Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditToo long, too sleazy, too expensive. That's how a friend described the Democratic primary this morning and I couldn't agree more.
It all started off so inspiring---the Democratic field as a whole was the best in years, and Obama and Clinton in particular were two intelligent, skilled, historic candidates. It was a win-win situation for the Democratic Party. And then, soon after the voting started, the race descended into the gutter.
There's a whole lotta blame to go around. You can blame the Clinton campaign for playing the race card against Obama and pushing every ridiculous guilt-by-association. You can blame right-wing hatchet men for inventing lie after lie about Obama and for smearing the Clintons for twenty years. But much of the blame rests with the so-called mainstream media, particularly tv pundits, for manufacturing scandal after scandal, and then endlessly repeating the coverage under the guise of "news."
ABC's April 16 Democratic debate marked a new low in tabloid coverage of the campaign. If this election is decided by which nominee wears a flag pin every day (the answer: none) or who's more "patriotic," thank Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
Yesterday Tim Russert spent the first 18 minutes of Meet the Press asking Obama about Jeremiah Wright. "We ended up spending a lot of time talking about Reverend Wright instead of talking about gas prices and food prices and the situation in Iraq," Obama told Russert. Near the end of the hour-long interview Obama noted, "We haven't talked much about John McCain today."
None of the major pundits have. He's been the official GOP nominee since March and yet they're still treating him with kid gloves.
Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register
I hate to bring this up here, but I think it's actually a perfect segue to your post Ari.
As much as I would love to believe that Obama will be an excellent president, we should all perhaps wonder if it's even possible to have a great president under the current circumstances of corporate dictatorship.
Case in point:
Pam Martens at Counterpunch today.
excerpt:
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?
Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers -- this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.
The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.
Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we", the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?
Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.
But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement? Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:
"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president"........
(Sorry for the lengthy post, but we have no html linkage abilities here so I will choose to cut and paste lengthy quotes until that changes.)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/5/2008
I hate to bring this up here, but I think it's actually a perfect segue to your post Ari.
As much as I would love to believe that Obama will be an excellent president, we should all perhaps wonder if it's even possible to have a great president under the current circumstances of corporate dictatorship.
Case in point:
Pam Martens at Counterpunch today.
excerpt:
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?
Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers -- this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.
The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.
Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we", the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?
Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.
But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement? Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:
"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president"........
(Sorry for the lengthy post, but we have no html linkage abilities here so I will choose to cut and paste lengthy quotes until that changes.)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/5/2008
i say we put the candidates in a reality show house.
let america vote 'em off by text messaging ($2.95/message).
that'll prove who's best.
or how about jell-o wrestling?
Monday, May 5, 2008 2:19:19 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/5/2008
Come on do you really expect anything but scandal seeking in an MTV society obsessed with what Paris Hilton did? We are a society full of people who read about all the tawdry rags that enumerate the many different scandals of celebrities did you really expect our Presidential elections to be any different?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Ari,
Let's not forget to pass some blame to Obama and his people for their snail-like recognition of the political mess that is Rev. Wright. They should have distanced themselves from Wright as soon as Obama announced his candidacy. HRC gets her fair share for using the media, and their obvious taste for the sensational, to keep her campaign afloat (she learned a lot from battling the vast right-wing conspiracy). While we are at it, let's throw some blame at the DNC for their lack of leadership by letting this campaign run headlong into the gutter to begin with. Now we have two damaged and bruised potential nominees heading into a party splitting scenario that will leave the eventual candidate with very little time to create any party unity. I fear a third Bush term becomes a more likely possibility every week this goes on.
Posted by BizarroRio at 05/5/2008
I agree about the sleaziness of the campaigns...but I am sorry to say that sleaziness also shared by liberals. It can no longer be ascribed to corporate media or the right wing. In fact, liberal media is perhaps more biased than the major media.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/5/2008
The major flaw in corporate owned media is on display - they want to enhance their profits by pushing tabloid-like issues with higher ratings instead of stories serving the greater public interest that can distinguish the candidates in their capacity for moving America forward.
Maybe advertising should be banned from "political" reporting as a way of improving the coverage. By taking out the profit motive, it would force the networks to improve the quality of their coverage.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/5/2008
I don't know, Mr Berman...
Maybe there IS something to be said for all this crap getting done with in April and May...and rendering it pretty inert come September and October?
