Delegate Contest May Lead To "Thief-in-Chief"

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The above photo made the rounds between election day 2000 and the installment of George W. Bush in the White House. I think it's kind of cute yet rather biting in its humor. It was directed at those who felt (and still feel) that the election was stolen from Al Gore. 2000 confirmed two things for me; our electoral system is a mess, and Florida voters can't fill out a ballot with both hands and a flashlight.

It came back to me as I considered the current state of the Democratic primary race. For now, debates and posturing have given way to the brass tacks of political conventions; delegates. So, the party that pointed out (rightly, in my opinion) that the election of 2000 was tainted, is now faced with its own internal quandary.

As I write this I hear on the radio that Hillary Clinton, in a response to a question about the momentum of Barack Obama, said that the people should be allowed to speak. Politics, however, seems to make many contradict themselves in short order.

If, as many predict, the delegate count is fairly even come convention time, the question arises as to which candidate the "superdelegates" should back. In this Sen. Clinton probably has the edge.

Also, there can be the pesky problem of delegates "won" in state caucuses getting lost on their way to the convention. Walter Mondale did it to Gary Hart's delegates in 1984, and it could happen again.

Finally, there is this somewhat sleazy feel to the "primaries" of Michigan and Florida. The DNC punished the states for moving their elections forward against the wishes of the party. The elections in those two states were categorized as irrelevant because.....long ago.....it was assumed that the nomination would be sewed up without them.

Now they loom on the horizon as a test of the fairness of the Democratic Party. If the three factors above are manipulated by either candidate, then the electoral thievery so condemned eight years ago will perch on the roof of the party and its nominee.

Fudging a bit is normal in elections. So is baby-kissing, butt-kissing, and shaking hands with people who make you want to bathe in GermX afterwards.

But outright theft; no. Going into a Fall campaign with a millstone around one's neck is not good politics.

There is not much point in being captain of a sinking ship, especially if you're the one who scuttled it in the first place.
**********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

GOODBYE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: "IS THAT ALL THERE IS?" YOUR NEW CAMPAIGN SONG

Picture courtesy of the FEC

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friend,
then let's keep dancing...
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball..
If that's all....there is

So goes the refrain from Peggy Lee's song from the 60's. The 60's were my formative years, with a lot going on to raise the political awareness of anyone. In those days there really was a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats on many issues.

Not any more. I once wrote that as far as the so-called "two party system" is concerned, it is for voters much like buying a meal at a fast-food restaurant. You can go inside and order, or use the drive-through. It doesn't really matter....you THINK you're getting something different by choosing the way in which you make your purchase. But the fact is, it's the same restaurant with the same nutritionless food.

I had hopes that the Democratic Party would start to swing back towards some of its basics. That is, liberal on economic and social issues yet libertarian enough to acknowledge that people had the right to be people. If there was one hallmark of the Democrats, dating back to Franklin Roosevelt, was its concern for the "working man" (and woman).

Lincoln once said that God must love common-looking people since He made so many of them. That got a little twist over the years to become "God must love common people since He made so many of them." Using the term in the latter sense, the common people, while without money and power, were afforded consideration by the Democrats.

This has has been the case for a long time. Everyone has the right to interpret things as they wish. For me, that means looking at the "initiatives" of the Democrats as generally applying the power of government in an authoritarian manner. It's for the common good as they say, yet is the end result any different than what Republicans offer? Eat in or Take Out; it's all up to you.

There comes that time when one is faced with the proverbial cherry on top; the straw on the camel's back that leads one to say "enough." There are two recent events that illustrate how far the Democratic Party has gone downhill.

Recently, the GUN TOTING LIBERAL had a piece about the SCHIP veto by President Bush, with a subtitle RIGHT MOVE, WRONG REASON. He makes a good point; one that I wish to expand upon. In the manner of pointing out hypocrisy any debate about tobacco is a red herring. What must be acknowledged is that the funding for the SCHIP will be through a $6.10 additional tax on cigarettes. Any demographer will tell you that those paying said tax are not exactly in the wealthiest quintile.

