In a move that reaffirmed a prediction I documented in an earlier post (scroll down if you doubt me), Fox News is now reporting: Former Sen. John Edwards, in his first public speech since dropping his White House bid two months ago, praised Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Saturday, but declined to endorse either candidate. I said it before; he will ride the fence until he knows which way this is going to go.
He’s been cultivating this “elder statesman” image of late, fashioning himself after Al Gore. Best definition I can think of for what qualifies you as a democratic “elder Statesman” is this: a failed Presidential bid of your own. The thing that Edward’s fails to realize is that his endorsement may actually go a long way in swaying voters. His support, I believe will have more impact now, in light of the generally unflattering relationships of Obama’s that have come to the forefront.
Polls are showing that Obama has been hurt by certain associations. Middle America is most of the country, they still hold certain values and they’re certainly not along the lines of “God damn America.” His lack of experience during war and tough economic times are also issues that cannot be overlooked. Nor can they be compensated for with flowery speeches touting hope and revolution that appeal primarily to aging baby boomers and today’s youth.
These new revelations that have come out about Senator Obama have slowed his meteoric rise because they've finally caused a break in the momentum, created a moment for people to stop, step back and ask, “Who is this man? What has he done that qualifies him and what do we really know about him, anyway?” To which the answers, if we're being honest, have to be: “Who knows?” to the first question, and “Nothing much” to the final two. Hardly rousing endorsements. But Edwards wants the Vice Presidency so bad, he’s unwilling to commit, for fear his words won’t carry enough weight and he’ll endorse himself right out of a job.
The Fox article goes on to quote the former Presidential candidate as saying, “I have a very high opinion of both of them,” Edwards said at the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention. “We would be blessed as a nation to have either one of them as president.” If that’s not sitting on the fence, I don’t know what is. The story concluded by saying: Pressed by reporters to detail any endorsement plans, Edwards declined to say if he would even endorse a candidate before North Carolina’s May 6 primary.
Regardless of an Edwards endorsement, Senator Obama tends to feel that he’ll have the whole thing sewn up by June anyway, well in advance of the August convention, thanks to the superdelegates. Today, he aligned himself with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in calling for uncommitted superdelegates to endorse a candidate soon after the final June 3 primaries in order to wrap up the race. Clinton, on the other hand, isn’t giving up. She’s arguing that the candidates owe it to voters to keep the campaign going.
Senator Obama is leading Clinton by 157 pledged delegates, but it’s still statistically impossible for either candidate to gain enough pledged delegates to lock down the nomination. That’s why he’s calling on all uncommitted delegates to endorse a candidate soon after the June 3rd primaries in order to wrap up the race. Obama is so cock-sure that he can’t lose and the numbers coming in after his most recent scandal do nothing to dispel the image he’s developed of political invincibility.
I just don’t think the democrats should get too comfortable with him; I’ve got a feeling this Jeremiah White thing is just the tip of the iceberg. What I do think is that if Edwards really wants to have a role in this election, he better get off the fence and help shape it. He needs to throw his support to Hillary because I just don’t know if Senator Obama’s personal life/ties/beliefs are going to hold up real well under scrutiny.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
For Whom the Bell Tolls
It's a shame, considering the alternative, but I think it's probably curtains for the Clinton's. Ironically, it appears that they may have even split their own throats.
They just keep playing their cards wrong. It is a well established fact that Americans treat Obama with the reverence due a demi-god. Even when he is caught smack-dab in the middle of, what would be for any other politician, a career ending scandal, he somehow slides under it, to come out clean on the other side.
Armed with this knowledge, the Clinton camp should have doubled-up efforts to remain above the fray. They needed to refrain from any attacks until Obama launched the first negative ad. By Hillary hitting first, all it did was serve as a reminder of the ruthless Clinton years. It gave us a refresher course on the Win-At-All-Costs bunker mentality that pervades their whole political visage.
You can see it now in Hillary's face. She's aged 10 years since the start of this. Her hunger for power has exhausted her and etched her face with its need. Their past is coming back to haunt them. There are just way too many bodies buried in the Clinton backyard, it seems, for her to ever be able to beat a man with no past. As further evidence of the kid gloves handling proffered to Obama, I watched and listened in sheer amazement to John McCain's response when asked for his opinion of the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco. McCain's response was that he knew Barak Obama and did not feel that Barak personally believed such things.