Maybe the folks in the Middle (the Right is irrelevant, willing to vote for Jim Jeffords over a "socialist mulatto") may just be sick of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and the 527s will be looking foolish and "Vince Foster murder conspiracy"...if the stuff gets a full airing now, and not 5-6 months from now?
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008
Posted by Metteyya at 05/5/2008 Take out the profit motive? Then no one would watch. We are in our current situation because Americans care more about gay marriage and illegal aliens then they do about issues that actually affect their lives. The Wright issue is no more than a ploy to pull voters attention away from issues and play on their emotions.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/5/2008
b_kool_66
So if someone works for a company that hires lobbyists, ipso facto that person is a lobbyist? interesting train of thought
Posted by johnny canuck at 05/5/2008
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/5/2008
The 'liberal media' = mother jones, democracy now.
Corporate media = GE, Westinghouse, Viacom, Time-Warner, Murdoch's empire, Clear Channel empire...
All those media boardrooms thrilled when Sandra Day O'Conner tipped the scales of justice for W
Posted by winyahn at 05/5/2008
..."mother jones, democracy now"... What is The Nation? Not liberal media?!
By the way, poor marks for the duration of problems during the Website upgrade. Surprising really considering of the quality before.
Posted by Freiheit at 05/5/2008
And winyahn, the supreme court followed the law. Get over it, sheesh.
Posted by Freiheit at 05/5/2008
Posted by Freiheit at 05/5/2008
What calling off a recount before it's actually done? I don't think that's the law. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to let the recount finish.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
What calling off a recount before it's actually done? I don't think that's the law. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to let the recount finish.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Not if it violates the US Constitution which seven of the nine justices said that it did.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
NYT concluded Bush won under the scenarion Gore asked for.
NYT said Bush won under most scenarios.
Gore won under one scenario that nobody asked for and took until March to complete, two months after the Republican House would have awarded the win to W under the US Constituional instructions for handling a contested election.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
God Damn America
God Damn Facts I don't like!
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Posted by BizarroRio at 05/5/2008
That was a reality since before this "mess" even started.
Instead of blaming the candidates (don't get me wrong I despise Clinton) let's blame the idiot media and the idiot voters who basically force these people to pander and present their platform in the least intellectual way possible.
God forbid Joe Blow and his redneck family have to use their damn brains in order to make an informed and intelligent decision on something as important as who is president.
Posted by madlib at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Which portion of the Constitution does it violate?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
My Friends . . . the time has come, on the eve of the heartland primaries in IN & NC, for yet another GOYADAD ORACULATION!!!
HRC wins a narrow victory in IN tomorrow & Obama will eke out a thin win in NC--somewhere between 3-7%
What does this mean? It means that Goyadad's primary oraculation--that the contest will go all the way to the convention with the Supers handing the nomination to HRC--is right on track to its eventual fulfillment. Thy will be done, oh mighty G.O.P., party of G.O.D. on Earth among Men (and the occasional female, I suppose).
Why? How does the GOP enter into this discussion? Because, they have been massaging and shaping this entire post-primary primary season. They have been juking the Great GOP Sleaze Machine into life at very selectively chosen moments with just the right bumps and tilts to keep the steel ball pinging around from BHO bumper to HRC flipper.
Note the "flag pin" flap. Just enough to tilt Ohio & Texas solidly into the HRC column. And most significantly, the Wright Stuff. This was seeded onto YouTube by unknown operatives who many have said were Team Clinton moles. I'm not convinced of this. I think it was Karl Rove apostles who have been putting the Sage of Sleaze's primary tactics to work strategically--not enough to smear Obama irrevocably, but just enough to wing him and let him fall within reach of HRC's claws. And the consequence is that the whole tawdry business limps on to the next set of primaries. Keeping the bloodletting going until the final knife can be jabbed into the Challenger in the final round in Denver.
The GOP's fingerprints are all over that knife. Even McCain has had to climb down off his High Horse to "scold" the NC party for running the Wright Stuff ads against two opponents he is not running against in that primary. (Methinks the laddie doth protest too much. He hates this nasty business--like a vulture hates carrion.)
So what we have here is the GOP learning from the Ayatollah Khomeni. Just as the Ayatollah manipulated the internal politics of his foreign enemies, so the GOP has found that manipulating the internal politics of the enemy party gives victory to the external foe. So really, McCain is in a way a surrogate for Ahmedinejad. (I know this is "higher math" for the majority of you, but if some really desire a more detailed tutorial--just ask, and it will be given you.)