What the Democrats are saying is: we want money for something and are targeting those who are the less well off. Then, wrapping themselves in self-righteousness they proclaim it's "for the children." That is not the point. The point is, DEMOCRATS ARE PROVING THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER.

Then, this "DREAM ACT." Comprehensive Invasion Reform was rejected several months ago. But, like the proverbial bad penny, legislation keeps showing up to achieve piecemeal what could not be acquired as a whole. What the Democratic Party is saying with this is that while obeying the law is fine, garnering votes to perpetuate the party's power is a lot more important.

Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE wrote a column recently, A COMPLETE DEMOCRATIC FAILURE.

Americans enter the excesses of a Presidential election year with no real choices among the frontrunners of either party. Any chance for change remains mired in the muck of the second and third tier of candidates and they have no chance of breaking out.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a failure. The Democratic Party is a failure. But the real failure is a political system that has allowed Democrats and Republicans to become the only choices. In the end, a victory by either party is a failure of the system and the real losers are the American people and a once-great nation called the United States.

Couldn't have said it better myself. For a little triangulation I refer to Robert Reich's recent post at SALON.COM, WHY DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID TO RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

Oct. 25, 2007 New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

SNIP,

If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.

SNIP,

If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out.

It appears reasonably safe to assume that the Democrats are going to do very well next year. In the past someone like myself might find that synonymous with the country doing well also. My opinion has evolved to echo what Mr. Thompson said: a victory for either party is a loss for the nation.

Sure, it's easy to campaign against George W. Bush. ANYBODY could do that. What a voter must do, however, is look beyond the obvious (that President Bush has served poorly) and take a careful and considerate look at what the Democrats are going to do starting in 2009.

Mainly, they will be congratulating each other at exclusive parties about how well the party is doing, to the exclusion of the vast number of people in this country.

I stand corrected in advance if I am inaccurate in this quote from Mark 8:34:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The Democrats might start asking themselves the same question.

In the meantime....if that's all there is.....then I'll break out the diabetic booze and just keep dancing. And pray, as only a dyed-in-the-wool sinner like me can, that God does indeed save this republic.

I think about those who, in "service" to this republic swear upon a Holy Book that they will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States.....so help me God. For one to say those words yet ignore the oath is a clear indication that God does not exist to them.

But I am a simpleton. I take such things seriously and find the price of my soul is too high to be purchased by a lobbyist or hedge fund manager.....or a quest for political power.
******************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com & The Gun Toting Liberal

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Democracy, Two Party System, Elections, President 08, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independant, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Founding Fathers, Election Games, Politics 2008, Running For President, Voter Disenfranchisement, Party Politics, Political Base, Real Life Politics, Switching Parties, Party Affiliation, Political Lies, Political Liars, Congress, Senate, Presidential Oath of Office, Defending the Constitution, Voter Boredom, Political Faith, Lost Political Faith, Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Dodd, Biden, Must Read Politics

Rush Limbaugh Dictates Military Courage?

Picture courtesy of the White House

Let me just begin by saying that any person that has never served in the military of the United States of America has NO place dictating who is in service to our nation or not. I don’t care if you are a freaking whack job Congressional member or even the President of the United States of America. Let me go further and say that radio talk show host’s that never served in our military have NO room to talk about who is a soldier in service and whom is not. Especially, when they have never served in the theatre that is the Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, and KBR and Haliburton balance sheet surplus.

Rush Limbaugh is a phony! He proves it more times than not by being the “Water Boy for the Republican’s”, his words, not mine. How dare he call any of our service members “Phony Troop’s”! Talk about spitting in the faces of the troops? Rush saved himself the trip to the airport or the bus terminal and just broadcast that half of our military personnel are “Phony Troop’s” on his radio program. Those would be publicly owned airwaves regulated by the FCC. I’m told that the Democrat’s in Congress are moving to pass a non binding resolution to denounce Rush Limbaugh.