WTF? Now, assuming that Obama will be his opponent in the coming presidential race, I would have expected him to take such an opportunity and use it to his advantage, not give the guy a pass. The latest slap in the face is the rebuff from Nancy Pelosi in response to a letter sent to the speaker from a group of major contributors to the Democratic Party. They criticized her for statements she made saying superdelegates should support the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates (citizen votes).
They strongly encouraged her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party's best nominee, not necessarily the will of the people. Now, it's well known that I think the whole concept of "superdelegates" is unconstitutional. Why should any one American's vote weigh more heavily in determining an election's outcome? That aside, I think Pelosi (the one most convinced of her own importance) is loath to see Hillary win the nomination and then the election, as well because she doesn't want to give up being the most powerful female in Washington.
Sources said Pelosi was infuriated by the implied threat that the donors would quit giving cash to the committee. In a public display of defiance, the speaker of the House would not back down and continues to insist that superdelegates respect "the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted," her aide Brendan Daly said.
Lately, Billary have been getting it from every angle. Sadly, it's all undoubtedly well deserved. What scares me is that because of their past transgressions, there's a good possibility that we're going to end up with an untested, unproven, random unknown running this country into the ground.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
They just keep playing their cards wrong. It is a well established fact that Americans treat Obama with the reverence due a demi-god. Even when he is caught smack-dab in the middle of, what would be for any other politician, a career ending scandal, he somehow slides under it, to come out clean on the other side.
Armed with this knowledge, the Clinton camp should have doubled-up efforts to remain above the fray. They needed to refrain from any attacks until Obama launched the first negative ad. By Hillary hitting first, all it did was serve as a reminder of the ruthless Clinton years. It gave us a refresher course on the Win-At-All-Costs bunker mentality that pervades their whole political visage.
You can see it now in Hillary's face. She's aged 10 years since the start of this. Her hunger for power has exhausted her and etched her face with its need. Their past is coming back to haunt them. There are just way too many bodies buried in the Clinton backyard, it seems, for her to ever be able to beat a man with no past. As further evidence of the kid gloves handling proffered to Obama, I watched and listened in sheer amazement to John McCain's response when asked for his opinion of the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco. McCain's response was that he knew Barak Obama and did not feel that Barak personally believed such things.
WTF? Now, assuming that Obama will be his opponent in the coming presidential race, I would have expected him to take such an opportunity and use it to his advantage, not give the guy a pass. The latest slap in the face is the rebuff from Nancy Pelosi in response to a letter sent to the speaker from a group of major contributors to the Democratic Party. They criticized her for statements she made saying superdelegates should support the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates (citizen votes).
They strongly encouraged her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party's best nominee, not necessarily the will of the people. Now, it's well known that I think the whole concept of "superdelegates" is unconstitutional. Why should any one American's vote weigh more heavily in determining an election's outcome? That aside, I think Pelosi (the one most convinced of her own importance) is loath to see Hillary win the nomination and then the election, as well because she doesn't want to give up being the most powerful female in Washington.
Sources said Pelosi was infuriated by the implied threat that the donors would quit giving cash to the committee. In a public display of defiance, the speaker of the House would not back down and continues to insist that superdelegates respect "the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted," her aide Brendan Daly said.
