Apparently the House of Liberals had a meeting of the caucus (a mere fifteen??!), and were divided on the response to Harper's trinkets-for-all budget:
"Others argued that they should not acquiesce to Mr. Harper by triggering an election that he seems to want; the election should be called on their terms and timing.
"It's a mess," said one MP about the state of play in the caucus over triggering the government's defeat. Some MPs believe that if the campaign team is not ready, after being put on notice as far back as the fall, then the leader should fire them all."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wbudgetliberals27/BNStory/budget2008/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080227.wbudgetliberals27
How pathetic can the Liberal MPs get?
I expected Harper to buy off the Bloc to avoid an election.
I was wrong.
Harper took one hard look at the so-called opposition, and it its leader, Dion, and bet that the Liberals were afraid of him and of an election.
And Harper bet right.
Dion caved.
And why?
Because they lacked the guts to table amendments to the Harper budget which would have reflected Liberal values, and, if those amendments did not pass, then vote against Harper's budget, and fight the election on the basis of the Liberal budget.
Simple.
If you really know how to play hardball, and actually fight for your own principles.
What a sad, sad sight: Dion and his MPs with their tails between their legs, with Harper smirking all the way to another year in power ...
Wouldn't it be nice if the Liberal Party actually had a leader with the courage to fight?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Clinton's case for allowing Florida & Michigan Take Back Their Vote
She explains her position, and the importance of these two states if the Democrats wish to win the presidency:
"I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat."
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php
Clinton's case is pretty powerful. If the voices of Democrats in Florida and Michigan are not heard in the selection of the nominee, there is a strong probability that McCain will be the next president.
In a sense, Howard Dean (whom I admire for other things he has achieved) - and all those who oppose seating the delegates from these two states, such as Obama - are the best McCain supporters he could ever hope to have.
"I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat."
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php
Clinton's case is pretty powerful. If the voices of Democrats in Florida and Michigan are not heard in the selection of the nominee, there is a strong probability that McCain will be the next president.
In a sense, Howard Dean (whom I admire for other things he has achieved) - and all those who oppose seating the delegates from these two states, such as Obama - are the best McCain supporters he could ever hope to have.
Republicans gaming Democrats: Crossover or Boomerang Votes for Obama?
Obama has been successful in many state primaries which allow non-Democrats (independents, Republicans, 'instant same-day Dems') to vote in Democratic primaries. Clinton has won most of the big states where only Democrats are allowed to vote in primaries.
The question not answered in many analyses of voting patterns is whether the Republicans are gaming the Democrats by giving Obama 'boomerang votes' in Democratic primaries, so as to eliminate Clinton; then, when the election comes, these Republican votes will be cast for McCain, and so return to the Republican fold.
Here is one commentator's take on the gaming issue:
"Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.
Not so. According to an article in Time Magazine, Republicans have organized to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.
The Time magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans in red states have switched parties for the Democratic primaries to vote for Obama. Some states, like Virginia and Texas, have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in the Rove push to deprive Clinton of the Democratic nomination. Even with the help of his more familiar array of dirty tricks - swiftboating, phone bank sabotauge, bogus polling data, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's generally popular nationwide (or was until very recently) and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.
If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the self-described agent of change carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his long-running relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, who's about to go on trial for multiple felony counts of fraud. So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the connection and instead portrayed Obama as a fresh new face in American politics. The author of the Time magazine article, Jay Newton-Small, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"
Is he kidding? The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, eve moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Although not everyone agrees with the assessment, it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern that Mr. Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. Remarkably, journalists across the media spectrum have provided this very spin on reality, just as they continue to disparage Clinton as a has-been in her own party. "
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
It would be ironic if the Republicans are gaming the Dems, as some liberal bloggers advocated the exact opposite: Democrats voting for Romney so as to defeat McCain as the Republican candidate for president.
The question not answered in many analyses of voting patterns is whether the Republicans are gaming the Democrats by giving Obama 'boomerang votes' in Democratic primaries, so as to eliminate Clinton; then, when the election comes, these Republican votes will be cast for McCain, and so return to the Republican fold.
