This is from Celcius D.C. The Ruminator is ruminating ...
*snip*
In late July, the law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, acting under the direction of its managing partner Thomas W. Hiltachk, filed California ballot Initiative No. 07-0032the Presidential Election Reform Actwhich is aimed at ending the practice of granting all fifty-five of Californias electoral votes to the statewide winner.
Under the initiative, should it pass, California would apportion two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner of each of its 53 congressional districts. This would mean that the 2008 Republican nominee would now have a shot at picking up in the neighborhood of 20 electoral votes in California in 2008 rather than zero. Such an electoral pickup would be roughly the equivalent of winning Ohio in 2004.
For those of you out there who might be inclined to argue that California Republicans are engaging in a Fantasia-like powerplay and that this initiative will never pass muster once California voters get wind of this, think again. Recent polling indicates that a sizeable portion of Californians are in favor of the initiative.
#1
It puts California back in play in the primaries and the actual election, jerks the state right out of the Democrats paws, and distributes the electoral candidate votes in a much more fair and equitable fashion.
#3
Two for the state is two too late to justify the existence of the state as a single entity in the federal system. There is no need for redundant governmental layers if they want to make it a popular vote. The 49 United State plus something less. Although there are some governmental subunits north and south of the border who might like become number 50.
#4
It doesn't dilute the power of small states at all. The Constitution provides (Article II, Section 1, as amended) that a state shall elect its Electors as it may direct, and if a state wishes to divide its votes up by congressional district, so be it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/19/2007 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If you think this ends in anything less than the popular election of the president, you're naive. Resisting the first step is the most important. Once the idea of proportionality creeps in, direct election is inevitable and another balance is removed from what appears more and more to be a house of cards.
#8
Nimble, it would take a constitutional amendment to go to direct election of the president, an amendment that would be fought to the death by the small states. If big states like California, Texas, Florida, etc. want to allocate their electoral votes on some system other than winner take all, that should not affect how Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, et. al. allocate theirs.
Israel's mysterious Sept. 6 air strike against an unidentified target in the far reaches of north-eastern Syria is continuing to generate a great deal of controversy in the press and in the blogsphere.
First, American officials put out the red herring that the strike was related to Syrian arms shipments to Hizballah, highly unlikely given how far away the target site is from Lebanon. Then came speculation that the attack was a dry run to test Syrian defenses in case of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear sites, which would have to pass over Syrian airspace. The latest line, put out by anonymous American and Israeli officials in comments to the New York Times and elsewhere, is that the target was a facility related to nuclear development, and that the strike occurred a few days after a ship with nuclear-related material from North Korean docked at a Syrian port.
Critics have cast doubt on the possibility that Syria has either the money or inclination start a long term nuclear program that would vault it from the junior ranks of the Axis of Evil into the big league. Also open to question is whether North Korea or Syria's ally Iran are in any position to support a nuclear program in another country when their own projects are facing enormous scrutiny.
Still, at this stage one thing is certain about the whole incident: it has served as a reminder that the Israeli military still retains ample power to deter aggression. Hizbllah's apparent victory against the Israeli army in Lebanon last summer had emboldened Israel's enemies in the region.
Syria has been increasingly demanding that Israel return the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for peace, or else face a similar Hizballah-style guerilla "Resistance." At the same time, the Syrians have been purchasing anti-aircraft technology from Russia. But Syrian air defenses did little to stop Israel from mounting a raid deep into Syrian territory without losing a single plane.
But that doesn't mean that the Middle Eastern balance of power is back on an even keel. Syria has said it will respond to the attack, though it remains to be seen how it will do so. My friend Andrew Tabler, the editor of Syria Today magazine, told me over the phone from Damascus that he thinks the response will be indirect. "The way the region is shaping up these days, if you want to send a message to Israel, the mailbox is in Lebanon," he said.
That could mean a response from Hizballah. Israeli jets flew low over Hizballah territory in southern Lebanon today, causing sonic booms that were perhaps a warning against just such a scenario. But with Israel's patron, the United States, becoming increasingly involved in Lebanon's political crisis -- backing the government aginst the Hizballah-led opposition which is supported by Syria and Iran -- the response could also be against domestic Lebanese targets.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Okay for the Hizzies, but what do the Hezzies and Huzzies, etc say? *HAMAS > WE ARE NOT AN ISLAMIST STATE - D *** NG IT, THEY HAVE FEMALE POLICE!
#3
CAPTAINS QUARTERS > IDF ground Commandos reportedly destroyed new Russ PANTYSR systems whilst IAF took out North Korea's nucmats + IRAN'S ZIL-ZAL LR AD missles. *Biggie > ASSAD WARNED BY GENERALS [including relatives]TO HIT BACK AT ISRAEL OR ELSE BE REMOVED FROM POWER???
#8
Hizbllah's apparent victory against the Israeli army in Lebanon last summer had emboldened Israel's enemies in the region.