Lately, Billary have been getting it from every angle. Sadly, it's all undoubtedly well deserved. What scares me is that because of their past transgressions, there's a good possibility that we're going to end up with an untested, unproven, random unknown running this country into the ground.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Even BaskinRobbins Gives Us 31 Choices--Election 08
I got a comment sent to me today that pretty much sums up this whole election experience (debacle). “It’s a catch 22,” was how he put it. I couldn't agree more. Regrettably, the reader went on to say, “He (Obama) is the lesser of the two evils,” that’s where I have to totally disagree and I’ll get to why in a minute. To make my first point, let me just say: even BaskinRobbins gives us 31 flavors from which to decide. I think when voting on the leader of the free world our choices should be at least as varied as Black Walnut, Lemon Custard, Pink Bubblegum and Rum Raisin. And I mean, come on, by virtue of the system we've embraced, we're already guaranteed a pretty limited candidate buffet for our voting pleasure. But in the political equivalent of: here's spit in your eye; come this November, we get screwed twice. Not only do we lack quantity, if the race winds up being played out along the lines it looks like it's going, we seriously lack quality, as well. On one hand is the possibility of being represented by a dinosaur who's unlikely to even make it through his second full term alive and behind door number 2, no Johnny, it's not a new car, it's: a black racist who hates America. Let me tell you why we're in this predicament. It's America's continued insistence on a two party system. Our fear of breaking with tradition and really supporting a third, even fourth party candidate. Tradition is nice; until it stagnates, then it begins to strangle the sentiment from which it was born. We need to let go of the customary, yet antiquated conventions so deeply ingrained in the American political process if we want to be a nation that continues to thrive. Hell, we need to let them go if we want to be a nation that continues to exist. Like many a great empire before us, dissension from within may prove our undoing. In the mean time, we're stuck with two turkeys to choose from. Personally, I'm waiting to see who McCain is going to pick up for a running mate, because there's a better than average chance that by voting for McCain, his VP will eventually be advanced by default. And then there is Obama. Now I won't go as far as to say Obama hates white people, but he sure does resent us. Could you just imagine the uproar if Obama was attending a white church and a white priest was saying such things about black people? Lordy, we'd have Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and every other blowhard preacher with an affinity for getting his face on TV out picketing and marching and stirring up a racial shitstorm the likes of which have never been seen. Know what Sharpton's response to Jeremiah Whites sermons was? "We need to be careful that we're not taking his words out of context." Hey Al, your hypocrisy is showing. What do you think it's going to do for race relations if we elect a president who agrees with the vilification of just about half the country? And spare me the, ‘he wasn’t there…he didn’t know’ excuse. HE KNEW. You don’t go 20 years to the same place where racial loathing and national division is repeatedly spewed and somehow not know. Even if (and this is hard to believe) over the 20 years that he was a member of the congregation and maintained a personal relationship with the Reverend, Mr. Obama didn’t hear Reverend Wright’s hate filled diatribes first hand, it’s just impossible to swallow that he never heard ABOUT them. I’m a member of a close-knit church and let me tell you, when the priest gives a powerful homily, it’s discussed. It was because of that blatant lie in the face of the “give us a break, how stupid do we look” response from America, that Obama ceased to be the hope of a new day and became just another politician. It was right then when he became interchangeable with the rest of his ilk. Those who’ll lie to contradict the obvious, who will lie just to further their own gain. So I guess, between the lesser of the two evils, a dinosaur or an anti-American, I’ll take the dinosaur, hands down, any day. I'm of the definite opinion that race should never ever even be an issue here, because Barak is neither black nor white...he's transparent. He is politics as usual, just with newer skin. He's still peddling the wheels of political chicanery, with his soundbites and pretty, but empty ideas. He's all form, no substance and the only reason his machine is still moving forward is because the whole damn country is, for some reason, giving him a free pass to remain an empty shell. He reminds me of those pull string dolls that have 3 or 4 pre-recorded sayings. He never varies from his script and he never expands on it either. What gets me the most is that no one is even demanding that he does. The whites are supporting him to try to assuage a lifetime of subconscious ancestral guilt and the blacks are so damn happy to have one of their own at the top that nobody is stopping a minute to take a step back and realize, the reality of it all. Once we get over the novelty of having an African American residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we're going to need to come to terms with the fact that we've basically got a squatter in the White House. I'm not saying on the surface he doesn't have charisma. Hell, he'd make a great ad exec or used car salesman, but a President, he ain't. Unless of course, the platform he's basing his domestic policy on actually is , 'smoke n' mirrors'. If that's not the case than come November and he's our fearless leader, it'll be worse than the blind leading the blind. We will have followed him unquestionably, like lambs to the slaughter. And we'll have no one to blame but ourselves, because the writing was on the wall. He doesn't even try to hide his inadequacy, he's actually embraced it as part of his charm. I mean, my God, even his “apology” speech was painfully contrived. For a man who supposedly speaks so eloquently, he sure was choking on those words of denial. And not for nothing: Barak, but if you’re going to stand before America and try to make a case for your own ignorance in regards to over 20 years of your pastor's anti-white, anti-American invective, it’d seem so much more sincere if you could at least look us in the eye when you’re lying to us and not just read the whole damn thing from the Teleprompter. JGG original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Isn't he just deepening the divide?--Election '08
Does the average American really believe that Obama disagrees with the sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
This man has been both the pastor of and mentor to Barack as well as his wife Michelle, for over 20 years. He also happens to be the minister who married them.
