ohrealy said: “McCain is a well respected political figure, among all parties, except with people who are a little silly.”

Most people respect Jesus Christ too, but, they wouldn’t elect him President. Not even Republicans would elect JC president for obvious turn the cheek reasons. So respect just doesn’t cut the mustard.

And the ads coming out against McSame are devastating for a population which holds a 27% approval rating for Pres. Bush, McSame’s mentor.

Gotta respect your loyalty to the fantasy of a McSame victory in November, though. Helps maintain the illusion that there is a horse race here, despite McSame’s adoption of Kerry’s flip-flopping fish gyrations and Bush emulations on the things that matter to most voters, like the economy, Iraq, health care, and our children’s future in this ‘spread to thin America’ of Republican making.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2008 10:19 PM

The BHO argument seems to be that superdelegates are good if they vote for their candidate, but evil if they don’t. BHO’s virgin voters are going to take their marbles and go home if they don’t get what they want, because they don’t actually like the Democratic party anyway. I am assuming that BHO will be nominated at the convention to give the brats their way. I am already preparing different ways to say “I told you so”, for the day after the November election. The electoral college already favors the Rpblcns, add BHO, and voila, you have just given the presidency to McCain.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 10:33 PM

Negative ads work better against candidates that are unknown, rather than candidates that the people already know. Only 2 Democrats have ever been elected in a year ending in an 8, Jackson and Truman.

McCain’s candidacy is the reason for the concern about BHO’s nomination. I thought they might nominate Romney. The LDS church could be a problem for McCain. He got 5% of the vote in UT, less than half the vote in Arizona, did poorly in NV and CO, and there are still primaries in Idaho and Oregon. He is vulnerable in the West generally.

There should be a viable 3rd party candidate. This is something that could actually help BHO.

Incidentally, if BHO became President, our crooked Governor could appoint himself to that seat. If HRC becomes President, RFKjr wants to be appointed to that seat in NY.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 12:01 AM

The fact that only 2 Democrats have ever been elected in a year ending in an 8 is a random and meaningless statistic.

It’s far more significant to say that no black guys with Muslim-sounding names who have personal ties to radical afrocentric preachers and domestic terrorists have ever been elected president.

Is this a fair characterization? Whether it is or not, it remains to be seen that if our candidates are going to be negatively “painted” as something, that “painting” McCain as the same as Bush will be more successful or potent than what Obama can be “painted as.”

David’s analysis guaranteeing a Democratic victory—even if that Democrat is Obama—is like guaranteeing that you’ll win all night at the poker table if every hand you draw is a royal flush. If everything you imagine happens, then you’ll be right. But just because it could happen doesn’t mean it will, especially when other scenarios are actually far more likely.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at May 4, 2008 12:32 AM

ohrealy…I don’t get your years ending in 8 theory. There are only 5 elections a century that end in 8 so what are we talking 11-12 total? Sounds tin foilish or am I missing something?

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2008 12:40 AM

andy, the census always occurs in a year ending in 0, then there is a reapportionment of electoral votes. Democrats win more often in years ending in 2, 4, and 6 because the electoral college is closer to being proportional. Dems win less often in years ending in 8 and 0.

The 7 smallest states together have the same number of electoral votes as Illinois, and the 13 smallest states together have a voting strength in the electoral college which is double that of their population. Those are not generally places that people move to. They are places that people move away from. Any state with 3 electoral votes is never going to get fewer, but states with larger populations have to split up the rest.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 12:57 AM

ohrealy…thanks that makes more sense.

As far as viable 3rd party contenders it looks like Nader will be the only one. Paul, as last I heard, will not go that route thank god. Actually, in a way I wish he would…he does have many great ideas. We (conservatives) need to deal with our own situation. I was telling someone that if BO is as liberal as thay want us to think then that may be exactly what we need. Seems conservatives have become somewhat fat and lazy we may need a fire set under us.

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2008 01:14 AM

Loyal Opp, you offer the same arguments from the Right that were offered prior to the 2006 elections. Lo and behold, those arguments proved to be nothing more than unfulfilled wishful thinking.

But, you are in good company with ohrealy, who will bring tarot cards out next as proof of the McSame victory in 2008.

One difference in the paint between McCain and Obama, Obama distanced himself from revelations about his pastor, McCain just today was saying how he respects Pres. Bush and how they have had many things in common though many differences as well.

It’s a whole different paint. One weathers, the other just sticks and sticks with each reiteration of respect for Pres. Bush.

McCain can’t repudiate Bush without losing 15 to 20% of the GOP hard core. He can’t distance himself enough to avoid being McSame to Blue Dog Democrats and Independents.

Obama has distanced himself from the Right’s attempts to disqualify him for what his gardner, pastor, and banker think about things. And this week, the polls will evidence that distance and the failure of the Right to indict by association.

It caused some questions, but, those questions have been convincingly answered. Short sighted tactic that wore out its welcome before any real damage could be done, I think will be the outcome.

Sure does rancor many on the Right though, that a Black man might be president over their lilly white war hero. Such events though advance America beyond its foibles and weaknesses with change, which is what Obama represents, and what 81% of Americans now want.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2008 02:51 AM

andy said: “We (conservatives) need to deal with our own situation.”

A rational perspective from a conservative. About time. And so true. How do the conservatives capture control of the GOP, and how do they convince the American electorate of just what kind of conservative they are, and that they will not repeat the record of the past 14 years. McCain certainly does not move the conservatives along in this agenda. McCain, who will say and alter almost any position from conservative to liberal and liberal to conservative to garner support, is not the leader conservatives are looking for.

Any quick read of conservative think tanks demonstrates this in abundance.

And let’s make no mistake. With Democrats in control, America is going to desperately need a solid fiscal conservative GOP capable of producing fiscal conservative victories in Congress to keep Democrats from going off the deep end with power as Republicans did these last 14 years.

Where will such traditional fiscal conservative inroads be made to the GOP in coming elections? Rather difficult to see at this point. Who can conservatives trust among the GOP, so many of whom have made a personal wealth stepping stone out of public office to lobbyists for corporate America seeking its own brand of welfare from the Nanny State.

Ron Paul is a nut in conservative clothing. His ideas are predicated on taking America back to the post Civil War era of industrialization and manifest destiny. Turning back the hands of time for America while the rest of the world moves forward with innovation and great new measures of productivity, is simply nuts. Fruity! Or as Einstein said of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Ron Paul sounds good rhetorically so long as one does not ask critical questions about the consequences of actually doing what he proposes. He even had me going toward his side for about 1 week, until I asked what it would mean if America moved to commodity based money supply while the rest of the world continued along its balance of trade and productivity growth based money supplies and economies. Whoa! Talk about a dead end future. Ron Paul’s ideas would make this economic downturn feel like the great old days.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2008 03:11 AM

As for ohrealy’s numerology approach to predicting election outcomes, you may want to take it with a grain of salt. He is talking statistical correlations which aren’t all that reliable and have no causal predictive value whatsoever.

Anyone with a math degree will tell you that statistical correlations cannot depict causal relationships, and in an election year with so many variables unprecedented converging, statistical probability theory breaks down pretty damn fast in terms of reliability and validity.

This is an atypical election year. His stats create a picture based on regressions to the mean. In other words, they are based on more typical election cycle variables common to most historical election cycles.

And historical statistics are meaningless when confronted with real time present statistics that contradict the historical trends. 81% of the electorate believing the country is on the wrong track is a very atypical variable. A 27% approval rating for a lame duck president is a bit atypical and bodes poorly for the lame duck’s Party. An election conducted during an economic contraction is pretty atypical and doesn’t bode well for the Party whose control brought it on. A White population, the majority of whom want to believe that racism is in the past, confronted with both a female and Black candidates for president, is unprecedented, and therefore has no historical statistical pattern or numerology.

These are just some of the atypical variables in this election cycle, Iraq is another, paralleled only by the Viet Nam War in some ways. Rather atypical as historical stats and numerology of ohrealy’s sort goes.

But, hey, there are lots of folks who continue to believe in numerology, tarot cards, and the I-Ching. But, I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on their predictions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2008 03:27 AM

David

Sure does rancor many on the Right though, that a Black man might be president over their lilly white war hero. Such events though advance America beyond its foibles and weaknesses with change, which is what Obama represents, and what 81% of Americans now want.

The above statement pretty much says it all in a nutshell. While no politician in his right mind would dare mention the black man thing at a time when not being pc can be devastating to ones career, the undertones of their rhetoric is all too obvious.