Here is one commentator's take on the gaming issue:
"Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.
Not so. According to an article in Time Magazine, Republicans have organized to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.
The Time magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans in red states have switched parties for the Democratic primaries to vote for Obama. Some states, like Virginia and Texas, have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in the Rove push to deprive Clinton of the Democratic nomination. Even with the help of his more familiar array of dirty tricks - swiftboating, phone bank sabotauge, bogus polling data, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's generally popular nationwide (or was until very recently) and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.
If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the self-described agent of change carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his long-running relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, who's about to go on trial for multiple felony counts of fraud. So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the connection and instead portrayed Obama as a fresh new face in American politics. The author of the Time magazine article, Jay Newton-Small, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"
Is he kidding? The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, eve moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Although not everyone agrees with the assessment, it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern that Mr. Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. Remarkably, journalists across the media spectrum have provided this very spin on reality, just as they continue to disparage Clinton as a has-been in her own party. "
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
It would be ironic if the Republicans are gaming the Dems, as some liberal bloggers advocated the exact opposite: Democrats voting for Romney so as to defeat McCain as the Republican candidate for president.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Will McCain frame Obama as a Jimmy Carter kind of Commander in Chief?
Remember Jimmy Carter? The president who faced hostages in Iran for hundreds of days, with seeming impotence?
Now, remember Ronald Reagan? Who sent Iran a message days before his inauguration, and lo and behold, the Carter hostages were released forthwith?
Now, too, think of John (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain hunkering down with his buddies to decide how to draw some lines between him and Obama, if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president.
Do you think they will cast their minds back on past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, to see if they can latch onto something from the past which might help them now in the present?
You bet your sweet life they will.
And Obama has given them the ticking time bomb they can use, because he said he would sit down with all kinds of tough guys, without any preconditions, to talk about a new way of living together, in peace and harmony, sweetness and light.
In effect, Obama said he was the man who could make the lions lie down with the lambs....
So let's go back to Jimmy Carter, whose main claim to fame in the macho warrior leader category, was that he once beat off an attack by a possibly enraged rabbit, while out canoeing one day. And then there were his days as a leader with Iran holding Americans hostage, day after day after day ....
And Obama? Want to bet that McCain will frame him as the American president who would walk softly and carry a big speech?
Now, remember Ronald Reagan? Who sent Iran a message days before his inauguration, and lo and behold, the Carter hostages were released forthwith?
Now, too, think of John (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain hunkering down with his buddies to decide how to draw some lines between him and Obama, if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president.
Do you think they will cast their minds back on past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, to see if they can latch onto something from the past which might help them now in the present?
You bet your sweet life they will.
And Obama has given them the ticking time bomb they can use, because he said he would sit down with all kinds of tough guys, without any preconditions, to talk about a new way of living together, in peace and harmony, sweetness and light.
In effect, Obama said he was the man who could make the lions lie down with the lambs....
So let's go back to Jimmy Carter, whose main claim to fame in the macho warrior leader category, was that he once beat off an attack by a possibly enraged rabbit, while out canoeing one day. And then there were his days as a leader with Iran holding Americans hostage, day after day after day ....
And Obama? Want to bet that McCain will frame him as the American president who would walk softly and carry a big speech?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
John McCain's Vice Presidential Choice Now Very Important
McCain is 71, and the chances of him serving two terms as a president (he is, in my view, the likely winner if Obama is the Democratic nominee) are low. The most probable course will be McCain for one term, with him stepping down, and then his VP running.
If McCain chooses a running mate cut of similar cloth to him, the VP will stand a high chance of replacing him as President.
If, however, McCain veers to the right when selecting a running mate, so as to placate the right wing Republicans, the Democrats will have a better chance of gaining the presidency after McCain's first term.
If McCain chooses a running mate cut of similar cloth to him, the VP will stand a high chance of replacing him as President.