With victories like that Hizbolla can't stand many more.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/19/2007 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
Despite blunt French talk of possible war with Iran, the United States may for the moment be too entangled in Iraq to turn from diplomatic to military action to curb Tehran's nuclear and regional ambitions. But General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said this month his forces were already fighting a "proxy war" with Iran -- a murky contest which raises the chances for either side to spark a wider confrontation by mishap or intent.
"There is still some margin for diplomacy on the nuclear issue inside or outside the U.N. Security Council," said Dubai-based security analyst Mustafa Alani. "But if you look at the tension in the region and at the flashpoints between the Iranians and the Americans, no one should rule out an accidental war."
Tehran blames the U.S. presence in Iraq for destabilizing its neighbor and denies Western suspicions that its nuclear program is military, not just to generate electricity. The United States accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi and Afghan insurgents with money and weaponry to wear down its resolve, and of backing Lebanese and Palestinian militants who fight Israel.
In the same breath, U.S. President George W. Bush now casts the war in Iraq as a struggle against Iran and al Qaeda -- whose militant Sunni ideology is anathema to Tehran's Shi'ite leaders. "If we were to be driven out of Iraq...al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries," he said last week. "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."
Iran has defied diplomatic pressure led by the United States and its European allies to halt uranium enrichment. Major powers are due to meet in Washington on Friday to discuss a third Security Council resolution to toughen sanctions on Tehran.
DIPLOMACY FIRST
While not ruling out military options, U.S. officials insist they are pursuing diplomatic means to alter Iranian behavior. "This is nonsense, this talk of sabre-rattling, war drums beating," State Department official David Satterfield said.
Yet French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner sent shudders around world capitals on Sunday by saying his country should prepare for war, even though this was not an imminent danger.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the comments as media fodder that Tehran did not take seriously. Kouchner himself said in an interview published on Tuesday that his words were intended as a "message of peace" underlining the importance of diplomacy. He had, he suggested, been misunderstood.
Russia and China, which like France fiercely opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, criticized Kouchner's original remarks, as did some European officials anxious to focus on diplomacy at the U.N. and its nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. "Before talking about new wars, we need to allow the necessary time for the political and diplomatic initiatives," Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema cautioned.
In London, a Foreign Office spokesman said Kouchner had actually been stressing the need to avoid war. "There's a lot being stirred up to suggest that the U.S. is moving away from the diplomatic route. We haven't seen that," he added.
A French diplomat said comments by his government were not intended to be bellicose but reflected real worries in Paris that the standoff with Iran could be heading towards conflict.
Washington, with its hands full in Iraq, is likely to steer away from military options for now, unless the Iranians "stumble into something", argued Toby Dodge, a British expert on Iraq. "Clearly there has been a shift in U.S. rhetoric from the nuclear to the Iraq issue and the 'proxy war', but I see no intention in the next few months to go military," he said. "Full-scale military action would involve a bombing campaign of weeks in duration with massive civilian casualties that would put America's presence in Iraq in jeopardy because the Iranians would kick back in Iraq, across the Gulf and beyond."
GULF FEARS
This would be a nightmare for Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-allied Gulf oil producers whose desire to see Iran cut down to size is tempered by their fear of chaos and retaliation.
Sunni Arab leaders fear Iran's nuclear drive as well as what they see as its meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestinian areas. "The Saudis don't trust the Americans to take military action against Iran after the experience in Iraq," Alani said. "They aren't sure how they will handle the Iranian revenge."
In Iran, any U.S. assault would provoke a nationalist surge, even if some Iranians might blame the war on their politicians, said Hamidreza Jalaiepour, a Tehran university professor. "If Iranians feel they are under foreign attack, a new nationalism will emerge," he said.
For now, Iranian leaders are exuding confidence that U.S. commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan preclude military action. Judging by Kouchner's words and the alarm they aroused, the world is far from sharing Tehran's conviction.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
If Iran is so confident, why are they spouting this stuff about revenge, Islamic time bombs, 600 missiles, Israel as a hostage, etc.?
About the only thing I hear the US saying is "Keep that $hi+ up and we're gonna kick your a$$ hard!"
#5
Despite blunt French talk of possible war with Iran, the United States may for the moment be too entangled in Iraq to turn from diplomatic to military action to curb Tehran's nuclear and regional ambitions.
The USN and USAF seem to have some time on their hands. Hell, why not ask the French along for some bombing runs? It would sure as heck confuse the Persians if some Thespians turned up to help out Sparta.
#6
The merit of the Thespians is that unlike the Spartans they could have returned to Thespia without being ashamed/outlawed/executed for it. But they freely decided to stay.
#1
Nice fisking of another out of control raving moonbat's espousal of revolution in the streets against a duly elected government (twice duly elected I might add, not that the writer being fisked would ever acknowledge that).
Some of these folks need to have their meds increased before they completely lose track of what little reality they still retain hold on.
#6
Naomi is a very atractive woman, that has used that attraction to draw attention to herself, then decries the "lookist" society that allows it to happen.
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
09/19/2007 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