So saith GOYADAD. The oracle is now closed. When it openeth again, the gods alone can know.
Posted by goyadad at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
I like that you criticize us saying we ignore facts. But then when we present you with facts you don't like you try to say they don't matter. Haven't you yet figured out that libs and conserves are not different people. Both sides do the same exact thing. Or are you still under some misguided thought that we are completely different human beings because some of us are liberal and some are conservative.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
For instance I can present you fact after fact saying this war was illegal and is a disaster and you will present me fact after fact never acknowledging that mine are right. Our facts can even be contradictory to each and with all the facts I present you you will still never admit that they are right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Posted by goyadad at 05/5/2008
Well there is something fundamentally wrong with your prediction. The supers said they are voting on June 3rd no matter what. So it won't go to the Convention.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
The problem is Mary the only facts you and most other normal people consider to be the right ones are the ones you agree with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
"God forbid Joe Blow and his Redneck Family," coming from the type of person who has given us years of Republican rule. In short, an elitist at at time when there are no elites - just an unproductive parasite on our society.
Posted by Euler at 05/5/2008
Yo, Mary, the vote was 5-4, not 7-2 & BTW the decision was unsigned, the author was so afraid to go public. You might try reading it before you spout off about a recount being unconstitutional. But that would be burdensome, and bluff is so much easier.
Posted by sloper at 05/5/2008
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Yep, sorry, Goya....Dean closing the doors on June 3rd so he dosn't have a disaster on his hands.
Good news....in less than 30 days, we know. And EULER starts his "McCain ain't so bad" tour and we wonder if he EVER WAS a Democrat.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008
I'm not a fan of McCain, but if we don't want him to be the next President, can't we finally figure out that people are not going to vote based on Iraq (Operation Pink idiots excluded), nor will they vote on issues such as health care or the enviornment, they'll vote on the economy (about which no candidate has interesting responses) or on presumed "culture" issues, on which Obama is on the "wrong side" (haven't you nation bloggers figured it out yet, most of you don't have a clue about this country).
Posted by Euler at 05/5/2008
I'm not a fan of McCain, but if we don't want him to be the next President, can't we finally figure out that people are not going to vote based on Iraq (Operation Pink idiots excluded), nor will they vote on issues such as health care or the enviornment, they'll vote on the economy (about which no candidate has interesting responses) or on presumed "culture" issues, on which Obama is on the "wrong side" (haven't you nation bloggers figured it out yet, most of you don't have a clue about this country).
Posted by Euler at 05/5/2008
Hey EULER, when Hillary concedes and calls on her supporters to help elect Barack Obama...
will you?
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008
Posted by Euler at 05/5/2008
Maybe you're a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. Too much TV.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/5/2008
Yo, Mary, the vote was 5-4, not 7-2 & BTW the decision was unsigned, the author was so afraid to go public. You might try reading it before you spout off about a recount being unconstitutional. But that would be burdensome, and bluff is so much easier. Posted by sloper at 05/5/2008
Yo, Sloper, get your facts straight. The vote was 7-2 that the method dictated by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protections clause. Different people had their votes evaluated under different criteria.
The vote that was 5-4 was on the separate question of whether or not there was any possible method that would be constitutional under which a recount could take place and still meet the Florida deadline imposed by statute. The majority concluded that there wasn't.
And the NYT conclude that if Gore had prevailed on the 5-4 vote and it was completed in time, Bush would have won.
And if it wasn't completed in time, the no candidate would have had a majority of electoral college votes and the election would have gone to a vote in the House that was controlled by the Republicans. And George Bush would have won.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Which portion of the Constitution does it violate?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Equal Protection clause. See post above.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
For instance I can present you fact after fact saying this war was illegal…Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Cite the statute it violated. Because the facts that I remember are that there were 30-some UN resolutions that Saddam violated and the UN got a resolution authorizing war. I guess I'll have to Google it. And Bush went to Congress and Congress authorized the war (remember Hillary and Edwards voted wrong.) And Congress is still funding the war. If Bush is a war criminal does that make every member of Congress a war criminal too?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
But once the votes were all done and counted..... Gore won, but Bush was president. Amazing eh? So the guy who got the most votes lost.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
If Bush is a war criminal does that make every member of Congress a war criminal too?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
If Bush is then yes by having authorized an aggressive war it would make all members who voted yes guilty of aiding and abetting. Eh I thought we needed a new Congress anyway.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441
At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.