For all intents and purposes, Obama’s whole candidacy is based solely on a call to voters to place their trust in his capacity for clarity and judgment. How does he explain the disparity with the fact that he maintains such a close relationship with a man best described as a militant religious extremist? The videotaped sermons that are now making their way around the internet are by no means isolated cases, nor are they just a one time deviation from a normally placid style of preaching. What they are is a typical representation of the man’s usual rabidity and rancor. They are also a glimpse into an obviously bitter, lifelong resentment and genuine ill will for a country so great that he even has the freedom to acknowledge and express his vitriol and virulence.
If the Obama’s don’t subscribe to the same beliefs, why do they continue to subject themselves to such fanatical and bigoted dogma by remaining active members of his church? It’s curious that Michelle Obama’s recent admission was that when she saw how America embraced her husband’s entry into the race that was, "the first time in her life that she’s felt pride in her country".
You can clearly see and hear the congregation behind Reverend Wright clapping, nodding, and shouting their approval of and agreement with his statements. It is highly unlikely that Mr. and Mrs. Obama just sat meekly by, the only two in the assemblage who remained subdued and silent in the face of such fire and brimstone. Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the splendid pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, or even a synagogue.
Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. The man not only officiated over their marriage, he even baptized their kids. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright. It’s possible such ideologies were not always an intrinsic part of the Obama’s outlook, but being constantly inundated with angry, powerful messages eventually forces those ideas to bleed into beliefs.
In one clip, Wright takes the pulpit and solemnly, deeply declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. “Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he resonates. “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people and we care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means. We betray our church and don’t try to make the kingdom that Jesus talked about a reality. And — and — and in light of thes2we 10 facts, God has got to be sick of this s***.”
He has also made the following outlandish statements in a 2007 Rolling Stone article: “The government invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Americans are selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant. We put Nelson Mandela in prison and then supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was in there. We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly. We abandoned the cities back in the '60s when the riots started and then we gave up on them and on public education of the poor people who live in the projects . . .” Citing that article and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans of having Wright introduce him at his Presidential announcement.
The message that the pastor is propagating does nothing to address the root cause, it only serves to absolve the parishioners of their own accountability for their successes and their failures in life. It’s a weak crutch to maintain that color plays a role in actively holding people down. Too many provisions are in place to AIDE Americans of color and other minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment, was the first modern legislation to address these barriers. A section of the act known as Title VII, which specifically banned discrimination in employment, laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of affirmative action. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance became important enforcement agencies for affirmative action Affirmative Action is used in the United States to increase opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admissions, and the awarding of government contracts. Depending upon the situation, “minorities” might include any underrepresented group, especially one defined by race, ethnicity, or gender.
Generally, affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, businesses, or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity, such as a corporation, or by society as a whole. It’s real easy, highly likely and yet should be alarmingly suspect for Obama to walk away from the Reverend Wright association now. To denounce the preacher’s message as far from his own held beliefs, but it fails to answer the question as to why he didn’t impugn the sermons prior to this public outcry. How can Barack Obama say that he’s the candidate that will bridge the gap and finally bring all American’s together when his pastor, his mentor seems hell bent on deepening the divide?
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
This man has been both the pastor of and mentor to Barack as well as his wife Michelle, for over 20 years. He also happens to be the minister who married them.
For all intents and purposes, Obama’s whole candidacy is based solely on a call to voters to place their trust in his capacity for clarity and judgment. How does he explain the disparity with the fact that he maintains such a close relationship with a man best described as a militant religious extremist? The videotaped sermons that are now making their way around the internet are by no means isolated cases, nor are they just a one time deviation from a normally placid style of preaching. What they are is a typical representation of the man’s usual rabidity and rancor. They are also a glimpse into an obviously bitter, lifelong resentment and genuine ill will for a country so great that he even has the freedom to acknowledge and express his vitriol and virulence.