I heard on NPR the other day that Bush is now officially the least popular president since such records have been kept. It only stands to reason that the refusal of republican legislators to abandon his policies will adversely affect their chances of retaining the status quo or making gains in November. The republican party is banking on a prolonged dem primary season working against the dems. I just do not see it. We all have our favorite candidate, but in the end the greater majority of us will without a doubt give our vote to the winner. After all conditions have not improved in this election year under Bush and an obstructionist republican party. People are not stupid. They are capable of recognizing that it has been a continuation of failed republican policy that has created and is sustaining domestic and international concerns.

Posted by: RickIL at May 4, 2008 09:43 AM

Numerology? The census always occurs in a specific year, then reapportionment of the SAME number of districts occurs, and the elections all occur in specific years. They are all numbers, and what has happened in the past is real. BHO is the new Dukakis, but much weaker. Is McCain’s ex wife going to come out and say that he beat her, like Brenda Sexton, or made her fool around in public with him, like Jeri Ryan? Because that’s how BHO got elected to the Senate?

Does this help you understand my meaning?
{ : > / ]

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 10:08 AM

McSame Vs. The Wright Stuff

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2008 10:25 AM

I heard on NPR the other day that Bush is now officially the least popular president since such records have been kept.

Too bad Bush isn’t running…

McCain, on the other hand, has a higher approval rating than the three ‘major’ candidates.

Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 46%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. For Clinton, the reviews are 48% favorable, 50% unfavorable. Those numbers reflect the best ratings for Clinton since March 12.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 11:49 AM

BTW, remember that the Libertarian Party candidate is not selected yet. *IF*, and this is a big one, Mike Gravel is selected, it will give many of those who are Democrats but very unhappy with whoever is ‘chosen’ as the Democratic nominee (regardless of the spin, the nominee is being chosen by a select few insiders) may decide to hitch their wagon to Gravel…

The general wisdom is that this fight can get dirty and those who say that they won’t vote for the ‘other’ candidate will eventually fall in line to prevent a Republican win in the fall. But, if there is another candidate on the ballot that has Democratic name recognition, will that make it easier for those disgrunteled Dems to choose another?

Interesting scenario, not at all likely IMO because I don’t think Gravel will be selected, but interesting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 11:54 AM

BTW, the infusion of race by David and RickIL is disgusting, IMO. Predictable and oft-repeated, but disgusting. Apparently, according to them, as has been pointed out before, if you are against Obama, you are a racist.

Then, if someone suggests that people are voting FOR Obama because of his race, that’s disgusting!

So sad. Especially from supporters of a candidate who says he wants to ‘heal the divide’. Of course, he has no problems breaking his own rhetoric apart when it comes down to needing to win as he did in Pennsylvania…

The problem with Obama is that he is a tailored and groomed politician. He was hand-picked early, taught how to speak to the voters and put up for election, then wins while his opponents are slandered and ran out of politics by things that members of his own party see no problem with. Then he says he is beholden to no one.

Right. And I have some swampland to sell…

Obama is not change. Obama is more of the same. Using the same rhetoric and talk of change that we hear from all of those congresscritters that get reelected year after year…

But, he’ll probably win and then try to blame everyone else but himself when he fails to bring about change.

What I like is that he is being voted for by people because he is ‘going to get us out of Iraq’. His plan, of course, is a phased withdrawl, over 16 months, that can be reveresed at any time if things like mass murder and genocide set in as we leave (they will).

So much for hope.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 12:12 PM

david

you tube, didn’t you just tell me credible sources are very important here at WB. seems like more of a source of propaganda. try this one, i think you’ll find it entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

Posted by: dbs at May 4, 2008 01:19 PM

On superdelegates, Jack is wrong, because the smaller states actually have more superdelegates by percentage, like the electoral college.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 02:17 PM

The situation in the Democratic Party could be summed up by the U2 Album title: All That You Can’t Leave Behind.

The simple fact is, the Clinton’s have had control of the larger party apparatus for quite some time. Their legacy has dominated the party for quite sometime. What they face in Obama’s insurgency is obsolescence. Obama’s fifty-state strategy stands to dilute their influence, and begin the handoff of the party to the younger generation, who really didn’t have much love for the status quo to begin with.

To the Clintons, they are the party, it’s saviors even. They expect a little more gratitude. The problem is, their base expects a bit more loyalty, both on policy and on politics.

They don’t want triangulation. Democrats don’t want imitation of the Republicans anymore. Electability is all they got left as an argument. They’re not respected on their record, which many regard as filled with too many capitulations to the Bush administration. They’re not respected on their politics, which many, even in the height of the Clinton years, though as being sold-out. They were respected for one reason: Clinton won two elections, one against a President who had won a war, and the other at a time when the Democrats were scraping the bottom after the Republican takeover.

The Clinton Mystique of being the comeback kids, the Michael Myers of political campaigns is part of why people favored and still favor Hillary.

The trouble is, she bounced back from defeat far too late, and now her only road to power leads through a dangerous path to the party.

As damaged as Obama is, he’s not getting blown out, and he has a commanding lead that she will not likely dent sufficiently to prevent his win.

Her survivalism, never-say-die attitude is working against her. The lengths she’s going to make her case that she should be the nominee are making it difficult for people to support her in the party. It’s been a trainwreck of a campaign for her. Whatever happens at the convention, she’s burned so many bridges it’s not even funny.

Not exactly what gets you support. People will not be able to ignore the loathing in the party for the Clintons.

Why would a party put forward a candidate whose campaign has been so riddled with weakness, who can’t seem to win states without leaving burning cars and smashed windows in her wake?

There’s a good chance that Obama can recover from the primary, and can warmly accept the base for the other candidate. Hillary, both in terms of the Primary and in terms of the general election, seems incapable of winning without destroying much of the potential support she needs later on to beat McCain and govern effectively later.

Obama really is the best candidate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 08:28 PM

David,

I find myself in an odd situation. I almost hope that Clinton does manage to pull out a win!

That’ll make it easier to throw a vote at Nader. And yet I may have to throw a vote at Nader even if Obama gets the nomination.

Issue #1 should be: “what shape are you going to leave the next generation(s) in”?

Posted by: KansasDem at May 4, 2008 08:40 PM

Clinton and Nader do not rank high on my list of people who deserve votes. Neither one cares about the issues enough to get past their politics. Nader intentionally went for states that had close margins, knowing that He would peel votes away from Gore. Why? Because Gore wasn’t as enthusiastic a supporter of the things he wanted as he wanted him to be. So, he decided to punish the voters with a Republican administration. He did a little bit too well with the last part.

And what is Hillary doing? We were doing good. We were more united as a party than we had been in generations. And now this. Winning is binary for her, a zero sum game. She doesn’t realize there is a such thing as a winning trajectory, a course one takes such that even the failure to gain an immediate victory doesn’t interfere with later chances for success. Look at Al Gore.

At the end of the day, people have to look beyond mere competitive sensibilities, because politics, and indeed human relations of all kinds cannot be defined purely in terms of competition. A party cannot exist purely on divisive terms. There must be something else that holds people together, and tells people what fights are the good fights, and what others aren’t worth it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 09:05 PM

Rhinehold

BTW, the infusion of race by David and RickIL is disgusting, IMO.

I accused no one of being racist. But since you bought the subject up it would be hard to deny that it exists. Racism is not only a black man thing. How many people have posted on these blogs referring to the word Muslim and Hussein as if they were words to be feared and hated? How many times has McCain denounced degrading ads directed at Obama which were all to conveniently aired without his knowledge? I have heard on more than one occasion local people voice their concerns about voting for a n——r. It is out there, that can not be denied. I would be willing to bet that there are good old boy politicians disgusted with the idea who voice their bigoted opinions in private circles. Republican and democrat alike. It would be foolish to think that racially we have evolved far enough that no one is opposed to a black man, or a woman for that matter in the seat of the presidency. The powers of this world are still primarily white and male and I am sure slow to willingly accept a person of non white ethnicity, or non male gender into their realm. Racism exists in this campaign. It is being used in a subtle back door manner that is not hard to see if one just takes a look. And no I am not saying that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. Actually I would think and hope that those who oppose him on views highly outnumber those who oppose him because of race.

Posted by: RickIL at May 4, 2008 09:19 PM

Neither one cares about the issues enough to get past their politics.

And Obama went negative, after he had vowed not to, just to eek out a double-digit loss in Pennsylvania. Because he knows that what Hillary says has some merit, about winning the larger states that matter when it comes to a vote.

And now that we know he will renege on that promise for political gain, what other ones will he renege on?

We were more united as a party than we had been in generations.

Obviously not, or Hillary wouldn’t have had the opportunity to be so close… You are expecting someone to drop out of the race when they are not that far behind and can still win the race, what sort of message does that give to the half of the voters that have voted for her?