Let me just offer this advice to the very ignorant Rush Limbaugh and any of his listeners that buy his words as gospel of his EIB broadcast, when the hell that is Iraq or Afghanistan is going down, there is no division among the close knit men fighting for their lives. Bullets and IED’s do not single out just Republican troops. Both side of the political aisle come home in body bags. Rush Limbaugh is a God damn hypocrite and a traitor to all of the United States Military. While your son or daughter would give up their lives to save someone in their unit Rush is calling them a coward and a phony. Screw you Rush!

I highly recommend the read over the past few days at the Gun Toting Liberal.

His anger is frankly more relevant and on topic than any point I could ever make. I’m proud of him and many like him that served our nation and I for one would never question it. Check all the posts at the GTL on this topic. He speaks from the heart on being called a part of what Rush Limbaugh calls the “Phony Troop’s”. Screw Rush Limbaugh and anyone that thinks half the troops are phony! America has one flag and our troops in any service fight the orders they are told. By no means do they have to agree with it but they are in service to their nation. Military service is not about politics, it is about serving and obeying orders from the civilian government. They are not drones! Each man or woman in service has a mind and a right to think what they believe is wrong or right. Being in the military of our nation does not automatically make you a Republican strong base.

My friend Gunny over at the Gun Toting Liberal has this highly emotional topic covered more than I could ever give it justice…

I guess I was one of the (obviously) crack-smoking Rush Limbaugh’s “phony Soldiers”; well — TECHNICALLY; a “phony Airman” since I was appalled by the waste of lives and money I personally saw being poured into the meatgrinder called “Iraq”, up close and PERSONAL in my capacity of being one of those “boots on the ground” in support of what was originally supposed to be our enforcement of U.N Resolution 1441; rapidly accomplished within WEEKS, I might add. Apparently, about half the other troops I served in the “sandbox” with were also “phony Soldiers”, too. Thanks for NOTHING, Rush — you hypocritical PIG. - Gun Toting Liberal

As a Democrat and a Liberal I support ALL of our troops. I do not support why they are there but I support our troops one hundred percent and then some. No political party affiliation is required when the military funeral service is happening and just a bunch of guys and gals from all over America called the Patriot Riders show up in support of the families.

Rush Limbaugh never served in the military, neither did many of the strong supporters of this war. Bill O’Reilly is just another loud mouth that never served. At the least Don Imus did serve and wore the uniform but that is another topic for another day.

In the halls of our Federal Government are many Republican’s that never wore the uniform of our military but are calling the Democrat’s cowards. Vice President Dick Cheney never served and he is one of the loudest voice among most of them. Google search it for yourself.

Many of the Democrat’s including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Al Gore actually wore the uniform. Google search your favorite Republican military record and tell me what you find out? I think you will be surprised by the results.

This war is turning into Vietnam all over again and the division of the people at home has begun to come to a boiling point. Democrat’s want the troops home and Republican’s call us all out to blindly support the war. If our military is a sampling of America then they too are of the same opinion of both political thoughts on this topic. Some support it and some do not. And still they are on the front lines. Some will die, some will rotate out. The ones that rotate out are the lucky ones.

Rush Limbaugh is a piece of crap!!! I support ALL of our kids in MILITARY SERVICE to America, Rush supports just half.

Awesome couple of post Gun Toting Liberal!

Papamoka

Others talking about this issue passionately and must reads!

Political Inteligence with a great piece on those that served and those bragging the most about sending our troops into war! MUST MUST READ!

Please steal this post and forward it to all your friends in the military!

I SUPPORT ALL OF OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!!!! SO DOES THE GTL!!!!!!!

Other Folks talking about this issue...