If the Obama’s don’t subscribe to the same beliefs, why do they continue to subject themselves to such fanatical and bigoted dogma by remaining active members of his church? It’s curious that Michelle Obama’s recent admission was that when she saw how America embraced her husband’s entry into the race that was, "the first time in her life that she’s felt pride in her country".
You can clearly see and hear the congregation behind Reverend Wright clapping, nodding, and shouting their approval of and agreement with his statements. It is highly unlikely that Mr. and Mrs. Obama just sat meekly by, the only two in the assemblage who remained subdued and silent in the face of such fire and brimstone. Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the splendid pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, or even a synagogue.
Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. The man not only officiated over their marriage, he even baptized their kids. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright. It’s possible such ideologies were not always an intrinsic part of the Obama’s outlook, but being constantly inundated with angry, powerful messages eventually forces those ideas to bleed into beliefs.
In one clip, Wright takes the pulpit and solemnly, deeply declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. “Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he resonates. “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people and we care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means. We betray our church and don’t try to make the kingdom that Jesus talked about a reality. And — and — and in light of thes2we 10 facts, God has got to be sick of this s***.”
He has also made the following outlandish statements in a 2007 Rolling Stone article: “The government invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Americans are selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant. We put Nelson Mandela in prison and then supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was in there. We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly. We abandoned the cities back in the '60s when the riots started and then we gave up on them and on public education of the poor people who live in the projects . . .” Citing that article and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans of having Wright introduce him at his Presidential announcement.
The message that the pastor is propagating does nothing to address the root cause, it only serves to absolve the parishioners of their own accountability for their successes and their failures in life. It’s a weak crutch to maintain that color plays a role in actively holding people down. Too many provisions are in place to AIDE Americans of color and other minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment, was the first modern legislation to address these barriers. A section of the act known as Title VII, which specifically banned discrimination in employment, laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of affirmative action. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance became important enforcement agencies for affirmative action Affirmative Action is used in the United States to increase opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admissions, and the awarding of government contracts. Depending upon the situation, “minorities” might include any underrepresented group, especially one defined by race, ethnicity, or gender.
Generally, affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, businesses, or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity, such as a corporation, or by society as a whole. It’s real easy, highly likely and yet should be alarmingly suspect for Obama to walk away from the Reverend Wright association now. To denounce the preacher’s message as far from his own held beliefs, but it fails to answer the question as to why he didn’t impugn the sermons prior to this public outcry. How can Barack Obama say that he’s the candidate that will bridge the gap and finally bring all American’s together when his pastor, his mentor seems hell bent on deepening the divide?
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
We need reform and we need it NOW!--Election '08
Election 2008 may very well be the most significant election in all of our lives; it’s certainly the most important one so far. Between the war in Iraq, with our young being shipped home in body bags and the collapse of our economy, with a stock market about as stable as Brittany Spears' psyche, the American public is counting on the next president to be an instant political panacea, a parental figure that makes everything alright again.
The winner of this election needs to move quickly and precisely so as not to be dismissed as just another charlatan with hollow promises and open palms. Considering that the outcome of this election will shape an extraordinary epoch in history, why is it being run and decided according to the same archaic system implemented over 300 years ago? The staggered primaries are the first things that we need to reform. The system we have now is haphazard and unfair, with some states holding their primary one month, while other states hold theirs in other months. States are now jockeying for position to ensure that their primaries actually contribute to the process of choosing a candidate.
It is simply not fair to citizens of the states that hold later primaries because A). Maybe the candidate I would have chosen has already dropped out due to lack of support and B). I’d feel like I needed to vote for the candidate who’s already taken the lead (Re: John McCain) or I’m just throwing my vote away. No state wants to repeat the situation that New Jersey and Montana found themselves in back in 2004, when they held their state primaries 13 weeks after John Kerry had begun running unopposed. To ensure their relevance, some states chose to vote too soon this time around and wound up forfeiting their delegates all together.
