Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Is Rush Subverting this Election


By sending Republican voters to the polls to cross over and vote for Hillary? Do you think this is a permissible technique? Should registered Republicans (or Dems) be able to cross over and vote in a primary with a goal of producing the weaker candidate? Should NYT columnists be able to champion the candidacy of someone they would never support in the general election in an editorial piece (Kristol)? Where did this system go wrong? Why don't we see the flaws before they wreak havoc and subvert the people's choice? Or am I naive to think the people should have a voice?

26 comments:

J. Kingston Pierce said...

No, this should not be allowed. But it does at least show who Republican'ts would prefer to face in November: Hillary Clinton. The younger, more energetic and well-spoken Barack Obama scares John "100 Years War" McCain to death. He would look even more ancient than he already does, if put on stage in a debate against the smart, youthful Obama.

Cheers,
Jeff

pattinase (abbott) said...

I have to admire this about her though: she's like a boxer that comes out of the ring after each round, assesses her opponents strengths and makes adjustments (and she's got a damn good trainer). Republicans shouldn't be so sure they can beat her either.

Ed Gorman said...

I voted for Bill Clinton once and then for Dole (as a protest). The Cllintons have from the national git-go struck me as ruthless, reckless, destructive, inherently dishonest people. I consider him a somewhat dangerous sociopath. All that said this is the most important election in my years on the planet. If even one more conservative goes on the Supreme Court virtually every gain in civil liberties purcashed in the last century will be undone. I know that sounds melodramatic but consider what Bush has done to our constitution. I was an Obama supporter for a long time but I've come to see him as a weak and dangerously vulnerable candidate. He'll be brunch for the GOP trash machine. Therefore, much as I hate to say it, I'm hoping Hillary (God I can't believe I'm saying this) gets the nomination. She's our only chance to beat McCain. As for Rust Limpbaugh..as H.L. Mencken said in the Twenties, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Arrogant perhaps but all too true.

pattinase (abbott) said...

I see your point. He hasn't made the adjustments he needed to in time. Waited too long to rid himself of Wright, for one thing. Hasn't come up with a new idea in months. It will be hard for me to vote for her because she has shown herself too willing to do anything to win. But on the other hand we need a candidate who will do anything to win. Yikes. I'm a yellow dog Dem but my husband won't vote for her and how many others will sit it out? Certainly a lot of black folks will.

Graham Powell said...

I will vote for McCain in November but I don't like this kind of gamesmanship. Play fair or don't play at all. May the best man (or woman!) win. Etc.

J. Kingston Pierce said...

With all due respect to both of you, I thoroughly disagree with your characterizations of Barack Obama as someone lacking either in courage or in ideas. While McCain and Clinton both keep feeding the same sorts of meaningless, message-of-the-week nostrums to voters (a gas-tax holiday that would likely not bring any savings to gas consumers, for instance), Obama continues to voice a consistent set of proposals on everything from health care to ending Bush's failed occupation of Iraq that have reality and reason built into them. The fact that he pushes a platform that doesn't waver with the poll-generated winds strikes me as just what a real leader ought to do. (So long as he is also willing to admit when he's wrong, which a spoiled child like Bush Jr. can't possibly do.)

Furthermore, I give Senator Obama credit for not immediately tossing his former pastor, Rev. Wright, under the bus when the media started braying at him to do so. You know that Hillary Clinton would be ruthless in destroying anyone--even friends--who got in the way of her election. McSame would suicidally defy the media at first, only to eventually concede, while his minions promoted the erroneous notion that tossing his erstwhile supporter/adviser/friend was his idea all along. But Obama, having not heard his former pastor's attacks on white America--at least until the media started spotlighting them, with Wright's witless assistance--was courageous and caring enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least until he learned more about Wright's positions. Then and only then was he willing to denounce Wright in the most public and prominent fashion. That's behavior befitting an honest, thoughtful person--which is just the sort of individual who ought to be president of the United States.

I have never once voted for a Republican't for president. And I will not do so this time; McCain is an anger-management-challenged old coot who will say anything--not matter that it contradicts what he's been saying for 30 years--in order to capture the Oval Office. But I am also resistant to voting for Hillary Clinton. I originally supported her bid for the White House, but she has shown herself over the last six months to be deceptive, idiotic in giving McCain political cover on the Iraq conflict and his own age problems, and a cheat in trying to move the goal posts on the Democratic primary race. I don't think either she or McCain is deserving of the presidency. With either of them in office, this nation will continue in the same sort of divided, unachieving, depressed state that it has been in for the last seven and half years.

The United States cries out for somebody different, somebody who doesn't simply repeat the attacks and promise the same brand of meaningless fixes that we've all seen in the recent past. The only one of the candidates who has even a slim chance of changing the game board is Barack Obama. And I believe he's both smart enough and courageous enough to make the sorts of honest, straightforward changes this country must make if it is to recover its economic strength and its standing in the world.