Darin here. "The position taken by the Bush administration is still being disputed by numerous legal experts." So the "law" was ambiguous and the Bush administration interpretation met it's objectives. That is not breaking the law. Period. End of discussion.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
But once the votes were all done and counted..... Gore won, but Bush was president. Amazing eh? So the guy who got the most votes lost. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
The NYT consortium used several different criteria for determining a legal vote because there is not absolute authoritative definition. Bush won the one the SCOTUS was considering in the 5-4 ruling.
Again, the only count that Gore won, was one particular definition of many that required a full recount of the entire state Bush won some of these as well. The problem is that this full recount of the entire state took until March. The Constitution is very clear on the timeframe when the Elector meet. If a state can't certify electors by the Constitutionally required time, the Constitution provides an alternative method for determining the President. The Constitution explicitly forbids waiting until March for the recount to be complete.
Or do you want to offer some alternative universe facts for how Gore could have been President without violating the Constitution?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
I can't wait to see the first McCain/Obama debate. McCain will reveal himself as the doddering, ill-informed and dangerous fool that he is.
Posted by opeluboy at 05/5/2008
Okay, here are the official results so I don't have to go by memory
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken) Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed) Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
Gore won the full recount of the entire state, which nobody asked for, and took months after the time the Constitution dictates for settling it.
Bush won everything else.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Oh, and there is another think painfully obvious that SCOTUS recognized. When Gore asked for recounts in the HEAVILY Democrat counties, he was looking for a sympathetic ref to create some vote for him. That's why he didn't want to permit any changed total in heavily Republican districts.
In the environment created in 2000, the election was going to go to whoever cheated the hardest. In the environment (Remember the Democrat lawyers slapping high fives every time they got an absentee military vote invalidated?) the existed, an honest recount, before the Dec 20 date (or whatever) was impossible.
Bush won the first count and Bush won the recount. That was as accurate a result as could be obtained then.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
I'm not disputing that he ended up taking it. All I am saying is when the state was recounted and all the votes were counted with equal weight. Gore won. Which you quoted. Bush won based on the fact that it wasn't supposed to go on until March. But Gore won the numbers in the end.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
BERMAN: "....much of the blame rests with the so-called mainstream media, particularly tv pundits, for manufacturing scandal after scandal, ...."
Sure, the MSM goes on some whaling (ie scandal) expeditions but end up catching channel catfish (see McCain/lobbyist romance that wasn't)......
But, let's be honest here.....
Did Kerry witness first-hand any atrocities in VN? But he claimed everyone up and down the chain of command just knew they were widespread and condones.
On Geraldine Ferraro's statement of the obvious, both regarding Magic's blackness and her own womaness and politics, it wasn't the MSM that created the scandal, it was the Obama cultists!
Did the MSM script Rev. Wright's sermons & manufacturer the image of Obama listening to Wright for 20 years?
IF there is one thing the MSM is very good at, is to amplify all the Looney Left's reactions to anything outside of its Politically Correct (but stinking) comfort zone!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/5/2008
Get over it, sheesh.
Posted by Freiheit
is that something worth "getting over"?
why bother having elections?
Monday, May 5, 2008 10:07:52 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/5/2008
Or do you want to offer some alternative universe facts for how Gore could have been President without violating the Constitution?
Posted by marybretbrad
instead, you ended up with a president who violates the constitution everyday.
Monday, May 5, 2008 10:19:36 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/5/2008
Electability electability ... But that's real issue. Let's say mr. Obama wins the dem nomination, how' bout November. McGovern, the other super liberal got the nominee and lost (big) in 1972. Now Mr. Obama wants to emulate the Bubba's style of campaigning: sunny, goofy, know-nothing-delegate-evrything-to-buddies. Is that a way to win?
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/5/2008
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/5/2008
Ahh so basically you are saying whenever the MSM does a story about the left it is correct but when it does one about the left it's wrong. I see how that works.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/5/2008
Didn't McGovern lose every state but then get elected by the delegates? Whereas Obama is winning more states, more delegates and more popular votes. I notice before you Hillary cultists were trumpeting the beauty of the super-delegates saying they would do what they were supposed to do. Now that they are trending toward Obama you are throwing a hissy fit about them. Odd.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
Posted by marybretbrad...
--"In the environment created in 2000, the election was going to go to whoever cheated the hardest".--
Wow... glad you finally 'came clean' on this one...
Some wiki cutouts for your reading pleasure...
