I believe in karma, especially in the world of politics and if you try to screw the people, Karma will eventually catch up to you and you'll get your comeuppance.
Well, it's finally happened...
Since the 2008 Presidential campaigns began, republicans have been changing their party affiliations in some states in order to throw a wrench into the Democrat's primary process, whether it is by way of pushing the stronger candidate out of the way so the lesser candidate – the candidate that the polls tell them will lose to their candidate – wins that state.
Hell, even Rush “OxyContin” Limbaugh told his followers to do it, and do it they did in Ohio, and now some, if not all, may face legal action.
Now travel south where approximately 9,000 people in Kentucky have switched their political affiliation since Jan. 1st so they could vote on the Democratic ticket.
And now? Now they're beginning to get a taste of their own disenfranchisement while realizing that their switch won't help their party one bit.
In what can easily be attributed to Karma, thousands of Kentuckians that have switched political party affiliation from republican to Democrat or Independent over the past three months – most likely in a vain attempt to sway the Democratic presidential primary – are finding themselves out of luck.
The state's Secretary of State, Trey Grayson, repeated this week that Kentucky law forbids people who switch parties after December 31st from voting in the presidential primary.
Oops.
Greyson also said that he has been telling all election officials in the state to warn political groups and campaign workers that encouraging Republicans and Independents to switch to the Democratic Party will be of no benefit in the primary because they won't be able to vote.
Despite that, some 9,000 people have changed parties since January 1 and as a result have given up their right to vote.
Acting like true Republicans, I guess these people didn't fully think their plan through, huh?
Karma, baby!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Karma, baby!
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
One last thought about last night's primaries/caucus
How about a quick delegate rundown for last night… keep in mind that all these numbers are tentative, as final vote tallies continue to creep in from the post-Texas primary Texas caucus (yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds…)
Vermont, which Sen. Obama won, and its 15 delegates: Obama grabs 9 and Clinton 6.
Rhode Island, which Sen. Clinton won, and its 21 delegate: Clinton gets 12 while Obama still gathers 8.
Texas PRIMARY, which Clinton won, and its 126 delegates: Clinton takes 65 but Obama still grabs 61, only four less than what Clinton, the winner, got.
Ohio, which Clinton won, and its 141 delegates: Clinton took 76 while Obama grabbed 65.
So for the night, Clinton grabbed 191 delegates while Obama scooped-up a still-respectable 178.
The overall lead in pledged delegates, as of now, per CNN;
Obama: 1,257
Clinton: 1,127
If you add super-delegates, Obama has 1,451 and Clinton 1,365 with 2,025 needed to officially secure the nomination.
What does all of this mean?
Well, the stark reality of it is that, despite her three state victories last night, Clinton only chipped away at Obama's pledged delegate lead, and if Obama can show he's not going to collapse under the weight of Clinton's assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters in either pledged delegates or the popular vote)… and, as my esteemed colleague Scott says, with the way the delegates are divided, in order for Sen. Clinton to pull ahead in the pledged delegate count she would have to win the rest of the primaries and/or caucuses by 65% in each state… which, barring Sen. Obama having a secret love-child with Brittany Spears, will NOT happen.
As always; stay tuned…
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Hmmmm...
Methinks the media needs to tone things down just a tad…
McCain is being projected as the winner on the gop side in Ohio and Vermont…
On the Democratic side, Obama is being named the projected winner in Vermont, while the other Dem races are too close to call… which might have something to do with the fact that the polls just closed…
Hopefully I'll have some updates later... stay tuned.
UPDATE: Per CNN; the McCain camp is agog that if they can clinch tonight, "President" Bush will endorse him tomorrow.
Yes, you read that right; they're excited about the prospect of Mr. 19% endorsing him.
Hmmmmmm... I think I'm excited about it as well...
Teehee...