If, however, McCain veers to the right when selecting a running mate, so as to placate the right wing Republicans, the Democrats will have a better chance of gaining the presidency after McCain's first term.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Perhaps Stephane Dion is not tough enough to be prime minister
Here we go again, the same weak arguments against voting for principles in case that act results in the minority government of the Tories falling, and an election is called.
Harper has run rings around Dion yet again in the past few weeks.
Harper outsnookered Dion and his leadership team on the Afghanistan file. Instead of the Liberal Party setting out a carefully thought, comprehensive alternative to the debacle of a policy now being implemented by the government, Dion allowed Harper to frame the discussion, and meekly fell in line with what Harper wanted: an extension of the mission with some meaningless words about change. Was it Harper's smile that convinced Dion that he had found a new buddy?
Harper outsnookered Dion and the leadership team on the crime bill. Look what happened: Harper challenged Dion - tell the Senate to pass it, or we treat it as a vote of confidence. And Dion? He ducked the fight. Skipped the vote. Then, apparently, quietly passed the word to the Liberals in the Senate to pass the crime bill. The result? Dion looks like a diminutive chicken, afraid of his own shadow.
Now comes the budget, and already Dion is capitulating, using the tired old story about the cost of an election.
Whatever happened to Liberals who had principles, who possessed courage, who were prepared to fight for Canadians?
What a sorry lot we have leading us in Parliament. Perhaps we need another election to wipe out a third of sitting Liberal MPs, so that the party can start all over again, with a new slate of candidates for election to parliament, replacing these timid souls, and a new leader.
It is becoming very hard to hold your head up as a Liberal.
Harper has run rings around Dion yet again in the past few weeks.
Harper outsnookered Dion and his leadership team on the Afghanistan file. Instead of the Liberal Party setting out a carefully thought, comprehensive alternative to the debacle of a policy now being implemented by the government, Dion allowed Harper to frame the discussion, and meekly fell in line with what Harper wanted: an extension of the mission with some meaningless words about change. Was it Harper's smile that convinced Dion that he had found a new buddy?
Harper outsnookered Dion and the leadership team on the crime bill. Look what happened: Harper challenged Dion - tell the Senate to pass it, or we treat it as a vote of confidence. And Dion? He ducked the fight. Skipped the vote. Then, apparently, quietly passed the word to the Liberals in the Senate to pass the crime bill. The result? Dion looks like a diminutive chicken, afraid of his own shadow.
Now comes the budget, and already Dion is capitulating, using the tired old story about the cost of an election.
Whatever happened to Liberals who had principles, who possessed courage, who were prepared to fight for Canadians?
What a sorry lot we have leading us in Parliament. Perhaps we need another election to wipe out a third of sitting Liberal MPs, so that the party can start all over again, with a new slate of candidates for election to parliament, replacing these timid souls, and a new leader.
It is becoming very hard to hold your head up as a Liberal.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Easy Steps for Democrats in Florida & Michigan to Take Back Their Votes at the Convention
The DNC's rush to judgment has lead to millions of Democrats in Florida and Michigan being disenfranchised in the Democrat Convention. The DNC has stripped the delegates from those two states of the ability to vote for the presidential nominee.
But all hope is not lost.
There is a way for Democrats in Florida and Michigan to become personally involved in an attempt to take back their votes.
How can they do it?
By joining with other Democrats in a TBMV movement (Take Back My Vote movement).
How do you join?
Simple: through 6 easy steps.
1 You email this posting to everybody in your email address list.
2 You ask them to email it to everyone in their email address list.
3 You get hold of a telephone directory of the states which still have to hold primaries, starting with Wisconsin.
4 You call ten (10) people, selected randomly from the telephone book.
5 You ask them to vote for Hillary Clinton at their primary because Hillary will call for a vote to restore your vote at the convention.
6 You ask them to take these 6 easy steps, as well.
The chances of calling a Democrat or an Independent through random calling are about 1 in 2. So just call any names you selected randomly from the telephone directory, and work your way through the Easy Steps
The states which still have to hold primaries are:
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Texas
Ohio
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Montana
South Dakota
Puerto Rico
Why vote for Hillary Clinton?