1.) Palm Beach "butterfly ballot," which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan...Buchanan said on The Today Show, November 9, 2000: When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night ... it's very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore.
2.) A purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.
3.) Some democracy advocates have taken offense at Jeb Bush's request for the removal of Florida election officials explaining voting/recount law on TV.
4.) State senator Daryl Jones said [that on the day of the election] there had to have been an order an order for them to set up road-blocks [in heavily Democratic regions of the state]
5.) Dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the county including 12,000 with affidavits).
6.) The "preppy riot": the manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protestors arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense.
7.) The 5–4 decision became extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's irregular instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Flor ida,_2000
Posted by ttr at 05/5/2008
that they are trending toward Obama you are throwing a hissy fit about them. Odd.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
it never answers.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/5/2008
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/5/2008
Hopefully it be able to explain why Obama is the McGovern when he's winning that's all I ask. He according to the Hillary cultists McGovern theory is the one who SHOULD get it because he rightfully won it which is the opposite of McGovern. It all just goes back to their cultism and the belief that Hillary is entitled to this. HOW DARE THAT BOY RUN AGAINST THE QUEEN! Long live the Queen! Long live Liberty!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008
Cccomfo1 and marybretbrad need to find new hobbies.
Posted by jimeuf at 05/6/2008
Gore won. Which you quoted. Bush won based on the fact that it wasn't supposed to go on until March. But Gore won the numbers in the end.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/5/2008
What did Gore win? It is accurate to say that under one particular standard that was unconstitutional, Gore had more votes, but that doesn't mean he won anything. Or did he win something?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
"i say we put the candidates in a reality show house.
let america vote 'em off by text messaging ($2.95/message).
that'll prove who's best.
or how about jell-o wrestling?"
Ummm...that's pretty much what this nomination process has become. Media is running it as entertainmnet not news.
Posted by danconstan at 05/6/2008
For all the accusations about Bush stealing the election, how many elections have been stolen?
Mayor Daley in Chicago stole the Presidential election for Kennedy but illegally manufacturing votes after voting had ended.
The governor of Washington was able to create enough votes after the election so that on the second or third recount she stole the election.
Senator Tim Johnson stole a senate seat in South Dakota because election official on an Indian reservation stayed up all night and didn't get vote in until early the next morning giving Johnson just enough votes to steal the election.
What do these people have in common? They are all Democrats. I'll say the 2000 election was a tie, but Bush held all three of the tie breakers. He won the first count in FL. He won the recount in FL, and he had a Republican House if FL couldn't certify its electors.
Now TTR, 1) the butterfly ballot was designed by Democrats, so you can't fault Bush for stealing the election. 2) They were expecting a lot of fraud so cleaning the roles of 50,000 isn't a problem. You say many is that 5? Or 12? If it is that is a lot different than 49,000. Again, there is no evidence that Bush had anything to do with it. 3) People talking on TV didn't change any votes. Can't fault Bush for stealing the election. 4) The Road blocks. This was explained and I forget the explanation, but again Bush had nothing to do with it. Can't fault Bush for stealing the election. 5) The Board's decision was irrelevant because SCOTUS ultimately said that the recount were unconstitutional. Furthermore, it was opening up the election to be influence by vote fraud which is the only hope Gore had. So, since it's irrelevant, you can't fault Bush for stealing the election. 6) Preppy riot. They were concerned about Gore committing vote fraud which was his only hope after the polls closed. So you can't fault Bush for stealing the election. 7) The 7-2 vote clearly established that the various recounts were unconstitutional. Can't fault Bush for stealing the election. The 5-4 vote only said there is no possible remedy to get a more accurate count in time for the 12/20 deadline.
So basically, your side feels that because so many more of Gore's supporters were to incompetent to cast a legally valid votes, Gore had a right to cheat after the fact to get the right result (That is steal the election as is Democrat's right whenever it's close), even if it was against the law and unconstitutional.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
MBB/Darin, let me ask you this....
regardless of "who really won" in 2000...
do you think Bush SHOULD have won?
Now, wait. Look at the situation...sure you got no problem with 4000+ dead in Iraq and 3/4ths of a TRILLION dollars spent, all to prop up a weak Shiite government, BUT...
You lost Congress....you'll lose MORE seats this year....McCain will pull your Party back to the Center if he wins...which he might not....Bush leaves office with a 29% approval and the Republican Party is in worst shape its been in since 1974.