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
A Super (Fat) Tuesday Primer: The other side
McCain: voted to authorize the war but was a critic of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the war and wanted to send more troops over there before Bush was told that’s what he wanted to do… also opposes any pullout timetable and can see us being over there for at least 100 years…
Romney: supported the invasion of Iraq and the prosecution of the war, including last year's “surge.” Has not advocated a timetable for withdrawal in public, lest he upset his base, but supposedly he has said in private he would like to have U.S. and Iraqi talks “timetables and milestones”… which should instantly endear him to his base… yes, that was sarcasm again…
Huckabee: says it’s all Bush’s fault that the US didn’t send enough troops to Iraq in the first place… also supported the surge (I know, you’re shocked) and doesn’t offer a timetable of any kind and would rely on commanders' recommendations on when to start withdrawing our troops… in other words, be another Dubya…
McCain: supports purchase of health insurance across state lines while giving a tax credit to increase incentives for insurance coverage.
Romney: supports individual state-by-state health care reform while opposes universal health care… he is a republican after all, this shouldn’t surprise you…
Huckabee: opposes universal health care as well…and doesn’t have any other thoughts about it… so there ya go…
McCain: even though he voted against them initially, he now supports Bush’s tax cuts and wants to make them permanent.
Romney: also supports making Bush tax cuts permanent while lowering tax rates for all individuals…
Huckabee: supports replacing current income tax system with a flat tax or national sales tax system… which most economists agree would (further) fuck up the economy…
McCain: supports immediate reduction in greenhouse gases and a ban on drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Wait, what?)
Romney: supports research to identify cleaner and more efficient sources of energy (Wait, what?). Global Warming? Not so much…
Huckabee: wants a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek new products in alternative fuels (interesting… I mean, wait, what?)
McCain: opposes protectionism and says free trade is a way to open “closed societies” in the Middle East.
Romney: wants to renegotiate trade.
Huckabee: blames weak U.S. regulatory action for trade imbalance and imports of unsafe products from China... I would make a smart-ass comment about that, but I don't want to get in trouble...
McCain: says Roe vs. Wade ruling should be overturned, with states allowed to make own laws on abortion (which hurts him regarding his base, but he attempts to appease them by saying that he hopes leaving it up to states would lead to the end of the procedure... (Riiiiiiiiiiiiight…)
Romney: opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and, like McCain, wants to let states decide the issue.
Huckabee: he’s a preacher, do I really need to spell it out for you? Sigh… okay, he favors a constitutional amendment to totally ban abortion and says his opponents ideas of allowing states to decide is similar to the “logic of the Civil War,” when some states were free states and others were slave states… (Uh-huh… Huckabee thought this would be enough to propel him to victory, so far it’s only worked once)
McCain: proposes to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Would allow first-year deduction, or "expensing," of investments in equipment and technology.
Romney: wants to introduce a long-term strategy of cutting the capital gains tax to zero and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He's waiting to unveil his short-term economic stimulus plan soon... if he waits too long, it's liable to not matter...
Huckabee: favors a "pro-growth, low-inflation policy" by the Federal Reserve and wants to preserve, and expand in ways I couldn't imagine, the Bush tax cuts... oh, he also wants to abolish the IRS and institute a national sales tax.
McCain: likes parental choice of schools and school vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials. Also believes in the right of parents to choose home-schooling.
Romney: likes federal requirements for standardized tests, praises No Child Left Behind law, supports "school choice, better pay for better teachers, high standards, scholarships for the best kids." (Who does he sound like there.... oh yeah; Dubya... one more reason to NOT vote for him...)
Huckabee: thinks that states, and not DC, should be responsible for education and thus given more authority overseeing it. But he also believes that every student should take music and art courses... something that isn't very conservativey of him... (it's a word if I use it)
McCain: supports a guest worker program but also wants to increase border security and the construction of the
Romney: opposes any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants and supports increasing border security.
Huckabee: also wants to increase border security and the construction of the
McCain: opposes gay marriage and maintains that states should control marriage laws.
Romney: wants a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Huckabee: again, he’s a preacher, do I really need to spell it out for you? Sigh… okay… he opposes gay marriage.
All I have… yes, this was filled with snark, but what do you expect; I’m a Liberal…
Regardless of political affiliation, remember… VOTE TOMORROW! It’s not only your birthright, it’s a moral imperative…
A Super (Fat) Tuesday Primer: The Democrats
As we get closer and closer to Super Fat Tuesday, I thought it might be beneficial to go through some of the more hot-button issues and where Senators Clinton and Obama stand on each… if you want information about the republican candidates, hold tight, I’ll be spreading that manure information out soon… then again...