The Democratic Party’s problems are not Hillary’s, they are the leadership’s. Trying to pawn them off on her because she is daring to question the annointment of Obama seems a little elitist to me, and a lot of other people as well, as does little to change that view of the party.

There must be something else that holds people together, and tells people what fights are the good fights, and what others aren’t worth it.

Agreed, and when the Democratic Party comes up with what those are, let us know…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 09:23 PM

I accused no one of being racist.

Read what I wrote. You infused race into the issue where it need not be. And then go on to say ‘now that you brought it up’?

Fortunately, everyone can read what you wrote. But incase you forgot, let me requote.

Sure does rancor many on the Right though, that a Black man might be president over their lilly white war hero. Such events though advance America beyond its foibles and weaknesses with change, which is what Obama represents, and what 81% of Americans now want.

The above statement pretty much says it all in a nutshell. While no politician in his right mind would dare mention the black man thing at a time when not being pc can be devastating to ones career, the undertones of their rhetoric is all too obvious.

FAIL.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 09:26 PM

Stephen,

Maybe Obama could make some significant change. But, that’s a big maybe!

I very much believe that anything the government is involved in must provide the most bang for the buck.

Will Obama’s plan truly provide the most bang for the buck? I think not!

At least McCain will move us faster toward total collapse ……………. then we can fix things right!

I will say, that if I’m faced with a decision between Obama and Nader, I’m undecided. If the choice is Nader or Clinton, my mind is made up!

I can NOT in good conscience vote for Hillary. PERIOD

Posted by: KansasDem at May 4, 2008 09:30 PM

BTW, you want to play? Let’s…

Racism is not only a black man thing

No it isn’t. How many people have you heard as well that said that are voting for Obama because he ‘knows what it is like to be a black man in America’. Basically, they think that only another black man can be their leader. And that one must be black for them to vote for them.

Now, is that racist? It sounds it to me.

How many black communities out there have white people elected to represent them? Please, if anyone would like to count that figure up and let me know, I would appreciate it, because I know of one here (that I live in, mostly black) that being black was a requirement for repesentation. For the Republican candidate to even present a challenge to the ensconsed representation he had to be black. What does that tell to the minority white (people like me) folk who live here?

Racism is bad and, as I have stated about a zillion times, a stupid and invalid concept to begin with. That psycologically damaged people direct their internal hatred outwards to others for whatever reason is bad enough, but to lend it credence instead of getting these people the help they need in order to use them for political gain is immoral.

So goes the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 09:32 PM

“the Clinton’s have had control of the larger party apparatus for quite some time”
In what sense is this a factual statement? Kossackers, please send us back the real Stephen Daugherty. Mr. Wu, how would you pronounce kossacker? OH, never mind the Deadwood videos.
“Obama’s fifty-state strategy” , here’s JFK on Nixon’s 50 state strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA

How did Howard Dean get to be the party chairman anyway? He is useless. Former SFO mayor Willie Brown was on PBS. He wants to negotiate a settlement on FL and MI.

Can the Greens please nominate anyone but Nader. Cynthia McKinney would be great, http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ , but I would even settle for Mountain Party Jesse Johnson.

The Libertarians can’t be serious about Gravel. Look at his performance in the primary. It smacks of desperation for them and him.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 09:59 PM

ohrealy,

I don’t know who we are going to nominate yet, that will be determined on July 4th. But I think there will be strong push by some for Barr/Gravel or Paul in some way, or Steve Cubby. I almost threw my name in but this year is bad for me with two deaths in the family late last year and the upheaval I am going through. Possibly 2012 though.

It is sad that Browne passed away, he was articulate, smart and very personable.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 10:19 PM

Rhinehold, pick a candidate that doesn’t look like a well-fed Scientologist. That was my impression of the Libertarians, when you went through this on Gravel a while ago. Paul is the most photogenic. After Stephanopolous interviewed him, I thought he might be in the log cabin. Now I think that was probably all George S.. Kubby looks like a character on the Sopranos. He better hire Annie Leibovitz if they nominate him. No, nothing substantive to say, just sarcasm. Might as well give Gravel his chance, but I don’t think he actually shares all of your views.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 12:01 AM

David, thanks for not beating me up too bad…I think. But yeah, I’d love to see a fiscally adept Rep. up there. I voted for Romney. Blah, but I kind of liked him. I kind of liked Dukakis too when I was a teenager so it is what it is I guess.

My thoughts on Paul are he could be just what this country needs right now. And I stress right now. Why not turn back the clocks for a few years? Lets get our ducks in a row then evaluate and go from there.

Posted by: andy at May 5, 2008 12:58 AM

Ohrealy

Sorry about that but actually you are wrong.

Super delegates are not like electoral college votes. They are based on Democratic leaders in the states. Hilary’s states have relatively more Democrats and more super delegates. Why don’t we just say that all the super delegates should vote the way their states did, and see what happens in the end.

We still have the disenfrancisement problem. Should super delegates from Michigan and Florida also be disenfrancised?

Posted by: Jackj at May 5, 2008 01:33 AM

Rhinehold said: “And Obama went negative, after he had vowed not to, just to eek out a double-digit loss in Pennsylvania. Because he knows that what Hillary says has some merit, about winning the larger states that matter when it comes to a vote.”

Interesting perspective. Here’s another one. Hillary pulled out a gun in her fight with Obama, and Obama pulled out a stun gun in self-defense. I have seen you personally become vitriolic in response to my critiques of your comments. Is this not a natural response for most people? And eminently understandable?

“And now that we know he will renege on that promise for political gain, what other ones will he renege on?”

The restraint Obama has shown has been rather uniquely controlled and bordering on some critics intimating he hasn’t the balls to stand up in a fight. Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position which Obama is painted in by his critics on all sides. But, critics aside, Obama has been inordinately civil and this race between Hillary and Barack, by historical standards, has been inordinately civil between the two of them. Which is saying a lot given the closeness of the competition.

Compare what each says of the other to what Republicans are airing against both of them. Makes the barbs between H and O appear like affectionate funning. But, his critics will attempt to make his restraint into a liability, as you do. Such is the nature of politics in America, and that is something Obama has worked to change and will continue to work to change, Americans pitted against Americans like junk yard dogs over a bone. That is one of the reasons he has earned my support. He is the first presidential candidate from the duopoly parties since the founding of the nation to give Party a back seat to the nation and the people. He has to do that deftly, but, for those who actually listen to him, he actually puts it in those terms. Pretty remarkable and admirable for a candidate of the duopoly parties.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 02:13 AM

Jackj said: “We still have the disenfrancisement problem. Should super delegates from Michigan and Florida also be disenfrancised?”

The phrasing of that question deceives. The correct question is: ‘Did the state parties in Mi. and Fl. disenfranchise themselves in their stubborn insistence on becoming among the first primary states?’ Michigan and Florida Democrats did this to themselves. And the Dem. candidates agreed to the rules they violated.

Haven’t we had enough of rules that ONLY apply to other people under the Republicans? It is time America got back to living by or being punished by the rules until such time as those rules are legitimately changed. Ignoring when inconvenient is a trademark of the Republican Party these last 8 years. I hope America will not elect another president who regards the rules as applicable only to others when they become inconvenient for one’s own personal agenda. Which leaves both Hillary and McCain out of the running.

McCain helped write the McCain-Feingold law before he decided it would not apply to him now that he is running for president. It has got to stop. We voters must stop it. Obama erred in stepping off the civility campaign path at the extreme pressuring of his advisors.

He has returned to the path recognizing his error, saying it didn’t feel right when he went on the attack toward Clinton. He brought himself back within his own rules, because he knows the rule he made for himself was the right one to begin with, even if it costs him the nomination. Winning is not something to give up one’s principles for. Can’t say that about McCain or Clinton.

That is integrity. You won’t find it like this in the actions and behavior of McCain or Hillary, who will stop at nothing to win as long as the potential is even remotely possible. You can find it in Obama, who acknowledges in public that winning is not everything. Winning is up to the people, not his spinsters, advisors, and surrogate’s attacks against the other candidates. If he wins, he wants it to be because it was the people’s wide eyed and undeceived choice. Then the people have skin in the game too, and will be more likely to hold up their end in the move toward change. If the people are hoodwinked into electing Obama, Obama knows he won’t be able to count on the people to carry their share of the load and sacrifice to move positive change forward.

This is a fundamental difference between the candidate Obama, and the politicians McCain and Clinton. A very fundamental difference. The latter two appear to believe everything and anything must be sacrificed in order to win, because if they don’t win, their changes won’t be imposed. Obama appears to believe that people must know what the candidate’s principles and purposes are and should hold that candidate responsible for living up to them, before and after they are elected. And if they can’t live up to them before they are elected, the people have an obligation to themselves not to elect that candidate.