Maybe STRATEGICALLY for you....the libs are right and the wrong guy became President???
Posted by Mask at 05/6/2008
The mainstream media is shooting it's profit motive in the foot by tilting towards Hilary. If she becomes the nominee, everyone will lose interest and return to minding their own business. The drama will be lost and it will be back to 'business as usual in Washington' as Obama so aptly describes and the MSM's ratings will plummet. Obama's the sexiest most exciting figure to cone along since JFK.
Posted by DebraD at 05/6/2008
Posted by marybretbrad...
--"So basically, your side feels that..."--
'My side' says "the path to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was paved by corruption, insured by partisan pandering, and guaranteed by 'political devices'.
You can inject your 'us against them' derogatorialisms into the body politic until you are blue in the face...
But as long as you are describing folks like me as 'your side'... people like me, who want 'free and fair' elections, will be the 'team' you are trying to defeat.
However... like Mask has just pointed out... the reality of having a president that 'suspects' he may not have won fairly is far worse than simply than having 'the other side win' incontestably...
Imagine if you will... sitting in the highest office in the land... without the pride of actually having won it. Imagine how you would treat 'the electorate' that didn't want you to be President... that mere majority.
Now look at America.
Posted by ttr at 05/6/2008
Mask,
Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justice Samuel Alito
Across the board tax cut for every single person paying income taxes.
The economy came roaring back after the collapse of the Internet Bubble in 2000 and has only slowed (positive 0.6% growth in the first quarter) after the collapse of the housing speculation bubble of 2007.
Inflation is low. Unemployment is low. There is renewed confidence on Wall Street this week.
I've got to run. The Election of 2000 was marred by imperfect measurement of votes. It is very likely that more Floridians went to the polls in 2000 intending to vote for Gore. Ultimately, there were more legal votes cast for Bush. And I am glad for that outcome.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
However... like Mask has just pointed out... the reality of having a president that 'suspects' he may not have won fairly is far worse than simply than having 'the other side win' incontestably...
Posted by ttr at 05/6/2008
I think of this like a "skins" game in golf. I you tie on one hole, it rolls over to the next. In 2004 Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes. With 50.73% of the vote, he was the first presidential candidate to capture more than 50% of the vote since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
The Wiki entry on the 2004 election lists all the vote totals. Check this out.
Republican George W. Bush 62,040,610; 50.7%
Democrat John Kerry 59,028,444; 48.27%
…
Peace and Freedom Leonard Peltier 27,607; 0.023%
Socialist Walt Brown 10,837; 0.009%
The Socialist candidate got less than half as many votes as a convicted murderer (of FBI angent) who is serving a life sentence in Leavenworth Kansas at the federal Penitentiary.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Probably because he got a bill passed to insure that none of his administration wold ever be investigated. Kind of must of a guilty conscience if you write up a bill to make sure you never get investigated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008
MASK, 3C, et al. . . .
If Chairman Dean says the Supers are voting on June 3, well then, that's it. That's the ballgame.
I mean, this is a man who has such a stranglehold on the party he runs that all those senators, representatives, governors, union leaders, activist group heads, surely, SURELY, will simply bow down and do his bidding.
And if you all believe this, I have some great waterfront condos for you to buy at 5x the market rate in Tampa.
In the meantime, the Oracle does not defend its prophecies. It simply utters them. Mere mortals may quibble and equivocate. The Oracle is constant.
Posted by goyadad at 05/6/2008
Posted by Euler at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
Uhhh...How did I give you years of republican rule? lol the chumps on this website are sometimes hysterical.
Posted by madlib at 05/6/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Mary the vote wasn't unconstitutional the problem is mentally you are not differentiating. The amount of time it took to do a recount was unconstitutional. But the he got the most votes of the state. If you get the most votes in a state then you in actuality won that state. You can deny those damn facts and logic all you want but he got the most votes in the state the only reason he didn't get the state is because the recount would take too long.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008
Posted by madlib at 05/6/2008
His/her mind is full of the thoughts of Hillary cultism don't worry.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008
Comfy,
I'll meet you half way: In a world with perfect vote-counting technology Gore would have won. In this reality, Bush won the Florida electors and the presidential election, which was the correct legal outcome.
I can't say "Gore won the recount" because the recount wasn't a contest, it was an audit. And under some standards Gore had more votes. Under different standards Bush had more votes. Since it wasn't a contest with clearly defined standards for winning, there can be no "winner" of the recount.