Clinton: Voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq but says she wouldn't have done so if she knew then what she knows now (Uh-huh… sure, Ms. Clinton did oppose the surge, but she was in presidential candidate mode at that time… so take it as you will). Her future plans for Iraq would be to order military leaders to develop a plan that would start bringing U.S. troops home within the first 60 days of her administration, though she hasn’t committed to a withdrawal timetable and says some troops will have to remain in the country.
Obama: Opposed the war from the start along with opposing the surge. Vows that as president he would immediately begin to remove U.S. troops, bringing one or two combat brigades home per month until all troops are out of Iraq within 16 months. Like Clinton Mr. Obama would keep some troops in Iraq, primarily to protect U.S. diplomats and to fight terrorism.
Clinton: Ms. Clinton’s pet issue since she was First Lady… her plan now is somewhat similar to the one she tried to push through in the 90’s, but now favors keeping existing coverage or allow people to have access to the same private insurance options that Congress has.
Obama: wants to create a new national health plan that would allow individuals without access to affordable insurance coverage to buy coverage similar to that available to members of Congress… (wait? Isn’t that like Ms. Clinton’s?)
Clinton: supports permanently ending marriage penalty, extending the lower-income tax rates and providing a deduction for college tuition.
Obama: wants to increase the number of working parents eligible for Earned Income Tax Credits while increasing the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments. Unlike Clinton, Mr. Obama only wants to reduce the marriage penalty and not totally abolish it.
Clinton: Supports a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund (paid for in part by Bush’s friends, I mean oil companies) to fund investments in various forms of alternative energy.
Obama: Supports implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists.
Clinton: Seeks to reopen NAFTA in order to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards.
Obama: Also seeks to reopen NAFTA to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards…
Clinton: Supports abortion rights, but adds that “pro-choice” doesn’t necessarily mean “pro-abortion.”
Obama: Supports abortion rights and urges efforts to reduce teen pregnancy.
Clinton: Proposes economic stimulus package up to $110 billion, including $40 billion in tax rebates, a $30 billion fund to help states and cities deal with housing foreclosures, a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year interest-rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages.
Obama: Wants to use $75 billion in tax cuts and direct spending to stimulate the economy while providing an immediate $250 tax cut to workers and their families, along with an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks.
Clinton: Wants Pre-Kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. She also opposes performance-based merit pay for teachers, yet favors incentives for teachers in high-need places and subjects. Originally supported No Child Left Behind but now says it has not been properly financed or run.
Obama: Would encourage, but not require, universal Pre-Kindergarten while rewarding teachers with higher salaries that wouldn’t be tied to standardized test scores. Wants to amend NCLB… but then again, who doesn’t…
Clinton: Supports the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Minors), which aims to provide a path to citizenship through military service or higher education.
Obama: Supports new employment eligibility verification system and the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure fair immigration application fees.
Clinton: Opposes same-sex marriage, favors civil unions while saying it's a state issue.
Obama: Also opposes same-sex marriage and supports civil unions.
Hope this gives you some idea… if you want more information, I suggest you visit each candidates website
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): www.barackobama.com
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY): www.hillaryclinton.com
And remember… VOTE TOMORROW! It’s not only your birthright, it’s a moral imperative…
Thursday, January 10, 2008
What's up with Iowa & New Hampshire?
I’m in my mid-thirties and, for as long as I can remember the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary have always been the first salvo in the presidential campaign process.
As I grew older, started thinking for myself and got more interested in politics, I’ve often questioned the unwarranted amount of power that these states wield for both Democrats and republicans… after all; neither state is particularly representative of the rest of the US from a demographic, economic or political standpoint…
It is important to bear in mind that no state is uniform in its demographic or cultural makeup as every town, city, village in states that lean conservative have pockets of Liberalism and vice versa, but rather I am suggesting that these states are among some of the least representative of this country and, therefore, are an unfortunate choice for early presidential primaries.
Before on this blog I’ve postulated about a national primary…. but the more I think about that scenario, the more I become dissatisfied with that plan and instead think a regional primary system, one where each state is separated into 4 or 6 regions and each region votes on the same day, would be more beneficial…
But I also think that politics should stop at the waters edge… and I am not very confident, that the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire in this process is likely to change in my lifetime.
