Obama '08?

georgeob1 wrote:

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

And we've enjoyed the competent hands of a Republican administration for so long. Pity.

Bungled illegal war vs. bungled Michigan primary. Which is worse? Too close to call, I say.

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

blatham, while I understand your angst, if the democrats decide to do this in 2009 I will be severely discouraged in our nation.

And any democrat who supports the democrats doing this is deeply distraught.

It's good to see you come out of the dark closet and into the light Blatham. I look forward to your future postings.

Agreed, george. The efficiencies of a more dictatorial style of administration and governance are indeed compelling.

For this exact reason, it is my firm believe that the Dems, given a presidential win and majority status in both houses come November, ought to follow the inspiring lead set by Republicans over the last few decades. To wit:

- broad redistricting to advantage their party, and hence, it's abilities to push through policies with minimal interference.

- filling judicial posts from the SC on down with judges who are ideologically aligned with Dem/liberal policies and values.

- likewise, using broad and deep Justice Department appointments as a means of forwarding prosecutions of Republican politicians and thus, further increase electoral gains for the Dem party.
...

Gargamel wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

And we've enjoyed the competent hands of a Republican administration for so long. Pity.

Bungled illegal war vs. bungled Michigan primary. Which is worse? Too close to call, I say.

The bungled Mi and Fl primary.
It is far worse to refuse to allow people to have their votes counted, especially if they voted in a legal election, without violating any laws to do so.

Opposing view: Actions have consequences
Michigan and Florida broke the rules; don't bail them out.
By Thomas E. Mann

Calling for a revote of the Democratic primary elections in Michigan and Florida seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal. The contest between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is unbelievably close; the primaries that were held (with only one major candidate on the ballot in Michigan and no campaign in either) have utterly no legitimacy; and voters in these two key states otherwise would have no opportunity to weigh in on whom the Democrats should offer as their nominee.

But the costs of revotes would outweigh the benefits:

* First is the problem of moral hazard. Bailing out the state officials in Michigan and the compliant Democrats in Florida who brazenly defied national party committee rules governing the scheduling of primaries and caucuses threaten to render toothless the authority of the national parties (affirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court) to bring some coherence to an increasingly anarchic nominating process.

* Second, with both states refusing to shoulder the responsibility to administer and pay for new primary elections, the burden would fall upon two state Democratic parties that simply are not up to the task. A botched mail-in election in Florida would be the worst possible outcome. A failure to raise the requisite millions of dollars in voluntary contributions could force a disastrous cancellation of any new presidential contest in either Florida or Michigan.

* Third, revotes would directly and transparently affect the prospects of Clinton and Obama. New rules should be crafted under a "veil of ignorance." Why should the candidate harmed by this late rules change lend support to it when both candidates raised no objection to the ruling of the Democratic National Committee not to seat the delegations and agreed not to campaign in either state?

It's just as well the revote plans are dead or dying. Florida and Michigan Democratic leaders will have to face the reality that their actions have consequences. The best they can do now is try to negotiate some roughly equal allocation of a reduced number of delegates between the two candidates.

blatham wrote:

Agreed, george. The efficiencies of a more dictatorial style of administration and governance are indeed compelling.

For this exact reason, it is my firm believe that the Dems, given a presidential win and majority status in both houses come November, ought to follow the inspiring lead set by Republicans over the last few decades. To wit:

- broad redistricting to advantage their party, and hence, it's abilities to push through policies with minimal interference.

- filling judicial posts from the SC on down with judges who are ideologically aligned with Dem/liberal policies and values.

- likewise, using broad and deep Justice Department appointments as a means of forwarding prosecutions of Republican politicians and thus, further increase electoral gains for the Dem party.
...

etc. etc.

I think we can be reassured that they are already planning all these things and more - that just based on the behaviors of previous Democrat Administrations. Odd that you don't appear to see that.

However, I suspect they will do it with all the skill and foresight so evident in the Democrat National Committee's primary election planning & rulemaking.

georgeob1 wrote:

Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.

Agreed, george. The efficiencies of a more dictatorial style of administration and governance are indeed compelling.

For this exact reason, it is my firm believe that the Dems, given a presidential win and majority status in both houses come November, ought to follow the inspiring lead set by Republicans over the last few decades. To wit:

- broad redistricting to advantage their party, and hence, it's abilities to push through policies with minimal interference.

- filling judicial posts from the SC on down with judges who are ideologically aligned with Dem/liberal policies and values.

- likewise, using broad and deep Justice Department appointments as a means of forwarding prosecutions of Republican politicians and thus, further increase electoral gains for the Dem party.