“Delegates” you say. What on earth are delegates? Okay, pay close attention now because this is where it gets a bit tricky. The whole house of cards is based on an antiquated system known as “The Electoral College.” In short, the Electoral College is made up of a body of electors, who choose the president and vice president of the United States. Each state has a designated number of electors, equal to the total number of the state's Senators and Representatives. In theory, on Election Day, whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state is awarded that state's electors; but there is no Constitutional clause or law that requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their states.
The idea for the Electoral College, itself was established by our founding fathers as a compromise between an election of the president by Congress and an election by popular vote. The electors are a designated body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4, 2008). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial (10-year) census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States. To win the presidency, a candidate must have a majority in the electoral college (270 votes).
Are you still with me? Now, most voters would surely be unhappy to see their candidate win the most votes but lose the election. Given that, why would the Founding Fathers create a constitutional process that would allow this to happen? The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the citizens of the country had direct input in choosing their leaders and saw two possible ways to accomplish this: The people of each state could elect their members of the US Congress by direct popular election. In turn, the members of Congress would then express the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves: An election by Congress. -or- The people of the entire nation could vote for and elect the president and vice president based on popular votes alone: A direct popular election. Election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess their constituents desires and then to actually vote accordingly. The only problem was that this could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress rather than the actual will of the people.
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option because there were no organized national political parties as of yet nor any structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not reflect the wishes of the nation as a whole. So as a compromise, the Electoral College system was instituted and written into the Constitution as Amendment 12—Choosing the President, Vice President and was ratified on June 15, 1804.
By continuing to recognize the Electoral College, we’re discounting the fact that the concerns that plagued our forefathers are no longer issues in our country today. With the Industrial Revolution came the advent of mobility and community, then radio and television furthered the ability to disseminate information to the masses in a relatively short amount of time. Since the dawn of the technological age, the transfer of information is instantaneous and constant. Campaigns today cost millions of dollars to run and their sole objective is to inform every last American about their candidate. We are no longer confined by the limitations of our past, so why is our election process?
Update...Re-reading this now (2/27/2017)...nearly 10 years after it's original publishing; I realize how misguided I was about the necessity of ensuring a level playing field. Think about it, the largest and most populous states have been, since time immemorial; left leaning bastions. Without the protection of the electoral college, which our forefathers had the unbelievable foresight to see, those States, California, New York, etc would forever decide our fate.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
The winner of this election needs to move quickly and precisely so as not to be dismissed as just another charlatan with hollow promises and open palms. Considering that the outcome of this election will shape an extraordinary epoch in history, why is it being run and decided according to the same archaic system implemented over 300 years ago? The staggered primaries are the first things that we need to reform. The system we have now is haphazard and unfair, with some states holding their primary one month, while other states hold theirs in other months. States are now jockeying for position to ensure that their primaries actually contribute to the process of choosing a candidate.
It is simply not fair to citizens of the states that hold later primaries because A). Maybe the candidate I would have chosen has already dropped out due to lack of support and B). I’d feel like I needed to vote for the candidate who’s already taken the lead (Re: John McCain) or I’m just throwing my vote away. No state wants to repeat the situation that New Jersey and Montana found themselves in back in 2004, when they held their state primaries 13 weeks after John Kerry had begun running unopposed. To ensure their relevance, some states chose to vote too soon this time around and wound up forfeiting their delegates all together.
“Delegates” you say. What on earth are delegates? Okay, pay close attention now because this is where it gets a bit tricky. The whole house of cards is based on an antiquated system known as “The Electoral College.” In short, the Electoral College is made up of a body of electors, who choose the president and vice president of the United States. Each state has a designated number of electors, equal to the total number of the state's Senators and Representatives. In theory, on Election Day, whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state is awarded that state's electors; but there is no Constitutional clause or law that requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their states.
The idea for the Electoral College, itself was established by our founding fathers as a compromise between an election of the president by Congress and an election by popular vote. The electors are a designated body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4, 2008). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial (10-year) census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States. To win the presidency, a candidate must have a majority in the electoral college (270 votes).