I happen to agree entirely with Obama on this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 02:38 AM

Kansas Dem said: “I very much believe that anything the government is involved in must provide the most bang for the buck. Will Obama’s plan truly provide the most bang for the buck? I think not!”

I respect your opinion. Mine is different for the following exemplary reason.

McCain and Hillary are calling for a gas tax holiday for three months or so. First, this is pure political BS since they are not President and do not have the Bully Pulpit to back up that call. Congress is where they should be pushing this, not on the campaign trail. The voters won’t even get a say on the matter until November, months after the Summer holiday season is over.

Obama on the other hand is not pandering with such idle and empty campaign trickery. As a counter offer, he says the consumers must alter their wasteful habits, and the some of the money being wasted in Iraq must be repurposed toward R&D in viable alternatives which will yield generational independence from imported fossil fuels and fuels whose waste and byproducts become part of superfund clean up efforts in the future.

It sure ain’t as sexy as McCain’s and Clinton’s campaign gas tax holiday, but, it sure as hell is a whole lot more honest and realistic for consumer’s futures. Easy quick fix, or long run growth and sustainability. That’s the difference between Hillary/McCain and Obama on the campaign trail.

Another difference, which is rather obvious when you listen to the candidates. McCain says he wants to make open the door for Americans to help themselves, (if they can). (He leaves the parenthetical out, but, the implication is pregnant in his speeches). Hillary is forever saying what She will do for US, as if she were the second coming of Christ capable of working miracles without the people’s effort or cooperation. Then, listen to Obama. His speeches are all about how the people themselves in concert with their leaders must do the heavy lifting and sacrificing together to get to solutions and a better future.

For me, Obama knows what it will take, and again, it ain’t sexy to say the people must work with their leaders, and their leaders must work with the people to reach our common and necessary goals to a better future. But, it’s honest and absolutely true that a President can no more solve the entitlement crises or energy dependence and oligopolies threatening our future, than Peter Pan’s wishes. Those solutions will require sacrifice, a different set of priorities for spending and investment, and an enormous amount of pressure from the people upon their Congressional representatives to move toward these difficult solutions. They will be difficult because those wanting power will fight such solutions tooth and nail and with every dirty political trick in the book. Obama understands that we need a different political paradigm to take hold, one of cooperation, multi-partisan cooperation, and an enormous amount of public support and pressure to achieve viable sustainable and long term solutions. He is willing to move in that direction if the people are too.

For me, in this regard, Obama leaves McCain and Clinton eating his dust in this contest for America’s future. If he is elected, I don’t know if he can maximize the office of President to motivate such a direction for his cabinet, the Congress, and the people.

But, if we don’t try, we are a gutless and miserable lot for not having tried, IMO. And neither McCain nor Clinton even have such a vision or hope for our future, or this partnership between the people and their government, this different political paradigm, required to push the obstacles and derelicts to such a future aside.

We have been the recipients of politician’s promises of what they will do for us for decades with little to show for it. Here is a candidate in so many words saying he can’t do much if the people won’t do much, and if the people won’t do much, he is not the right candidate for the people, McCain or Clinton will be. That is a level of candor and honesty I have never witnessed by a political candidate before, save perhaps for Russ Feingold at times on the campaign trail, or Barry Goldwater.

If we don’t act differently, the consequences of our actions won’t differ much from what we have now. Corrupt government, ineffective leadership, and pandemic cynicism and pessimism amongst the people toward government and the future of their children in America. Obama proposes a different way of acting for government, politicians, and the people, with he hope that our future will not become a more dire extension of the neglect we now provide it.

A vote for Obama is a gamble, that’s for sure. But this gamble is vastly superior to the certainty of politics as usual, corruption as usual, and neglect of our future as usual, under either McCain or Clinton.

Just as the civil rights demonstrations in Mississippi and Alabama were an enormous gamble for a better future than the status quo Jim Crow and subjugation of minorities in the past. A different future requires acting differently in the present, and change always comes with risks. But, the old Wall Street cliche’ rings just as true: “Nothing risked, nothing gained.”

I like westerns, so I will put my perspective in terms of a ‘Dances with Wolves’ type metaphor.

A path newly cut can be very hard on wagon and driver. But it will always lead away from the path well rutted. If the ruts lead to a ghost town, it is best to risk breaking a wheel blazing a new road toward another destination, where hope at least has a chance of prospering.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 03:43 AM

Stephen Daugherty, your interpretation of the motives and actions of Nader remind me of the kind of Rovian explanation of Democrats.

Nader, as a candidate, had policy positions and complaints of the status quo, as any candidate running has. He championed those policies and complaints in a bid for office. By your logic, anyone who runs as an Independent or Third Party candidate who is successful in winning a portion of the electorate’s support is a spoiler with the basest and meanest of motives to ruin country and democracy.

That is of course, entirely preposterous and absurd, a perspective. In America, any person may run for office, and the simple fact of their winning enough support to change the outcome for other candidates in no way makes the case that this was the intent all along. Nader made his case for what he thought was wrong with American politics and government and THAT was his motive and intent. Occam’s razor, Stephen.

Just because your candidate lost, does not mean Nader entered to throw the race to the Republicans. He entered the race to give Americans an alternative to the status quo, and at great personal expense and labor. Nader had no more love for Republicans or Bush than he had for Gore and Democrats. Your ascribing these paranoid delusions of partisan motive is just unbelievable from someone who otherwise creates highly rational and well thought out logical perspectives on historical events.

Methinks you need to revisit your emotional responses to the past with some objectivity and critical analysis, now that the piercing disappointment of that race has diminished and will permit a rational evaluation, hopefully.

Can anyone deny the veracity of Nader’s rhetoric about the Big Oil and Big Pharma influence upon government today? Can anyone deny the veracity of the waste, fraud, abuse of tax payer dollars by Democrats and Republicans alike these last 8 years of Ethanol scams, Jefferson’s bribes on ice in his freezer, or the bipartisan rush to war in Iraq?

Nader was for Nader and intelligent voters who could see how bad things were getting under the Duopoly Party system for decades. To imply that he was for a Republican victory simply astonishes. Nader did what he has done all his professional life, bring light to what’s wrong with our government, our political, and economic systems, as a lawyer, as a worker’s rights advocate, and as a candidate for office. Nader’s mission did not change one iota from his campaign GM and Ford in the 1960’s and 1970s’s to his presidential campaign in the 21st century.

I really am amazed at such a blinded partisan bias on your comment’s part when it comes Nader. He didn’t win. But, he did as much to raise the electorate’s discontent with the status quo as Al Gore did for environment. They are both heroes in my view. Nice guys sometimes finish last. Get over it and assert some objectivity on this part of history.

The fact that his candidacy might have a negative impact on Gore’s chances of winning was only knowable in hindsight of election results, and utterly inconsequential to his mission which had nothing to do with throwing the race into one Duopoly camp or the other. He was true to his mission to raise awareness of the corruption and waste by politicians of both parties and why American taxpayers can ill afford such waste anymore. And he was right, then, and he is still right today.

And his mission is as valuable today, if not nearly as impactful. So valuable in fact, that Obama’s campaign mirrors a fair amount of Nader’s views. Obama however, has a far more charismatic and communicable ease on these views and a more optimistic and hopeful message than Nader ever had. Obama makes Nader’s campaign fairly irrelevant this time around, as Obama champions many of Nader’s issues, but as a Democrat instead of as an Independent.

Your arguing that Nader should have dropped out in 2000 to keep from hurting Gore makes about as much sense as my saying now that Obama should drop out to keep from hurting Nader’s chances. They both should run if they choose to, and the people should decide amongst the choices available to them. Its called an open democracy, Stephen. Its a good thing. Not a bad thing as you imply by your sinister projection of motives into Nader’s bid in 2000 as anything more than Nader choosing to run on issues of concern to him and his constituency.

The day Americans decide certain people should not run for office because they might affect the race by other participants in that race, is the day America needs to quit calling itself a democracy. Busting through such biases requires the most stringent of measures. I have conjured the most stringent I am capable of at this time.

Hope my time was worth it. If not, I gave it my best and it isn’t for lack of that. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 04:25 AM

dbs said: “you tube, didn’t you just tell me credible sources are very important here at WB. seems like more of a source of propaganda.”

Man, what a dense comment. My link was, as you say, and as I said, to a partisan ad. The ad itself was not linked to in my article as a source of credibility of fact. It was linked to as a source of political persuasion or propaganda as you call it, that is going to flood the media in this election against McCain by Democrats and their surrogates who will have thrice the money if not more for such ads.