- co-ordination, through the WH political arm, of message solidarity by bringing teams of Liberal Movement ideologues in the media into the WH regularly for briefings and goal-alignment. This should also be done on a weekly basis with all major Dem coalition partners in all spheres so as to hammer out who to crush and who to support and how to go about doing those things. This would be lobbyists, media, hollywood people, the religious left, etc.

- working behind the scenes, organize the purchase of a large media conglomerate which owns papers and cable tv and radio and bring them online as a propaganda mechanism. You'll want them to advertise as something like "above the partisan fray...here only to inform you, the citizens" but they'll be really nothing like that at all.

- increase secrecy of all internal operations. Put up roadblocks on every and any sort of investigation that might be directed towards operations, whether congressional or from unfriendly press.

- strengthen the weakened power of the Presidency by bringing in the most radical legal minds around and have them draw up the arguments and legal strategies for giving the Dem president the unique and absolute powers which ought to devolve from the C in C situation under which the presidency now operates. Along with this, and in support of it, the new Dem administration must extend the active militarism presently in effect, along with enormous PR campaigns to convince the american people that this militarism (with its consequences for Presidential power) is entirely necessary for the defence of american citizens from evils that lurk outside of the borders (and inside too).

- immediately attack, via WH and via all the friendly media outlets now effectively under WH control, any and all attacks upon the President or his policies or against the military as traitorous and anti-American. Do not let up. Do this every day from multiple sources and outlets.

- form up a committee to survey all government departments and detail who within them is a party loyalist and remove all others. Where this is not feasible or where it might be noticed, move to re-organize so as to disempower the non-loyal through putting the loyal above them on the organizational charts

- in tandem with the above, ensure that ALL government reports, from statisticians or science bodies or whatever, are not released until they have been vetted by the loyalists you've put up at the top. Rewrite where necessary to match message solidarity or simply shelf reports if their conclusions are unaligned.

That's a short list, but covers a few of the essential moves the Dems ought to make in order to to be "ept" as the Republicans you admire have been.

Quote:

Who are the Majority in this country? Whites, right? Whatever benefits whites, should benefit ALL native Americans, do you agree, or is this a "for whites only" country?

You are the only person even suggesting that this is a "for whites only" country.

Since you said "ALL native Americans", are you suggesting that those not born in the US should not get the benefits that everyone else is entitled to?
Thats a bit xenophobic on your part, isnt it?

SEIU Spending Big For Obama In Pennsylvania

One of Barack Obama's key unions, SEIU, is set to spend nearly $740,000 for a a massive get-out-the-vote campaign for Obama in the presidential primary. This shows us yet again that Obama's forces will have a tremendous financial advantage over Hillary in the state that has become crucial to her hopes. [..]

Good for SEIU. And here's the really cool thing -- a major Pennsylvania-based affiliate of SEIU's arch rival, AFSCME, broke with their international union to also endorse Obama. That's the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees.

Maybe I'm the only one who has the guts to say it! It IS a country founded by whites FOR whites, the way it's being run. What about the "natives", Indians as Columbus mistakenly called them? Their whole country has been taken, FOR the white man! When I say native, and you know what I mean by being facetious, I mean any person born of an American Mother and father. Any person born outside the United States of an American Mother and Father, automatically is considered an American and you knew that, just as I do. You just can't stand it when I'm right!

teenyboone wrote:

Maybe I'm the only one who has the guts to say it! It IS a country founded by whites FOR whites, the way it's being run. What about the "natives", Indians as Columbus mistakenly called them? Their whole country has been taken, FOR the white man! When I say native, and you know what I mean by being facetious, I mean any person born of an American Mother and father. Any person born outside the United States of an American Mother and Father, automatically is considered an American and you knew that, just as I do. You just can't stand it when I'm right!

What about the Spaniards that took Mexico and killed many of the Indians down there? What about the Spaniards that intermarried with Indians? And so what about immigrants from Mexico, do we filter out the ones with Spanish heritage vs. the true Indians? What about the Indians that came later and killed off natives, such as the Navajos. before white man even got to Arizona and New Mexico? After all, they apparently came in later from the north and conquered and drove out the ancestral pueblo people that came from the south much much earlier. What about whites that inter-married with natives? What are they, Americans or imposters?

As a matter of fact, what about Obama? Is he only half American, or not even that? Come to think of it, why didn't you mention this earlier? Since Obama is half white, and not native, he must not be qualified to even live here, let alone run for president.