The Democratic race for the presidency is over, and Obama has won. It's time for the media to stop playing games with the minds of American voters, making them think that Hillary Clinton stands a chance in hell of achieving the presidency. (The math makes that impossible.) And it's time to let Barack Obama fix his sights firmly on defeating McCain in November.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I fear that McCain will be able to continue Bush's incompetent agenda for another four years. If he lives that long.

That's my two cents ...

pattinase (abbott) said...

Always the gentleman, Graham.
And a persuasive two cents it was, Jeff. A few months ago all of this seemed like an opportunity to air our feelings about sexism and racism and clear the air, but somehow the air is danker than ever, and most of it comes from the media. We are weary and angry and depressed instead of elated that Dems might reclaim the White House.
Funny, in the next room, my husband is listening to Obama while I'm here typing about him after whining that we never watch anything but election news and Tiger games. I better go listen to his victory speech.

pattinase (abbott) said...

P.S. If it's Hillary v. McCain, will you vote for her, Jeff?

J. Kingston Pierce said...

A good question, Patti. But I think it's too simple.

The real question is WHAT ELSE I will do if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, which I believe he must. With him as the nominee, I'll be willing--nay, anxious--to help round up more votes on his behalf, whether that's by passing out leaflets or holding up signs on roadsides. In the end, I'll make sure to vote for Obama and to pressure my friends to do so.

On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I shall be willing to vote for her--with my fingers pressed around my nose. As Ed mentioned, the stakes are too high to let a Republican't further George W. Bush's failed, incompetent policies. But casting my ballot on Clinton's behalf is AS MUCH as I can be expected to do. In all honesty, I no longer think she's deserving of the presidency, any more than McCain is.

pattinase (abbott) said...

It looks like the tide may have turned and ironically gas holidays may have put the foot to the pedal.

J. Kingston Pierce said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Kingston Pierce said...

Sorry, I took down my last comment because I had the wrong URL for video showing Barack Obama's North Carolina victory speech. Here's the correct one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/21134540/vp/24492787#24492787

It's a very gracious, moving address, which follows Obama's blowout victory today over Hillary Clinton in North Carolina. He didn't have to give her the win in Indiana, when networks weren't doing so yet; and he went out of his way to suggest that there's still some chance that Clinton might pull a win out of this contest (there isn't). He's making a conscious and important effort to heal the Democratic Party wounds Clinton has created with her divisive campaign.

It's an excellent step forward.

Cheers,
Jeff

Todd Mason said...

Hack vs. Bloviator. I'm sorry, I have yet to see any evidence that this is not the current Democratic field...better than PTSD survivor on the GOP side. Bur, really, folks...why would anyone pretend that there is more than stylistic difference between Hill and Barry?

And that's not enough. But, yes, still better than the mere style difference between the John and the Shrub.

I don't trust the judgement or gumption of either of the Democrats to get anyone of quality onto the Supreme Court, much less the lower courts, either, even with a small majority in both houses.

The election is the Democrats' to lose, and it's not the Media, as stupid and misleading as most of it is, that will lose it for them, but they themselves, if they do.

And Rush Limbaugh can't do shit about that, except crow and take undue credit should McCain squeak in...or "landslide" in with Electoral Votes, because gosh darn it, tiny minorities in some but usually not many states deserve the opportunity to sway the nation.

And gosh darnit, candidates wouldn't go to North Dakota if there were not Electoral College...as they do so readily with one.

Ah, well, it would be damned near impossible for the next President to do worse. I was hoping I could say that about Reagan, but golly didn't the next set try till one thoroughly succeeded.

pattinase (abbott) said...

I am sure there would be a substantial difference between McCain court appointees and either Obama's or Hillary's. Do you think either of them would have chose the last two jokers?

Steve Allan said...

There is little to Rush's petty game. Sure, some dittoheads probably did their master's bidding (like Manson's followers); but their damage, if any, was quite minimal. Let the blowhard blather on and on - he's only preaching to the converted anyway.

It's still too early to call Obama the Dem nominee because of the superdelegates. Looking over the map of the primary states that are left, Obama has the advantage, but not enough to gain the 200 delegates he needs. Many of the supers are waiting because they want to see what happens, but Hilary should have swept the majority of those supers due to the Clinton dynasty - and she's still counting on that loyalty (of course if these people were loyal, they would have already pledged their vote for her). She's just ruthless and she's done nothing but show that she will do everything and anything to win, regardless of the will of the people, you know, the popular vote. If, by some incredible way, god reaches down and screws around with the properties of mathematics and Hilary wins, I will vote for her. I'll be holding my nose while I do it - but I would much rather walk into that voting booth and vote for someone I believe in.

By the way, one the big reasons for the electoral college is to stop people like Rush from manipulating the population. An elitist idea, but true none the less.

Todd Mason said...