Vim & Vinegar

The Moderate Voice

Bring It On

Technorati Tags:
Gun Toting Liberal, USMC, USN, Army, US Army, US Navy, Rush, Rush Limbaugh, Military Service, American Military, Democrat Military, Republican Military, Troops, Grunts, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Military Service, GTL, Vetereans, Vietnam Vets, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, Air Force, Reserves, Reservists, Army Reserve, National Guard, Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Delay, Imus, OReilly, Fox, Msnbc, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, Buzz Tracker, USO, Liberal, Conservative, Military Support, War on terror, Osama, Tehran, Beirut, Cairo, Egypt, Jerusalem, Isarael, Middle East, America, Elections, Presidnet 2008

Del.icio.us Tags:
Iran, Iraq, US Military, USMC, Air Force, Navy, Reserves, National Guard, Reservists, US Military, Rush Limbaugh, Rush, Troops, America, War on Terror, Bush, Republican, Democrat, Election 2008

IN THE QUEST TO BE FIRST, ARE WE WINDING UP WITH SECOND BEST?

Picture courtesy of the White House

By Michael Linn Jones

There is that old story about a Texan braggart on a tour of New York City. His guide is a native New Yorker, and he tells the Texan that their next stop is the Empire State Building.

Looking up at the skyscraper from the sidewalk, the Texan exclaims, "Why hell, we have outhouses in Texas bigger than that."

The New Yorker replies, "Yeah, and you need 'em, too."

Being Americans, we have this affinity....no, a need to be superlative in things. Best, biggest,longest, highest....and first. First on the moon; first in flight; first in production, and so on. And now....first in the nomination process for the office of the President of the United States.

Conventions used to produce the candidates. In those "smoke-filled rooms" so pilloried by those who demanded a change. Power to the people and all that.

For the Democrats, 1968 was the last year of the party bosses deciding who got what. The primary system was beefed up and then inevitably manipulated. It was supposed to be (and to a great extent was) a winnowing process that took place over months. Numerous states had their primary elections in a loose order; one that allowed that most precious commodity in elections...time. Time is needed to take a second or even third look at a candidate.

But no more. It was odd how in 2004 the Democrats had their nominee decided so soon. It was a bogus "winner take all" event that finally vindicated Harry Truman's opinion that primaries were bunk.

But, in for a penny; in for a pound. This time around numerous states are advancing their primary dates sooner and sooner, so as to be......first. What the 2008 Democratic primary election is now resembling is the Thunderdome from Mad Max. "Eight candidates enter; one candidate leaves." I wouldn't be shocked if they had Tina Turner sing the theme song at the convention next year. It would be appropriate.

Every pollster is aware of the 1948 gaffe when "Dewey Defeats Truman" was used as crow for journalists to eat after the truth came out. The "experts" stop listening to the people and only listened to each other. In a nutshell, that's how they missed the mark so badly in 1948.

But not to worry. The system is being manipulated so that "the people" will be herded into only one corral, and very quickly at that. Options will disappear long before there is any truly close examination of the candidates. The experts can finally be afforded the luxury of listening only to each other.

So now, in September 2007 we are being given the clear choice for the Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton. That inevitability mantra is one of the things that annoys me about her candidacy.

More and more it appears to be an enthronment rather than an electoral process. It will take place not in a smoke-filled room, but rather in a smoke-free room. In fact, a low cholesterol, high fiber, flatulence (and hence Co2) free room.

As a Democrat, I don't feel like I've got any choice, but more an instruction from the Democratic National Committee. The wheel seems to have turned full circle from the American Revolution. Mel Gibson's character Benjamin Martin makes a comment in the film THE PATRIOT: "Why trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

It's a good question. Tryanny with a smile is tyranny just the same. If Senator Clinton is as intelligent as she is supposed to be, might she not ask herself if in reaching her ultimate goal she will cast aside any claim to historical relevance?

In the end, the 2008 campaign will be the dirtiest yet.

And so will the governing that follows.

Kind of makes one nostalgic for those smoke-filled rooms sometimes.

Michael Linn Jones

Cross Posted at Michael Linn Jones and the Gun Toting Liberal