Because she has promised to have her delegates call for a vote at the convention for the seating of the delegates of Florida and Michigan. She is fighting to help Democrats in those two states to avoid being disenfranchised; to take back their votes.
Obama is resisting re-enfranchising the Democrats of Florida and Michigan.
The case of Michigan is especially poignant, because the Republican state government passed a law dictating primaries on a date which caused the problem for the Democrats. The rush to judgment by the DNC simply played into the hands of the Republican mischief, by thoughtlessly stripping Democrats in Michigan of their votes. In this day and age, can you imagine Democrats agreeing with Republicans to strip other Democrats of their right to vote for a candidate for the presidency of the US? Yet that is what has happened!
Florida Democrats have bitter memories of the massive attempts by Republicans to disenfranchise them in previous presidential elections, leading to a conservative dominated Supreme Court appointing Bush as president.
Why should Democrats in all 50 states agree that Democrats in Florida be disenfranchised yet again?
What if you do not live in Florida or Michigan?
You do not have to be a Democrat from Florida and Michigan to join the TBMV movement. If you feel that your fellow Democrats in Florida & Michigan are being unfairly treated, then no matter what state you live in, you can help them.
Simply email this post to everyone in your email address lists, and then work your way through the steps set out above.
How will these 6 Easy Steps help?
If a few hundred Democrats start doing this, they will soon become thousands, and the thousands will soon become hundreds of thousands, and Democrats in Florida and Michigan will have their votes given back to them.
What should you do right now?
Email this post to everyone in your email address list. Then pick up the phone and call someone, in Wisconsin, Texas, Hawaii, Ohio, and other states.
But all hope is not lost.
There is a way for Democrats in Florida and Michigan to become personally involved in an attempt to take back their votes.
How can they do it?
By joining with other Democrats in a TBMV movement (Take Back My Vote movement).
How do you join?
Simple: through 6 easy steps.
1 You email this posting to everybody in your email address list.
2 You ask them to email it to everyone in their email address list.
3 You get hold of a telephone directory of the states which still have to hold primaries, starting with Wisconsin.
4 You call ten (10) people, selected randomly from the telephone book.
5 You ask them to vote for Hillary Clinton at their primary because Hillary will call for a vote to restore your vote at the convention.
6 You ask them to take these 6 easy steps, as well.
The chances of calling a Democrat or an Independent through random calling are about 1 in 2. So just call any names you selected randomly from the telephone directory, and work your way through the Easy Steps
The states which still have to hold primaries are:
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Texas
Ohio
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Montana
South Dakota
Puerto Rico
Why vote for Hillary Clinton?
Because she has promised to have her delegates call for a vote at the convention for the seating of the delegates of Florida and Michigan. She is fighting to help Democrats in those two states to avoid being disenfranchised; to take back their votes.
Obama is resisting re-enfranchising the Democrats of Florida and Michigan.
The case of Michigan is especially poignant, because the Republican state government passed a law dictating primaries on a date which caused the problem for the Democrats. The rush to judgment by the DNC simply played into the hands of the Republican mischief, by thoughtlessly stripping Democrats in Michigan of their votes. In this day and age, can you imagine Democrats agreeing with Republicans to strip other Democrats of their right to vote for a candidate for the presidency of the US? Yet that is what has happened!
Florida Democrats have bitter memories of the massive attempts by Republicans to disenfranchise them in previous presidential elections, leading to a conservative dominated Supreme Court appointing Bush as president.
Why should Democrats in all 50 states agree that Democrats in Florida be disenfranchised yet again?
What if you do not live in Florida or Michigan?
You do not have to be a Democrat from Florida and Michigan to join the TBMV movement. If you feel that your fellow Democrats in Florida & Michigan are being unfairly treated, then no matter what state you live in, you can help them.
Simply email this post to everyone in your email address lists, and then work your way through the steps set out above.
How will these 6 Easy Steps help?
If a few hundred Democrats start doing this, they will soon become thousands, and the thousands will soon become hundreds of thousands, and Democrats in Florida and Michigan will have their votes given back to them.