But one can hope…
Friday, August 17, 2007
Primary Wars: The Battle Continues
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the primary waters…
Michigan has now entered into the primary fray as they look to hold their primary on January 15th, which is days before South Carolina has theirs
Ok… since their arrogance dictates that their respective primaries be first in the nation, New Hampshire will have to move its primary into the first week of January, when everyone is recouperating from the holidays) and Iowa will probably push theirs further into 2007… essentially turning it into a repeat of last week’s pathetic gop straw poll.
And for the record for all our ‘friends’ out there in Iowa and New Hampshire, the American people do not appreciate or like your
According to a new Rasmussen poll, few American voters are committed to Iowa and New Hamshire being the first primaries of the election season, and the proof is in the pudding as a scant 21% “believe that Iowa should always have the first Presidential caucus” and a just-as-scant 22% “believe New Hampshire should always have the first Presidential Primary.”
Ouch… that’s gotta hoit…
I repeat what I wrote last week;
“Having a national primary day is the most democratic thing to do… and it would ensure that every person in the United States that votes would have an equal say in who would get that party’s nomination.”
Stay tuned, as I’m relatively positive this madness isn’t anywhere close to being over.
UPDATE: Apparently this news just filtered down to the Washington Post who are reporting it today like it's 'new' news... way to pay attention there guys!
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Primary Wars
The insanity continues as South Carolina republicans have “officially” bumped their primary up to Jan. 19.
As I said in this morning’s ‘BushWhack’ing, it means the nation is also very, very close to seeing a December caucus in Iowa.
Let’s review something quickly… Nevada is slated to have their Democratic straw poll on Jan. 19, the same day South Carolina wants to have their republican primary… so South Carolina will compete with a contest that was made to give people outside the East Coast some say in their nominee.
It also means that New Hampshire will move their primary up to January 8th.
Why so early?One word: arrogance.
New Hampshire’s Secretary of State Bill Gardner, the man who sets the New Hampshire primary date, has said many, many times in the past that he will set the New Hampshire primary date early enough in order to “preserve” the New Hampshire tradition under the state law that requires the primary be held at least seven days before any “similar election.” Upon hearing about South Carolina’s move, he re-emphasized yesterday, that the tradition is Iowa and then New Hampshire and not Iowa-Nevada-New Hampshire or Iowa-South Carolina/Nevada, then New Hampshire….
Can you see the arrogance… the arrogance being disguised as “tradition?”
This is a “tradition” that serves to give a couple of states an advantage over the other 48 states… and you may justify it in New Hampshire and Iowa, but the rest of the 48 states are sick and tired of it.
My thought, as well as Scott's, is that it’s time to eschew different primaries and conduct all primary elections (for both Democrats and republicans)… on the same day.
I’ll pause to give all of you time to either sharpen your troll-skills or hone your laudatory emails.
Yes, as it stands now, we do have a de facto national primary on February 5th as a plethora of states (click HERE to see who) have their primaries on that date… but it’s not an honest to goodness national primary where the decision is made by every state at the same exact time.
Let’s face facts… allowing a select group of Americans to decide whom our presidential candidates will be is not only undemocratic, it’s unfair and it’s wrong.
The U.S. was founded on the principles of choice… and it’s something that has brought a large and diverse group of people to our shores… and in allowing two states that, quite frankly, don’t have the best cross-section of the country, isn’t living up to the ideals of Democracy.
A Democracy is defined as “a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”
In the past few months we’ve seen state after state move their primary dates up in an attempt to jockey for position and gain more control over who gets the presidential nomination.
As it stands now, Iowa and New Hampshire controllwho our nominees are going to be as candidates spend weeks, sometimes even months, campaigning in these two States while ignoring the rest of the country… we’re a nation of over 300 million people, and to allow a scant amount of them, approximately 4.5 million, the ability to decide who will run for President is… for lack of a better word; dumb.
Sure… a lot of people will agree that there is something wrong with the current system but disagree about having all the primaries on the same day because, among other things, it could allow the candidate that raises the most money initially to run TV ads in more places in order to boost their numbers for the larger states.
Bull. Shit.
Having a national primary day is the most democratic thing to do… and it would ensure that every person in the United States that votes would have an equal say in who would get that party’s nomination.
The flamewar starts below…
Posts