An elitist idea that would have more heft behind it if the political professionals weren't at least as prone to truckle to the Limbaughs as anyone...and this is not a new development, even if in the past they had names like Hearst, and before him comparable figures back to the Constitutional Convention...

Patti, I think the Dems will make a token effort to get a Lani Guinier on the court, fold like a paper fan, and stick us with yet another wishy-washy sorry excuse for a seat filler. Yes, still better than Alito, but as usual, not enough better.

Steve Allan said...

It will be interesting to witness the first Supreme Court nominee President Obama chooses. :) I know the Republicans will back away from their "up or down" vote stance and challenge anyone a Dem will nominate. If McCain loses, I think we'll see a nomination process in the first year of Obama/Hilary's term in office - Stevens is ready to drop, but he won't as long as a Republican is in office. The man is 88 years old, let him rest.

Considering that 6 out of 9 justices are over 70 (or one year away from that), the next 8 years are critical to the make up of the court, especially when all of the liberal and moderates are within that 6. Scary. But then again, only two of the justices were nominated by a Dem Prez.

Will Republicans nominate another Stevens or Souter? They felt pretty duped when both turned out to lean to the left. If there is anyone on the right side of the court that would even move to the middle, it would be Roberts. Thomas, Alito and Scalia are just conservative yes men - well, Thomas and Alito are, Scalia is the prince of darkness who pretty much reigns over the domain of hell that drips with the blood of liberals.

J. Kingston Pierce said...

If I were Hillary Clinton, at this stage of the game I might head over to Barack Obama's office and say, "OK, I've had enough. I'll drop out, but in exchange, you must promise that I'll be the first person you nominate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court." I think she'd be a terrific addition to that body, and with an expected Democratic majority in the Senate for the next few years, she'd have an excellent shot at being seated. Becoming a Justice would give her at least as much sway over the future of the United States as she'd have being president.

Cheers,
Jeff

TM said...

I'm not too sure we have any true liberals on the court these days...note the eminent domain case, for example, wherein only LawnOrder O'Connor and reactionaries Scalia and Thomas could bring themselves to stand for individuals in the face of governments nobly promising large tracts of land to sports stadia profiteers. Selected evidence, true, but it doesn't take too many examples like that to give us entirely too much of a sense of the court.

Todd Mason said...

Jeff, it's pretty clear to me Bill has been angling for a seat on the Court. I'd be very surprised to find either Clinton anything but a wishy-washy might-as-well-be-Republican when essentially unfettered in such a post...inasmuch as they've been pretty much that whenever possible in their more directly partisan activities. Definitely not enough better than Alito, and I have to wonder why you're remotely enthusiastic about such a prospect.

J. Kingston Pierce said...

For the time being, and even with a predominately Democratic Senate, I don't see what we might call "a true liberal" being either nominated or confirmed to a U.S. Supreme Court seat. However, I think there would be plenty of opportunity for more middle-of-the-road Dems such as Hillary Clinton to win the backing of a public (and Democratic Senate) most interested in upholding Roe v. Wade, shoring up support for American civil liberties, and advancing protections of the disadvantaged--all of which Clinton would be likely to do.

Cheers,
Jeff

Todd Mason said...

I wish I had any evidence that Rodham Clinton, or Mr. Clinton, were particularly good friends of civil liberties. That would be useful on the court. It's been a while since Hugo Black and Thurgood Marshall, after all.

TM said...

Or of protections for the disadvantaged. The Clinton Admin was pretty hostile in that regard.

J. Kingston Pierce said...

I have no intention of engaging in a debate over the accomplishments of the Clinton administration. As regards its benefits for the poor and disadvantaged, however, I shall point out that Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit benefited 15 millions families, that he doubled federal funding for child care, that his creation of AmeriCorps allowed tens of thousands of young people to serve in their communities while earning money for college, and that of course he increased the minimum wage for 10 millions workers. Yes, President Clinton also signed a welfare "reform" package that was highly imperfect, but he then set about improving on its provisions, despite fire-breathing Republican't opposition.

Cheers,
Jeff

pattinase (abbott) said...

I like the idea of Hillary bowing out now because it can't help Obama for him to look like he can't win in states like WVA and KY, even if he can't. I can't think of what she'd add to the ticket as VP but the Supreme Court idea is good for me. Or perhaps majority leader in the Senate?

Todd Mason said...

Well, she couldn't do Too much worse than Harry Reid.

I'm glad you're not willing to debate the Clinton Admin, Jeff, whatever that means when you're taking issue with my charactertization. It sort of did what you said it did, except, for example, doubling the childcare spending as it was under Sr. Bush isn't saying much, and Welfare Reform was a stated goal of the Clinton Admin, and was disastrous. And he didn't raise the minimum wage inadequately...as they did again recently, Congress did. And that Admin did everything they could to partner with business against labor, and otherwise Reinvent Government. But, hey, a few sops like the EIC never hurt...and look at all the (low-wage, no union representation) jobs "they" "created"!