What should you do right now?
Email this post to everyone in your email address list. Then pick up the phone and call someone, in Wisconsin, Texas, Hawaii, Ohio, and other states.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Why the Democrats need Hillary Clinton and not Obama
The article referred to is one of the most realistic assessments of the dilemma facing Democrats, faced by John McCain.
The thesis is that only 9 states are important, and the Dems need to win two of them:
"Nine states are states where the Republicans won within 5%. These are: Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico. These states are where we find our plus one more than Kerry.
Remember we must win one of these additional states (ergo, plus one more) to get the White House in '08. Moreover if we accidentally lose Michigan to McCain, we will need to pick up more than one of these states to make up that difference.
Thus, how Obama and Hillary run in these states really, really matters.
So far Obama took Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico. Hillary won Arkansas and Nevada.
Most notably, Florida and Ohio (the two key states that Kerry lost in '04) remain unknown.
Who might run stronger in Florida or Ohio? Does anyone have answers? Where is the data that proves that Barack Obama when pinned against John McCain runs better than Hillary Clinton in states like Florida and Ohio? Or any of the other 13 swing states for that matter?
How should Democrats feel about Barack Obama not credibly building the bulk of his "unstoppable momentum" in these 15 vital states? Should Democrats feel vulnerable with just the unstoppable Obama on the ticket? What do you think Karl Rove thinks?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/reality-bites-swingstat_b_86653.html
The Clinton camp could point to two states which could be won by Clinton (Ohio and Florida) and so ensure a Democratic presidency.
The thesis is that only 9 states are important, and the Dems need to win two of them:
"Nine states are states where the Republicans won within 5%. These are: Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico. These states are where we find our plus one more than Kerry.
Remember we must win one of these additional states (ergo, plus one more) to get the White House in '08. Moreover if we accidentally lose Michigan to McCain, we will need to pick up more than one of these states to make up that difference.
Thus, how Obama and Hillary run in these states really, really matters.
So far Obama took Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico. Hillary won Arkansas and Nevada.
Most notably, Florida and Ohio (the two key states that Kerry lost in '04) remain unknown.
Who might run stronger in Florida or Ohio? Does anyone have answers? Where is the data that proves that Barack Obama when pinned against John McCain runs better than Hillary Clinton in states like Florida and Ohio? Or any of the other 13 swing states for that matter?
How should Democrats feel about Barack Obama not credibly building the bulk of his "unstoppable momentum" in these 15 vital states? Should Democrats feel vulnerable with just the unstoppable Obama on the ticket? What do you think Karl Rove thinks?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/reality-bites-swingstat_b_86653.html
The Clinton camp could point to two states which could be won by Clinton (Ohio and Florida) and so ensure a Democratic presidency.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Will Howard Dean cost the Democrats the Presidency?
Howard Dean's call to punish Florida and Michigan for upsetting everyone's carefully planned primaries schedule for the Democrats, by advancing their own primaries without approval of the DNC, was hailed by many as a good move.
After all, there would be anarchy if a timetable was not agreed to, not so?
Now it looks as if Howard Dean blew it. The Republicans punished recalcitrant states, but they at least allowed the miscreants to send half their normal delegates to their convention.
Now we see two states, with large populations, and both crucial to the success of the Democrats in regaining the Presidency, disenfranchised.
Despite huge turnouts at the primaries, and enormous enthusiasm on the part of the voters.
If those delegates - voted in by such huge numbers of keen Democrats during their primaries - are not seated at the convention, the chances are that the next President will be John McCain.
Dean is waffling about whether they should be seated:
"Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean all but told Wolf Blitzer on CNN just now that at Florida and Michigan Democrats will be seated.the party’s national convention in Denver in August. The states were stripped of their convention delegates for jumping ahead of the Democrats’ calendar for primaries and caucuses.Dean was still cagey and refused to predict all will be well. But he did say the two states will ask for reinstatement, and it will be up to the credentials committee and the convention itself. “At the end of the day we want a unified party, including Florida and Michigan,” Dean said."