If propaganda lacks any truth at all, it fails as propaganda. This ad, while not factual, hits upon a kernel of truth which the general public can relate to. McCain is a war hawk. That is unquestionably true. This ad hits upon that truth, even though it takes McCain’s comment out of context. McCain’s comment even out of context speaks to a fundamental truth. That truth is that McCain has no problem with exporting American taxpayer dollars to foreign nations as his FIRST priority for American tax dollars. That is a truth that is exemplified by McCain’s own words and campaign priorities. That is what will make that ad effective propaganda.

Actually, I find it audacious of Republicans to have Swiftboated Kerry the way they did, and now act incensed when the opposition takes advantage of McCain’s innumerable flip flops and direct quotes in the Swiftboating McCain in the very same manner. McCain is one of the least capable Republican candidates to run against a Democrat in an election year which finds the electorate very much in favor of Democrats as a change. But, hey, that was Republican’s choice. They will now have to live with the consequences of that choice.

More importantly, they will have to live with having taught the old Democrat dog this new Swiftboating trick. What goes around in politics is guaranteed to come around at the very first opportunity. And MoveOn.Org is wasting no time taking advantage of those opportunities.

Obama is out there saying this is not how we should go about selecting leaders. Perhaps you may want to consider voting for Obama. McCain would have tried to hang Obama with the quotations of Obama’s tailor or gardener if he could have, as he did with Obama’s pastor. If you protest this kind of politics, you really should consider Obama who is trying to change all that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 04:43 AM

David

Re disenfrancising voters in Michigan and Florida - your comment re that did it to themselves is interesting. Didn’t we have a lot of gnashing to teeth when Dems cried that some voters in Flordia couldn’t figure out how to vote or find polling places? They did it to themselves too.

As I told Stephen, I don’t have a problem with sticking to rules of elections. Elections are statistical, not metaphysical. I just want to keep on repeating this so that the Dems will have a harder time giving us crap next time they lose an election.

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2008 06:09 AM

You infused race into the issue where it need not be.

First of all I know exactly what I wrote. And you certainly are welcome to read into it what you want. You also made the claim that I was inferring that all who oppose Obama must be racist. I did no such thing. Your interpretation of my intent is not accurate. My thought was directed at David not you. I was merely attempting (apparently poorly) to make the point that I am not a fan of skirting around such issues and that I understood what David was saying. I do not like the idea of having to be pc to avoid what in reality exists but supposedly is taboo. I find it disgusting that one can not even present the idea of race into a viewpoint, as though ignoring the issue means it does not exist.

Posted by: RickIL at May 5, 2008 08:22 AM

Jack-
Well, you say we did it to ourselves, but there’s one problem with Florida: Namely, you guys control it. You’re the ones who moved that primary, having been warned of the consequences by both parties. So, once again, Republicans are responsible for another political mess in Florida. Keep that up, and you might not be able to create any additional messes.

On the subject of Michigan, I think most people understand whose fault it is that their votes will not count in the primary. The state hasn’t gone Republican for a long time, and if McCain tries selling them his current economic agenda, it won’t likely go in the Red column.

The real question here is why you continue to try and push this notion of disenfranchisement. The alternatives here are: hold an insecure election which is open to fraud and irregularities, or accept the results of an election where all candidates currently in the race pledged not consider the results valid or campaign, including a campaign where everybody but Clinton took their name off the ballots. Gee, that’s giving people their franchise?

Elections must be fair, the results must be secure from interference, and candidates must be given the chance to campaign. The Democratic Party will work something out, but those who wanted a revote in Michigan and Florida waited too long, and worked too inflexibly to get it.

There’s a difference between here and what happened in Florida in 2000. The Bush campaign actively interfered with the recount, both legally and with stunts like the Brooks Brothers Riot and having John Bolton walk into a counting room and telling them to shut it down. This wasn’t a primary, where it was essentially the party’s business, but a general election, where it was the public’s final choice for the office at stake. Your people parsed what a real vote was so finely that the term “hanging chad” entered our vocabulary.

So let’s speak of disenfranchisement. I’m ready to have that discussion with you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 10:15 AM

Jack, This was my source on the superdelegate count:

SuperdelegatesbyState.pdf

If you’re still having bandwidth problems and can’t view a pdf file, this is the page translated to html by yahoo:

super+delegates+state+states+william+arnone

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 10:17 AM

ohrealy, that smarts! Facts and evidence to change a Republican’s opinion? Many of them would resent the hell out of that, ya know. They’d call it elitism or East coast intellectualism, or something a whole lot worse than that, as if that ain’t bad enough for a Republican voter. Folks sure are funny in America when you try to make sense of their actions and ideas about things.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 11:57 AM

david

“Nader, as a candidate, had policy positions and “complaints of the status quo, as any candidate running has. He championed those policies and complaints in a bid for office. By your logic, anyone who runs as an Independent or Third Party candidate who is successful in winning a portion of the electorate’s support is a spoiler with the basest and meanest of motives to ruin country and democracy.”

absolutely correct, no one likes to see there candidate lose because of a third party candidate that pulled in votes they feel would have otherwise gone to thier candidate. to accuse that candidate of being a spoiler shows the arrogance of the two major parties, and thier supporters who seem to feel no one else has the right to reach for the brass ring. this is even more evident by the lengths the two parties will go to try to exclude the third party candidate.

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2008 11:58 AM

david

“Man, what a dense comment.”

don’t hold back david tell me what you really think. i understood why the you tube link was there david, i just think it’s sad that this is what politics has become.

“Perhaps you may want to consider voting for Obama. McCain would have tried to hang Obama with the quotations of Obama’s tailor or gardener if he could have, as he did with Obama’s pastor. If you protest this kind of politics, you really should consider Obama who is trying to change all that.”

nope aint gonna happen. his stand on gun control, and taxes are just two of the reasons i could never vote for him. lets not forget illegal imigration. unfortunately david i don’t really have a candidate in this election. i don’t see much hope for the future regaurdless of wich of these three are elected.

i don’t like how nasty elections are, but that isn’t going to change. could you imagine an election cycle where the candidates did nothing debate the issues in an intelligent manner. i also think many good and honest people never run for office because of the microscope they, and thier families would be put under. what a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2008 12:21 PM

Ohrealy

Thanks for the note. I asked the question about how the superdelegates would add up if they all voted with their states. Your source answers that by doing the math.

Of course, the race still is not over and we still have the question about disenfrancising not only the voters of Michigan and Florida, but also the super delegates.

The super delegates are NOT allocated like the electoral college however. For example, Samoa, Virgin Island and “unaffilated” have delegates, but they have no electoral vote at all.

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2008 12:50 PM

dbs-
Oh, it’s not resentment talking. I read a book called Gaming the vote : why elections aren’t fair (and what we can do about it) which documented Nader’s intentional efforts to find states where the votes were close and campaign there to draw away green voters. The author, William Poundstone, described how an official with the Green Party discussed with him drawing votes from safe states just to show they they could do it, and Nader instead insisted on campaigning in the states where he could do the most damage. He really did set out to punish Gore and the Democrats, and the spoiler effect is very real.

The thing is, if you have one candidate who has most all of one block of voters, and another who has to share voters with a candidate of similar politics, then a candidate supported by a minority of the body politic can become the winner. That’s why the two party system thrives, despite all the problems: The larger alliance always wins, even if it doesn’t reflect the majority.

Jack-
Clear something up for me: I know you’re misunderstanding the nature of what went on in Michigan and Florida (especially concerning your party’s part in the Florida fiasco), but it seems like you’re telling us that what you think we did (that is disenfranchising voters) was right under those circumstances. Are you advocating the disenfranchisement of voters for political benefit?

And if it’s wrong, why did your Republican Governor and Republican Legislature not act faster to set up a primary that would give voters back that voice which you say has been taken from them?

The voters in those states will vote in the general election. It is sad that the Democratic Parties in those states, and the state governments did not cooperate with the National party to ensure that the primaries were held in compliance with the party’s regulations. But unless we want states leapfrogging each other for first, we have to enforce the rules. Democratic Voters should focus their ire not on the National Party, which did what it was supposed to do, but instead on the State parties and governments, which knowingly took actions that forced the national party’s hand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 04:46 PM

Jack, the interesting thing about Michigan was how clearly it showed BHO’s base of support. Only two counties did not go for HRC out of the FOUR Democrats on the ballot. The large one was Washentaw, which is Ann Arbor. However, David Axelrod wants at least half the Michigan delegates for BHO, based on polls.