Are you still with me? Now, most voters would surely be unhappy to see their candidate win the most votes but lose the election. Given that, why would the Founding Fathers create a constitutional process that would allow this to happen? The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the citizens of the country had direct input in choosing their leaders and saw two possible ways to accomplish this: The people of each state could elect their members of the US Congress by direct popular election. In turn, the members of Congress would then express the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves: An election by Congress. -or- The people of the entire nation could vote for and elect the president and vice president based on popular votes alone: A direct popular election. Election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess their constituents desires and then to actually vote accordingly. The only problem was that this could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress rather than the actual will of the people.
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option because there were no organized national political parties as of yet nor any structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not reflect the wishes of the nation as a whole. So as a compromise, the Electoral College system was instituted and written into the Constitution as Amendment 12—Choosing the President, Vice President and was ratified on June 15, 1804.
By continuing to recognize the Electoral College, we’re discounting the fact that the concerns that plagued our forefathers are no longer issues in our country today. With the Industrial Revolution came the advent of mobility and community, then radio and television furthered the ability to disseminate information to the masses in a relatively short amount of time. Since the dawn of the technological age, the transfer of information is instantaneous and constant. Campaigns today cost millions of dollars to run and their sole objective is to inform every last American about their candidate. We are no longer confined by the limitations of our past, so why is our election process?
Update...Re-reading this now (2/27/2017)...nearly 10 years after it's original publishing; I realize how misguided I was about the necessity of ensuring a level playing field. Think about it, the largest and most populous states have been, since time immemorial; left leaning bastions. Without the protection of the electoral college, which our forefathers had the unbelievable foresight to see, those States, California, New York, etc would forever decide our fate.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Slim Pickins-- Election '08
It’s hard to predict which way this election is going to go. I heard a pundit say the other day that if the democrats can’t win this election, then the democrats just can’t win. There’s so much Republican backlash from the 8 years of Bush that it seems a sure bet that our next president is going to set a precedent as either a woman or a black male. So for shits and giggles, let’s take a minute and have a closer look at the players. John Edwards is a sly dog, ain’t he? He’s been out of the race for days now and yet still hasn’t public ally come forward to officially endorse either remaining candidate. He’s so obviously hedging his bets, waiting to see which way the tide goes. Let’s be honest, he was always running for Vice-President anyway and he’ll probably do very well in that capacity.
Clinton would love Edwards as a VP, because she could easily steamroll right over him. She wouldn’t have to be looking over her shoulder for hidden agendas and power plays ‘cause heck, he’d just be happy to be there. And Obama would welcome him with open arms because it may temper all the nay-sayers who say we’re not ready for a black president, that and the fact that each of them appeal to vastly different demographics so their coming together would make the ticket seem more appealing to a broader cross section of voters.Yes, Johnny boy is just laying in wait, but he’ll pounce once he sees some blood in the water. Speaking of Obama and blood in the water, did anyone else see the clip on the internet of a function Obama attended where everybody stood to salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the United States and Obama stayed seated and silent?
Yes, you read it right. Did you also know that he was raised a Muslim and only converted to Christianity a few years ago? Where the hell did Obama even come from? Maybe some of you recall a promise made to us by bin Laden, post 9/11, when he swore that he would get one of his zealots on the inside of our government. He said that it would be a long and complicated process, but the results, when they came, would more than be worth the wait.
He would literally control the American government and destroy us quite quickly, from the inside. Barack’s never run anything in his life, hasn’t even managed a McDonald’s and yet, it seems, about half of the country feel he’s truly qualified to run the last remaining superpower in the world. Laughable, if it didn’t have the potential to be so tragic. And then we have Hillary. At least now we know why she didn’t leave that dick of a husband after he made a fool of her, time and again, in front of the whole country with his tomcatting around. She was leveraging herself for her own eventual run for the presidency.
That at least shows some foresight and planning, two desirable qualities in any president. The downside of a new Clinton regime is just the blatant corruption associated with them. There are a lot of bodies buried in the Clinton graveyard and both Bill and Hillary put them there. She couldn’t maintain honest practices while running her own law firm (Whitewater, anyone?), how do we expect her to stay above the fray when she has control of the whole damn country? If Edwards throws his support to Obama, who would Hillary even choose as a running mate? I’m going to go out on a ledge here and say Pelosi. True, Pelosi has more power as Majority Speaker of the House than she would as Vice President, but it would be damn good positioning if she has designs on the Oval Office, herself.
