Article

2007-09-04 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2007-09-04 06:06|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 **Chuckle**

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-09-04 06:53|| 2007-09-04 06:53|| Front Page Top

#2 How can this be? It's the democratic party, it says so right in the name!

Accept no oligarchic substitutes!

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-09-04 08:16|| 2007-09-04 08:16|| Front Page Top

#3 So we know where the Donks stand on the United STATES of America. A myth employed for the acquisition and implementation of power, at any cost.

Yes, there is inefficiency and complications in a compact composed of a group. It trade off is a better guarantee's one of liberty as a free citizen and not a mere subject of the state.

Just a reminder to the DNC, it is the state's authority to appoint or select the slate of their state's Electoral College members. You know, the group from each state that meets after the general election to cast the constitutional votes for the office of the President. It would have been really interesting if you pulled this power crap in 2000 with Florida in the balance. He who does not learn from history....

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-09-04 08:42|| 2007-09-04 08:42|| Front Page Top

#4 You know, I actually agree with The Party.

I think the election campaigns have gotten waaaaaay to long and drawn-out. In My dreams, I'd like to see primaries start in, say, May, and be over with in July, then the convention in August.

And no campaigning or debates in the previous year, please.

Second, there's no rule that a political party has to choose its candidate taking into account evey state, or that it has to be done through open elections. I think 1956 was the first time in which a candidate tried to get nominated through the primaries.

Posted by Gary and the Samoyeds">Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-09-04 08:55|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-09-04 08:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Gary, most of their major candidates have been campaigning for a year (or maybe more) before the date of the first primary. I don't like the stretched out season but the DNC itself and the candidates (and the media) have done a lot more to stretch out the season than Florida has.

Florida's primary is still five months away and the candidates have been flooding the airways for months before today. It's time to blame someone else for that.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-09-04 09:01|| 2007-09-04 09:01|| Front Page Top

#6 May I point out that this is fundamentally something that has been around from the original debates about the Constitution. That is big states versus little states. New Hampshire and Iowa positioned themselves in a manner to have an influence far greater than their population or electoral power would normally justify. The bigger states with far greater number of popular and electoral votes have basically had enough of having 'fringe' elements in each area decide who they're going to get vote on 4 or 6 months later. Notice how many of the players who've called for the Electoral College to move into history and replaced with a popular vote after 2000, are now undermining the fundamental purpose of a popular vote by granting little states big influence. Instead of working that key issue out, both parties by default are allowing the states to exert their own power. The original players are holding tight to their position for no better reason than 'seniority' because it means power and money. Instead of addressing the fundamental issue, watch the pols crap it up even more with positioning and posturing. We'll see if this is chemotherapy or a lethal injection.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-09-04 10:28|| 2007-09-04 10:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Simple party rule BOTH major parties should put in place:

Delegates selected prior to a date exactly 6 months prior to the national convention will neither be seated nor recognized nor allowed to participate at the national nominating convention.

This would cut into the nonsense.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-09-04 13:40|| 2007-09-04 13:40|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm not keen on long campaigns either, but it does allow for accusations to be made and either rebutted or proved true. Had the campaign season been under six months, the honourable Senator John Kerry never could have been Swiftboated, the true tale of his CIA cap never would have come out, and quite possibly he'd be sitting in the White House right now.

And truly, had the campaign season been shorter than the current 3 1/2 years, the honourable first term-Senator Barack Obama's beautiful teeth would not have been revealed as his strongest quality.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-04 14:49|| 2007-09-04 14:49|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm with TW: if we're going to elevate relatively obscure people into contention for the presidency, let's have enough time to vet them properly.

As to the Florida primary, I really don't care what the Dhimmis do. It's their convention, their primaries and their party. The parties have a right to set their rules so long as they don't violate the Constitution (e.g., can't exclude minorities from the primaries as the Democrats used to do). Whether they have primaries, caucuses or just pick a name from a hat in a smoke-filled room, it's their choice.

They then have to sell that choice to me on Election Day. Heh.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-04 15:23|| 2007-09-04 15:23|| Front Page Top

23:45 JosephMendiola
23:38 Glenmore
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:33 Frank G
22:08 DMFD
22:07 Frank G
22:05 Frank G
22:04 Frank G
21:55 Anonymoose
21:48 Anonymoose
21:45 gromgoru
21:42 DMFD
21:40 ed
21:35 ed
21:28 Cyber Sarge
21:14 ed
21:08 Eric Jablow
21:06 Whiskey Mike
20:59 Nimble Spemble
20:55 eLarson
20:51 Pappy
20:48 Nimble Spemble