BHO’s supporters don’t have a leg to stand on in FL, but they want more affirmative action there too, like the results would have been any different if the primary was on Super Tuesday.

I haven’t look into the delegates won by the other candidates, but I don’t see how they can be counted on to vote with BHO, if they didn’t want him in the first place.

All that being said, if HRC doesn’t blow him out of the water tomorrow, she should suspend campaigning. She doesn’t because she knows too much, but can’t let Howard Wolfson off the leash or have his fingerprints on anything, because it could damage the party.

HRC could win against McCain in 2012, and would have the “I told you so” factor in her favor, or the Rpblcns might dump McCain in four years. The Dems kept telling them to nominate someone like McCain, and barring accidents, they are going to do it.

McCain still has problems with his party. I was pretty surprised looking at his figures in the western states, even AZ. If Idaho and Oregon prove stubborn, he has no choice but to have Romney for VP. The LDS church was really looking forward to becoming mainstream this year, after what happened with Orrin Hatch previously.

This could be a great year for Third and Fourth Party candidates. The Greens should forget that any such person as Nader exists. If the Libs pick Gravel, youtube could be a big support for him.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 04:55 PM

stephen

there’s no doubt in my mind that the effect is real. i just don’t believe a nader, or any other candidate would enter the race( especialy considering how time consuming, and expensive it is,) just to take votes away from another candidate. i find most greens to be more closely aligned with democrats, although i’m sure there are exceptions. by taking votes away from the dem. nominee they’re more likely to end up with the rep. kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face. i also feel that both the dems and the reps claiming spoiler whether it be nader, or perot shows the arrogance of these two parties, and there attitudes that they are the only ones who have a right to run for office in this country. the spoiler effect is IMHO more sour grapes, and whinning then anything else.

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2008 06:29 PM

dbs said: “nope aint gonna happen. his stand on gun control,”

You got me there. Obama has his head up his butt on the 2nd Amendment and immigration (legal and illegal) issues. Though he did vote FOR the bill to build the 700 miles of border barriers to his credit, his vision of the problem lacks a permanent solution. Not sure if that is a political calculus to win votes, or, a true lack of vision on the issue. Once he is elected, we will find out.

Of the three imperfect candidates, his view of his role as president commands my support for his candidacy over the other two. Betting on the future is always accompanied by a certain amount of risk. Voting is actually a fairly brave act as it requires this kind of investment in a choice with inherent risk associated with the candidate.

Minimizing the risks associated with one’s voting choice through a rational weighing of the pros and cons I believe is the duty and responsibility of every American voter. We are a long, long way from that ideal being realized.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 06:53 PM

ohrealy said: “Jack, the interesting thing about Michigan was how clearly it showed BHO’s base of support.”

No. The interesting thing is that Obama’s name was not on the ballot and Obama did not campaign in Michigan because it had disqualified itself by DNC rules. When anonymous is on the ballot, it is not logical or fair to judge anonymous’ base of support on their anonymity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 06:57 PM

Stephen D. said: “The author, William Poundstone, described how an official with the Green Party discussed with him drawing votes from safe states just to show they they could do it, and Nader instead insisted on campaigning in the states where he could do the most damage.”

Your prejudice on this knows no bounds of logic or rationality.

First, it was Nader’s campaign, not the Green Parties. To say Nader should have followed the Green Party’s advice is akin to saying Democrats are fools for not following the advice of Karl Rove. Nader insisted on campaigning in the states where he could potentially draw the greatest attention and votes to his campaign. He did not have the coffers of the DNC or RNC to advertise, and had to rely on publicity to get his campaign noticed. Campaigning in states where his candidacy would generate the greatest headlines was a no brainer. Any candidate with a lick of sense in Nader’s financial shoes would have decided the same way, to get the most bang for the least buck.

Your perspective on this appears really incredibly biased by your partisanship. Your argument essentially says Nader should not have run, especially in any way that might have negatively affected Gore’s campaign and helped his own.

This is the height of irrational partisan prejudice and projection of unfounded nefarious motives more readily observed in Republicans arguments against Democrats. Not dissimilar from Republican’s attempts to project Pastor Wright’s motives on Obama to suit their own political objectives. You do the same with Nader’s campaign.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 07:13 PM

dbs-
No, actually, it’s been documented. Nader choses select states for his campaign, and said as much to others, and Perot was aiming to undermine support for Bush. It’s not sour grapes to say this. That was their intent.

To their mind the objective is to punish parties for not considering their platform, with the hopes that the parties adopt platform changes in subsequent elections. If you’re a minor party without much hope of winning the election outright, it’s a strong tool to have in close elections, and I don’t blame people for using it.

Which is not to say I enjoy having it employed on my party! It’s naive to think that these people aren’t going to play these politics. It’s been done time and time again.

The major parties, if they want to avoid this trouble, need to play for better than marginal victories. I agree with what Nader said earlier: if, with all the advantages we come into this election with, his candidacy makes a difference in the election, we probably deserve to lose it.

If we want to minimize the spoiler effect, the parties have to be more dynamic in their approach, so they are less sensitively dependent on one or two states.

ohrealy-
Clinton, if she gets those delegates, will get them without having campaigned for them, without having competed against other candidates for them. She signed a promise, a pledge saying she would neither campaign in those states or accept those delegates.

What she wants to do, by that logic, is break her pledge, her sworn pledge not to count those elections, and seek delegates she did not campaign for, With Obama voters having been denied the opportunity to vote for their candidate. This is “enfranchisement for me, but not for thee.”

There will be no revote. Delegates will be seated, but the party will likely work out a compromise of some kind. I believe it is does not reflect well on her that in her desperation to win she’s made what could have been an easy, inconsequential healing of the problem into a partisan problem. I like even less that she used the primaries as a test range for long range attacks that can and will be turned against Democrats later on.

It is especially galling to me, since one of my reasons for backing Obama is his backing of the resurgence of the Democratic Party. I wanted us to break free of this crap, and here she comes and as a Democrat, starts opening those old wounds and giving the Republicans license to take shots at us over them. Where’s her loyalties? What are the natural results of such politics other than to lead us right back to the same policy attitudes that got us in the mess with Bush in the first place, which made us such a ridiculously lame opposition party?

I will be glad to put her candidacy behind us, because she does not have the best interest or the future of our party at heart, other than to try and recreate a golden age of the past that not only is dead, but which also got us into the situation we’re now in. The 90’s are gone, and will not come again. The time has come to take the necessary risks and move forward from the politics of the past.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 07:26 PM

David R. Remer-
The book details that he did research of which states he could make his strongest statements in. Nader was the Green Party candidate. Only after that did Nader and the Party go their separate ways.

Another man suggested an option that he said resembled a plan that was once in place for using the atomic bomb: they would invite a delegation of the Japanese government to witness the test.

Afterwards, the logic went, the Japanese would know that they could not win. The bomb could be used without the loss of life, the logic went. The logic of the one green party official was they could show what kind of draw they were capable of getting, and tell the Democrats, “next time, we use it where it hurts.”

Instead, Nader intentionally used it where it hurt. Politically, it was a powerful move. Practically, it was the worst thing he could have done for his cause. Am I wrong? Did George Bush not end up being what you could practically call the Anti-Nader? On every count, environment, labor, product safety, and more, Bush set back all of the causes years. We are in deep trouble because of Nader’s actions. His punishment was a little too effective, his disregard for his interest in favor of his politics too counterproductive.

Should we not consider the practical effects of our strategic voting? As much as I dislike Hillary, if she is the Democrat, I will support her because McCain is worse. Making a political point, to me, is less important than ensuring practical political progress.

That is the burden of a third party voter, unless and until, that third party becomes large enough that it can score at least a plurality in the national election. Do you vote your interest, or do you vote your politics?

I leave that to the judgment of the third party voter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 07:40 PM

I thought Boeing’s big bungled border barrier was a complete disaster.

With both major parties nominating candidates that are not that well liked in their respective parties, it looks like a good opportunity for 3rd and 4th parties. It seems like the Greens and Libs could get some brand names to run, who might get enough publicity to help build the parties.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 07:47 PM

Why are people carping about Michigan? My point is that BHO’s strongest support was in Ann Arbor. If he had any self-confidence, he would just accept the results in FL and MI and try to persuade delegates instead of looking for more affirmative action beyond the proportional representation. MI might be in the bag for the general election, but Florida surely isn’t.

I’ve gone 3rd party twice in presidential elections when I didn’t like the Democratic candidate, Carter in 76 and Dukakis in 88. People have the right to vote for themselves if they want, or write in anyone else.