If it makes you feel any better, it's no fun arguing that OJ is an acquitted murderer and not a convicted murderer. But it is an important legal distinction, no?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Because the facts that I remember are that there were 30-some UN resolutions that Saddam violated and the UN got a resolution authorizing war.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
.
.
Wow MBB, my memory is quite different.
See, it's the UN Security Council that is required to 'authorize' war. And that NEVER happened.
.
.
So the "law" was ambiguous and the Bush administration interpretation met it's objectives. That is not breaking the law. Period. End of discussion.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
.
.
Actually, the 'law' isn't abiguous at all. The UN Security Council is supposed to produce a resolution 'authorizing' war. The Bush administration WANTED that resolution...that was one of their 'obejectives.' But since they knew there was absolutely NO chance they could actually get such a resolution, they changed their 'objective' and fabricated an arguement that they didn't NEED one.
So, when the facts don't actually support your argument, I suppose we can all see now why you were in such a rush to declare "Period. End of Discusssion."
Pesky facts.
Posted by Lillian at 05/6/2008
Lillian
From Wiki:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
The Security Council unamiously approved a resolution giving them one final chance. So either you believe the UN backs up its threats or the UN is an empty blowhard that is inconsequential.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
First...as noted on the other thread, I'd bet there are 4000+ GIs and a few dozen thousand more...that would trade what they were dealt for the loss of their $300 tax rebate and Sam Alito.
Second, don't you love these guys who demand we lose American blood and treasure to support UN resolutions....and then want us to not pay our dues to the UN or even want us out of it???
Posted by Mask at 05/6/2008
"The Security Council unamiously approved a resolution giving them one final chance. So either you believe the UN backs up its threats or the UN is an empty blowhard that is inconsequential." <Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008 >
We do love these absolutely disjunctive categoricals, don't we? Esp. folks on that rightish, fascistish, totalitarianish end of the spectrum.
Okay, then--UN empty-hollow-shell money-wasting international "debating society" categorical (brought to you by such folk as Rush Limbaugh and Ambassador Bolton--who said that eliminating the top several floors with a missile strike would be a good start toward reforming the organization.
Or, UN as international "cop-on-the-beat"--a sort of Clint Eastwood, "Do ya feel lucky punk? Well do ya?" in matters of war & aggression.
Hmmmm. Which side of this overly simplistic artificial dichotomy do I prefer? Wow. That's a tuffie.
How about the Clinty version? So . . . let's go into Iraq with a multinational military force and try to impose a vision of Iraq as a responsible, democratic, rational nation-citizen of the community of nations.
Er, whoops. That's been tried, now hasn't it? Do we have any votes on the efficacy of that approach? It's been "all good" ain't it?
But ya gotta love those false dilemmas. Wins you blog-bate points ever tyme.
Posted by goyadad at 05/6/2008
The Security Council unamiously approved a resolution giving them one final chance.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008 | ignore this person
.
Yep, the UN did that. The Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 giving Iraq one more chance.
Of course, what the UN DIDN'T do, was pass a resolution 'unanimously approving' the invasion of Iraq by any UN member states (like the United States).
.
So either you believe the UN backs up its threats or the UN is an empty blowhard that is inconsequential.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008 | ignore this person
.
Actually, I believe there's ample precendent to say that the UN backs up its threats, MBB. Try googling UNSCR 678...you know...the Security Council resolution that actually declared Iraq in a state of non-compliance with previous resolutions and authorized 'member states'(including the US) to unphold UNSCR 660, demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.
No UN resolution granting authorization or legal status to the US invasion.
Damned pesky, those facts.
Posted by Lillian at 05/6/2008
Here's a fact: Bush isn't in jail. He hasn't even been indicted. So 1441 was ambiguous enough to accomplish important goals.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Here's a fact: Bush isn't in jail. He hasn't even been indicted. So 1441 was ambiguous enough to accomplish important goals.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/6/2008 | ignore this person
Here are more facts Darren:
Confirmed US military dead - 4,067
COnfirmed US military wounded - 29,978
Minimum documented Iraqi civilians dead - 83,441
.
.
And what exactly were those "important goals"?
(Hint: Resolution 1441 was about WMDs. Did we find WMDs?)
Posted by Lillian at 05/6/2008
One more fact:
no WMDs.
Posted by Lillian at 05/6/2008
Damned pesky, those facts.
Posted by Lillian at 05/6/2008