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/2008electionblog/blog_index/there-will-be-delegates-from-florida-and-michigan/433/
Waffling won't cut it. Dean should support seating the delegates already chosen.
Losing the presidency because of a desire to rap voters over their knuckles, is not worth it, Governor Dean.
He should empower those voters. Seat their delegates.
After all, there would be anarchy if a timetable was not agreed to, not so?
Now it looks as if Howard Dean blew it. The Republicans punished recalcitrant states, but they at least allowed the miscreants to send half their normal delegates to their convention.
Now we see two states, with large populations, and both crucial to the success of the Democrats in regaining the Presidency, disenfranchised.
Despite huge turnouts at the primaries, and enormous enthusiasm on the part of the voters.
If those delegates - voted in by such huge numbers of keen Democrats during their primaries - are not seated at the convention, the chances are that the next President will be John McCain.
Dean is waffling about whether they should be seated:
"Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean all but told Wolf Blitzer on CNN just now that at Florida and Michigan Democrats will be seated.the party’s national convention in Denver in August. The states were stripped of their convention delegates for jumping ahead of the Democrats’ calendar for primaries and caucuses.Dean was still cagey and refused to predict all will be well. But he did say the two states will ask for reinstatement, and it will be up to the credentials committee and the convention itself. “At the end of the day we want a unified party, including Florida and Michigan,” Dean said."
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/2008electionblog/blog_index/there-will-be-delegates-from-florida-and-michigan/433/
Waffling won't cut it. Dean should support seating the delegates already chosen.
Losing the presidency because of a desire to rap voters over their knuckles, is not worth it, Governor Dean.
He should empower those voters. Seat their delegates.
Friday, February 01, 2008
How Obama and Clinton may agree to seat the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates at the convention
The Democrats stand to lose the Presidency if they do not allow the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan to have their voices heard in the selection of the Democratic candidate. If McCain - as is likely - is the Republican candidate, it is conceivable that he will attract millions of Democratic voters from those two states to vote for him, thus winning the Presidency.
The problem is that the delegates have no say at the moment, and if they do vote, Clinton gets the nomination; if Obama refuses to seat them, he jeopardizes the presidency.
There is a way to seat the delegates.
This article summarizes the problem:
"Florida and Michigan broke party rules by holding early primaries, and the party has sanctioned them by taking away their delegate votes. Mrs. Clinton, who won those primaries, has said she would seat the delegates. They could clinch the nomination for her, but she may lack the power to seat them if she has less than a majority of convention votes.
Mr. Obama could lose the nomination if he agrees to seat the two states, but would face charges of disenfranchising millions of voters if he sticks by the party rules."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182175604533491.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
The solution?
Allow the delegates of Florida and Michigan to be vote, but have them either have a free vote, or allocate those delegates according to the percentage of the popular votes that Obama and Clinton have achieved in all states other than those two states.
This would not disenfranchise the Democrats in these two states, and would give both Obama and Clinton a chance to win, depending on how many of the superdelegates they can attract.
The problem is that the delegates have no say at the moment, and if they do vote, Clinton gets the nomination; if Obama refuses to seat them, he jeopardizes the presidency.
There is a way to seat the delegates.
This article summarizes the problem:
"Florida and Michigan broke party rules by holding early primaries, and the party has sanctioned them by taking away their delegate votes. Mrs. Clinton, who won those primaries, has said she would seat the delegates. They could clinch the nomination for her, but she may lack the power to seat them if she has less than a majority of convention votes.
Mr. Obama could lose the nomination if he agrees to seat the two states, but would face charges of disenfranchising millions of voters if he sticks by the party rules."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182175604533491.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
The solution?
Allow the delegates of Florida and Michigan to be vote, but have them either have a free vote, or allocate those delegates according to the percentage of the popular votes that Obama and Clinton have achieved in all states other than those two states.
This would not disenfranchise the Democrats in these two states, and would give both Obama and Clinton a chance to win, depending on how many of the superdelegates they can attract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