The Democratic party should focus its attention on getting rid of the electoral college, or promoting the National Popular Vote movement in the state legislatures. It would benefit the party in the short term, and weaken the party system in the long term, allowing more freedom for development of additional parties.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 08:06 PM

As far as viable 3rd party contenders it looks like Nader will be the only one. Posted by: andy at May 4, 2008 01:14 AM

Andy, I do believe this is the first time in this thread a third party was mentioned. Strange, considering the all knowing, all seeing, experienced author/editor of the third party column is so committed to his third party causes.

Well, you say we did it to ourselves, but there’s one problem with Florida: Namely, you guys control it. You’re the ones who moved that primary, having been warned of the consequences by both parties. So, once again, Republicans are responsible for another political mess in Florida. Keep that up, and you might not be able to create any additional messes. Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 10:15 AM

I thought the Democtatic party was it’s own entity, and the Democratic Party had complete control of over the rules and was well within it’s rights to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan! But now the self-appointed spokesdrone is complaining about the state not playing fair! What happened to autonomy, independance? Is it dependent on the state? If you want the state to pay for picking your leaders for you, then you just have to dance with the one’s that brought you.

The voters in those states will vote in the general election. It is sad that the Democratic Parties in those states, and the state governments did not cooperate with the National party to ensure that the primaries were held in compliance with the party’s regulations. But unless we want states leapfrogging each other for first, we have to enforce the rules. Democratic Voters should focus their ire not on the National Party, which did what it was supposed to do, but instead on the State parties and governments, which knowingly took actions that forced the national party’s hand.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 04:46 PM

OOOHHH! Forced the national party’s hand. OOOHHHH I’m scared.
If you want to hold your party’s primary in compliance with your party’s regulations then pay for your party’s primary yourselves and hold it whenever your party wants.

and the state governments did not cooperate with the National party to ensure that the primaries were held in compliance with the party’s regulations.

How Hamiltonian of you, Stephen Daugherty. It’s a good thing you can form an army and go bring those folks back in line! They’re gonna start thinkin’ fer themselves perty soon!

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2008 03:11 AM Ron Paul is a nut in conservative clothing.

There would be times, Mr. Remer, when playing pool I would be in command of the game and am looking at my opponent’s next shot, only to be suprised to see the que ball hitting a ball I couldn’t even see. It was in my blind spot. I can usually set this blind spot on an object certain distances from me by looking past it or slightly away from it. I could actually make a pool ball disappear off of the pool table. Of course, I had to hold my eyes exactly the way needed to acheive this, except when I was focusing on something else and the ball my opponent was shooting at happen to fall into the blind spot.
Games turn on stuff like that.

Fruity! Or as Einstein said of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

This is strange also. I expected the lesson-learning extractions from life long experiences involving the subject and a dependent. But I get a name-calling one-liner. Somebody’s getting tired of his cover.

Ron Paul sounds good rhetorically so long as one does not ask critical questions about the consequences of actually doing what he proposes. He even had me going toward his side for about 1 week, until I asked what it would mean if America moved to commodity based money supply while the rest of the world continued along its balance of trade and productivity growth based money supplies and economies. Whoa! Talk about a dead end future. Ron Paul’s ideas would make this economic downturn feel like the great old days.

OOps! I guess that was the lesson-learning extraction of unlimited experience… You should consider asking someone other than yourself, Mr. Remer.

Nixon left the gold standard and a “PetroDollar” was formed. I say that without the links and hoopla for brevity’s sake. And for the fact, a limited number of links are allowed in one post.

What exactly is a commodity based currency if it isn’t the petrodollar? You’re a little late in your thinking, Mr. Remer! And you have Ron Paul’s position on a constitutional currency based on gold and silver all wrong.

His ideas are predicated on taking America back to the post Civil War era of industrialization and manifest destiny.

Another interesting point! You mention “industrialization” like it’s a plague. Odd isn’t it, if I were to say there is a coincidence with the birth of the global warming conspiracy and the export of industry from this country? They both started in the 70’s.
Hee Hee. We’re going to hide from polution by moving it somewhere else!

It was the 1970’s, ladies! That’s when it started.

Turning back the hands of time for America while the rest of the world moves forward with innovation and great new measures of productivity, is simply nuts.

You’ve got it all wrong, Mr. Remer. The rest of the world is making the mistakes we made 100 years ago. We can be a road block to massive corporate control of the world or we can be taken over by the massive corporation called The World.
Ron Paul has the common sense to think we should stay in touch with our roots, the constitution, and what it stands for. Looking back and taking a rest are good things. They’re good for moral. They’re good for perspective.

Fruity! Or as Einstein said of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

That’s what you’re doing, Mr. Remer. You’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Just shift your eyes a little bit. See what’s there in the blind spot?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2008 10:16 PM

Stephen said: “Politically, it was a powerful move. Practically, it was the worst thing he could have done for his cause. Am I wrong?”

Yes, and power commands media attention, and media attention to his candidacy and campaign speeches was precisely what he had to do given the incredibly limited budget. It was a decision to enhance his own campaign. It only appeared malicious to the candidate who lost votes to him, in this case, a Democrat. I doubt you would claiming malicious intent if Nader had cost GW Bush votes.

In my opinion, you are wrong. One doesn’t seek a cure for a disease one does not know one has. Nader highlighted the disease. Gore’s loss and Bush’s victory, highlighted the disease, corruption of the Constitution and law, waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars by Congress persons on both sides of the aisle. But, if you ask me, you are wrong because the outcome of 2000 and 2004 nailed the coffin shut on the Grand Old Party.

Sometimes in history, enough rope is required to allow the bad guys to hang themselves with their own intentions and contradictions. Which is precisely what 8 years under Bush and 4 years of Congressional Republican rule demonstrated to current voters and new voters alike en masse. It felt like defeat to Democratic partisans. But, if Democrats now perform exceptionally better than the Republicans did, those defeats in 2000 and 2004 were actually blessings in disguise for Democrats for many elections to come.

If Gore had won, or Kerry had won, and the current mortgage crisis recession had hit, which it would have in all liklihood, the public would still be looking for some more Republican fiscal conservativism in response. The public now knows what that is good for.

I don’t mean to suggest that I believe the Democratic Party of 2000 or 2004 was much better than the GOP. I do mean to suggest, that the Republicans provided the Democratic Party the benefit of seeing the public’s response to wholesale political partisanship and greed. If the Democratic Party has a lick of sense, they will engage in self-policing their party and incumbent seats as if their future depended upon it. Which it does.

Some Democrats don’t have a lick of sense, though, and perceive this election as the public having no choice, and therefore the Dems have a lock by default. That might make sense if the majority of voters identified with the GOP and Democratic Party. But, the majority does not. Democrats have a very tentative hold and short lease on power in response to Republican failures galore. But, if the big D Party doesn’t capitalize on refashioning itself as the Party of sound economic and fiscal and foreign policy management, there will be other Naders to ruin the Democratic Party on future election days.

I believe from Obama’s perspectives on the campaign trail, that he truly and thoroughly understands this incredible opportunity not only for the nation but for the Democratic Party as well, to leave behind the old status quo power sharing arrangement with the GOP for mutual corrupt gains, and fashion the Democratic Party as the new responsible watchdog and ship’s pilot for the nation in troubled waters.

Nothing about Hillary’s rhetoric lends itself to this kind of understanding of the unique opportunity to alter the shape and character of the Democratic Party and American politics for several generations to come. Her mindset is still rooted in the concept of the Duopoly Party power sharing arrangement based on divisiveness and obstruction as essential to that power sharing arrangement.

And McCain is steeped in the old politics of adopting whatever position is required to acquire power, and having obtained it, do whatever the hell he wants with that power.

You say “We are in deep trouble because of Nader’s actions.”

That is factually absurd. The trouble came as a direct result of Republican actions, not Naders. Nader lost, and therefore never had the power to create these problems.

In a 3 party race for president, the victor must win over both the other party’s candidates. It is folly to argue that global warming would not be a problem were it not for fossil fuel in the ground. Fossil fuel is in the ground, just as Nader was in the race. What one does with realities is what shapes one’s future.

It is illogical to construct the argument that if it weren’t for Christ, there would have been no Crusades or Inquisition. These pariahs in history were not Jesus’ fault for having been born and lived. Anymore than it was Nader’s fault that Gore lost and Bush won.

Stephen said: “Making a political point, to me, is less important than ensuring practical political progress.”

What good is practical political progress in America if America has to abandon the democratic process to achieve it? That’s the same kind of contorted logic Bush used to justify torture. The ends justifies the means. Your Party is at a crossroads. It must not, you as a Democrat must not, fall prey to the same ends justifies the means mental gymnastics that would subvert what is great in America to keep it great.