Now to the Republicans…slim pickins there, too, folks. The only reason Romney is even still in it is because he’s bankrolling the whole shebang himself. I don’t know what it is, but there’s just something about him that I find off. Eventually, it will probably be revealed that he’s a robot.
The forerunner and expected candidate for the Republican Party, John McCain is, for all intents and purposes, I'll just say it, a Democrat. For him to say that he wouldn’t torture captured terrorists to gain intelligence that would bolster our chance of victory in this war was just naive. I understand he was a prisoner of war, but come on, they’re torturing our guys. Its war and we shouldn’t have to adhere to our standards of civility; we have to lower ourselves to theirs. Barbaric? Surely. Necessary? Undoubtedly. An eye for an eye, it’s right there in the Holy Bible. You can’t be a mamby-pansy because they certainly aren’t playing fair. If he’s smart, he’ll take Giuliani as his running mate. Rudy would help him close the government checkbook and grow some political balls.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Clinton would love Edwards as a VP, because she could easily steamroll right over him. She wouldn’t have to be looking over her shoulder for hidden agendas and power plays ‘cause heck, he’d just be happy to be there. And Obama would welcome him with open arms because it may temper all the nay-sayers who say we’re not ready for a black president, that and the fact that each of them appeal to vastly different demographics so their coming together would make the ticket seem more appealing to a broader cross section of voters.Yes, Johnny boy is just laying in wait, but he’ll pounce once he sees some blood in the water. Speaking of Obama and blood in the water, did anyone else see the clip on the internet of a function Obama attended where everybody stood to salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the United States and Obama stayed seated and silent?
Yes, you read it right. Did you also know that he was raised a Muslim and only converted to Christianity a few years ago? Where the hell did Obama even come from? Maybe some of you recall a promise made to us by bin Laden, post 9/11, when he swore that he would get one of his zealots on the inside of our government. He said that it would be a long and complicated process, but the results, when they came, would more than be worth the wait.
He would literally control the American government and destroy us quite quickly, from the inside. Barack’s never run anything in his life, hasn’t even managed a McDonald’s and yet, it seems, about half of the country feel he’s truly qualified to run the last remaining superpower in the world. Laughable, if it didn’t have the potential to be so tragic. And then we have Hillary. At least now we know why she didn’t leave that dick of a husband after he made a fool of her, time and again, in front of the whole country with his tomcatting around. She was leveraging herself for her own eventual run for the presidency.
That at least shows some foresight and planning, two desirable qualities in any president. The downside of a new Clinton regime is just the blatant corruption associated with them. There are a lot of bodies buried in the Clinton graveyard and both Bill and Hillary put them there. She couldn’t maintain honest practices while running her own law firm (Whitewater, anyone?), how do we expect her to stay above the fray when she has control of the whole damn country? If Edwards throws his support to Obama, who would Hillary even choose as a running mate? I’m going to go out on a ledge here and say Pelosi. True, Pelosi has more power as Majority Speaker of the House than she would as Vice President, but it would be damn good positioning if she has designs on the Oval Office, herself.
Now to the Republicans…slim pickins there, too, folks. The only reason Romney is even still in it is because he’s bankrolling the whole shebang himself. I don’t know what it is, but there’s just something about him that I find off. Eventually, it will probably be revealed that he’s a robot.
The forerunner and expected candidate for the Republican Party, John McCain is, for all intents and purposes, I'll just say it, a Democrat. For him to say that he wouldn’t torture captured terrorists to gain intelligence that would bolster our chance of victory in this war was just naive. I understand he was a prisoner of war, but come on, they’re torturing our guys. Its war and we shouldn’t have to adhere to our standards of civility; we have to lower ourselves to theirs. Barbaric? Surely. Necessary? Undoubtedly. An eye for an eye, it’s right there in the Holy Bible. You can’t be a mamby-pansy because they certainly aren’t playing fair. If he’s smart, he’ll take Giuliani as his running mate. Rudy would help him close the government checkbook and grow some political balls.
original post at http://politicalpatrol.blogspot.com
NEED A BLOGGER? I'M AVAILABLE TO BLOG FOR YOU. CONTACT ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)