Preventing Nader from running as was his right as an American citizen, or villifying him for having exercised that right, does not speak well of you or Democrats. Not if you and Democrats desire to be respected as defenders of the free democratic process of electing government leaders from any and all who would care to run for office.

Your position on this matter is why many of us Independents see little difference between Democrats and Republicans, viewing them as one Duopoly Party dedicated to power regardless of sacrifice of our noble American traditions and ideals to achieve it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 11:29 PM

Weary Willie, your response lacks any counterpoint or cogency whatsoever. I said:

Ron Paul sounds good rhetorically so long as one does not ask critical questions about the consequences of actually doing what he proposes. He even had me going toward his side for about 1 week, until I asked what it would mean if America moved to commodity based money supply while the rest of the world continued along its balance of trade and productivity growth based money supplies and economies. Whoa! Talk about a dead end future. Ron Paul’s ideas would make this economic downturn feel like the great old days.

To which you reply:

OOps! I guess that was the lesson-learning extraction of unlimited experience… You should consider asking someone other than yourself, Mr. Remer.

Which responds to NOT a single statement in my quote. If you want to debate, debate what is said, the points contained within. Otherwise, your non-response responses are a waste of electrons and any attempts at comprehension. You may think you response clever, but, objectively, it was nothing more than a dodging of any response to any of the points made.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2008 11:40 PM

Weary Willie-
Actually, it is the Republican’s doing. You see, the Democratic Party doesn’t typically run the primaries, the states do. A Republican Governor and a Republican Legislature shifted the primary date. Had they not, the campaigns would have been held and Florida would have counted towards the nomination. Michigan was different circumstances, though, which is why I don’t leve the same accusation about Michigan.

Beyond your dramatics, the simple fact remains that the Democratic party would find its regulations little respected in practice or in sentiment, if they just allowed the states to do what they want, or suddenly undid the punishment.

The Democrats were looking into ways to pay for the primary, but the votes on all this came too late in the season. You can’t just wave a magic election one and just hold one. To keep it secure, fair, and able to handle the workload, you have to organize it in advance.

David R. Remer-
It doesn’t appear malicious, it is malicious to us. He specifically aimed to tip the election, to hurt us. That’s malice. But its a free country. You can dislike the two main parties. I’m not a Democrat because I like the leaders in Washington, to be sure.

I might actually attribute the same motives to Bush if Nader had drawn from him with the aim of changing the direction of the state his way.

All that said, I can’t say my motives concerning other politicians are always nice and pleasant.

Speaking of that, Nader was no cure, and 2000 and 2004 were not predictably nails in the GOP coffin. Had Bush been a better leader, his political realignment might have been longer lasting. Then what? Meanwhile, even as an incompetent, foolhardy leader, he’s done tons of damage.

Nader’s action contributed to the mess. He didn’t create the whole mess, no doubt, but he did play a critical role in shifting the balance of power. We may argue the silver lining of the Bush cloud, but that doesn’t take away from the reality of the damage done, the causes set back.

I encourage people to vote their conscience, but to engage their conscience in a more multilevel way. Go ahead and vote, but consider both your politics and your policy aims, and don’t endanger your policy goals for your political ones. Politics is merely a way of structuring communication about issues to maximum effect. Policy is the end that our efforts work toward.

Sometimes that means voting for one of us. Sometime that means voting your party. Don’t fear that I want to take your party away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2008 12:01 AM

WW said : “You’ve got it all wrong, Mr. Remer. The rest of the world is making the mistakes we made 100 years ago.”

And China is following America’s blueprint for becoming an economic giant by growing BOTH its middle class and productivity to become the world’s largest manufacturer nation. Malaysia, UAE, India, Taiwan are also outcompeting America’s productivity. And Japan and India are becoming the new innovators in the world in everything from medical to robotics and automated systems technologies.

To view the rest of the world’s foibles without also acknowledging their incredibly growing strengths and competitiveness is myopic, or Ostrich like tunnel vision. Even European countries are poised to steal Green technology away from America if America does not pull together and pool its resources to making Green technology our primary export innovation and technology.

China is making the pollution mistakes America made 100 years ago, but, China will be buying the technology to correct those mistakes from Great Britain, France, Sweden and Norway if the U.S. does not get its Uncle Sam hat and goatee out of its butt. America is letting so many opportunities pass it by with this incessant obstructionism between the two major parties and their competing economic models for how to screw it all up in favor of one party over the other.

Obama has a better idea. Bring the best and brightest regardless of party affiliation together to create solutions that solve more problems than they in turn create. Swapping nuclear waste for carbon waste does not solve the essential problem. The Europeans know this, which is why they are investing in waste-less innovations, technologies and energy sources. While America still argues over more fossil fuel production or nuclear energy, and whether global climate change is a natural or human contributed event which can be mitigated.

It is America that is falling behind the rest of the world. They are way out in front in acknowledging global climate change and accepting that it must be mitigated in ways that don’t create other crises down the road of equal or greater threat. Obama is offering a way to catch up with the rest of the world, by deemphasizing political differences and emphasizing shared challenges and asking for shared expertise for solutions.

It no longer matters whether Republicans or Democrats are worse at governing, what matters is whether America rises to its challenges intelligently or is buried under them. The old divisive political paradigm and paternalistic view of one man in the White House having all the best answers, is 20th century thinking.

Its like being 30 years old but refusing to use any learning beyond the 3rd grade to solve one’s problems. That mindset is stupid, its vain, and it fails to address our 21st century challenges. America is still trying to figure it if it is OK to have a Black man for president while nuclear waste is piling up across the country and the looming entitlement crisis threatens our entire quality of life and economic stability.

Obama is right. We have to leave the 20th century paradigms and divisions behind us, if we are to remain a great and strong and prosperous nation in the 21st. Hillary wants to recreate the 1990’s Clinton presidency, and McCain wants to resurrect the Reagan years of the 1980’s. We cannot, we must not, allow our past failures and outdated issues deny us our future opportunities to seize the best of our future and make it even better, together, as one people, as one nation, as a United States, not as divided Red and Blue cultural states harkening back to post civil war resentments and retributions.

We have an opportunity which will quickly fade away if we allow ourselves to be deterred from seizing it and letting it bring out our very best and united effort to maximize it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2008 12:15 AM

until I asked what it would mean if America moved to commodity based money supply

You should consider asking someone other than yourself, Mr. Remer.

Nixon left the gold standard and a “PetroDollar” was formed.

What exactly is a commodity based currency if it isn’t the petrodollar?

And you have Ron Paul’s position on a constitutional currency based on gold and silver all wrong.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2008 12:29 AM

David

Since the price of oil went sky high, American investment in alternative technologies has followed. We are investing much more than Europe, or anyone else.

A politician will not be the one to get the best and brightest together. If that was the case, the Soviets certainly would have been on top.

The American people, through their innovation, intelligence and imagination, coordinated by the market mechanism, will address this problem. The goverment role is to provide rule of law, help build infrastructure & point in the right direction.

High prices are working. A carbon tax will consolidate those gains.

China - BTW - is making similar mistakes but on a much more monumental scale. They passed us what the U.S. produces in CO2 TODAY. They will add more additional CO2 than our total 1900 emissions within a couple of years. They have long been horrible in other forms of pollution. China is the growing threat to the world environment.

Posted by: Jack at May 6, 2008 03:47 PM

Jack said: “A politician will not be the one to get the best and brightest together.”

But, it was a politician who got the best and brightest together to create the atomic bomb. It was a politician who got the best and brightest together to create NASA. It was a politician who got the best and brightest together successfully combat the growing AIDS epidemic in the U.S. Our current president with other world leaders have put together the best and brightest to combat AIDS spread in the world.

Your view of a privatized government for profit is just plain ignorant of the history of our nation. It was politicians who drafted the Constitution. It was politicians kept millions of people from starvation after the Great Depression began and the Dust Bowl hit. Yes, millions more did go hungry, but, the politicians mitigated the potential devastation which could have been far, far worse if the market forces that brought on the Depression were relied solely upon to manage the rescue from it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2008 04:20 PM

Jack, where is your rationality? China has 10 times more people than we had when we began to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in copious quantities at the beginning of our industrial age. They still have 4 times as many people as we, so if they are producing only 4% more CO2 than we are, that is pretty impressive and equals about 1/4 of the CO2 production per capita as we.

I will give you some time to find your rationality again. These ratios are quite pertinent to this topic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2008 04:24 PM

Weary Willie wearily said: “You should consider asking someone other than yourself, Mr. Remer.”

My economics and philosophy of economics professors p