Portland, Tennessee Blog

"The only third party candidate I'm aware of is Ralph Nader."

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr the Libertarian Presidentail candidate.

Ahhhh, the light bulb comes on! That additional paragraph definitely makes your point clearer, and thanks for the link. After reading the entire article, I now understand your point. I wouldn't be surprised if, despite his proclaimed interest in making sure that all votes count, he is also doing it to help the GOP. However, if this had happened in Tennessee, I would hope that our governor would take the same action.

Also, and I'm not saying he doesn't have alterior motives, if he had come out and said that he was going to do nothing to help the process, he probably would have been criticized for not helping to get his constituent's voices heard. Somewhat of a double-edged sword.

Thanks again for clearing that up.

Many Republicans think Mr. McCain could beat Mrs. Clinton in Florida, which might explain Mr. Crist’s push to get the Democratic delegates seated. Meanwhile, helping to prolong the Democratic battle over delegates — instead of advocating that they simply not be counted, as the current rules require — could be the governor’s way of making trouble for the Democrats on behalf of Mr. McCain

Chuck, more from the article, read on

Seating the 210 delegates from Florida or allowing a revote could help her become the nominee of her party.

Many Republicans think Mr. McCain could beat Mrs. Clinton in Florida, which might explain Mr. Crist’s push to get the Democratic delegates seated. Meanwhile, helping to prolong the Democratic battle over delegates — instead of advocating that they simply not be counted, as the current rules require — could be the governor’s way of making trouble for the Democrats on behalf of Mr. McCain.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if he was having some fun with this,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant here. “When your two enemies are beating each other to pieces, enjoy the show.”
--------------------------------------------------
I guess I just figured some could put 2 and 2 together forgetting I was the one that read the article and not they. To read the complete article the link is below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/us/politics/17crist.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Hi Judy,
I read and re-read your post about the article in the NY Times, and still don't see what it has to do with the Democratic Primary process. Honestly, I don't see the connection between the Florida Governor and his support for McCain, and the Democrats. It mentions the Republican Primary and an upcoming legislative session in Florida, but not once is there anything mentioned about the Democrats. Would you mind clarifying the connection here?

Judy, I think you'd be surprised just how dense I can be. My wife could probably write volumes, LOL!

I'd love to discuss the media topic, but I think I'll put it in a separate posting so we don't get too many different discussions going on this one.
I look forward to hearing from you later.

Chuck - I'm sure you're not that dense.. and I'm not going to feed into it.

Yes the media plays a large roll, life would be so boring without them, it's up to you to research fact/fiction, it's up to you to decide if the glass half full or half empty, it's up to you to determine if you are basing your decision on accurate information and not just on how others see it. It's your vote not theirs, so why blame the media?

JWMason,
I totally agree with your third point regarding the use of Super Delegates. Altlhough I'm against using them, this process could be used without impacting the individual vote of the citizens. I think if the "Supers" were taken from a pool of state representatives, be it mayors, congressmen or women, etc., they would be more likely to vote the will of the people rather that the will of some special interest. Again, I think this process should be done away with altogether, but if it must be maintained, make it representative of the voters who put the delegates in office.

And I, like you, wish we had better choices. It's a sad day for this country when we have to choose between the lesser of evils. Unfortunately, the process of getting elected is so expensive, and so bitter, that we are unlikely to ever get the truly "Best" candidate in the running. I know that I would never want to go through the "vetting" these candidates have to go through. With my big mouth, and closet full of skeletons, I'd be toast before the first primary vote. LOL.
Cheers

MG,
You're absolutely right about the media's attempts to influence the vote. This has been going on for some time now, and it gets more and more flagrant. If you're interested in getting an insiders viewpoint, you should really read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. He worked at CBS for over 30 years and shares a unique perspective about media bias.
Cheers!

Judy, Pardon me if this is a stupid question. Sometimes I can be a little dense.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the excerpts from the NY Times article. Did this have some bearing on the Democratic Primary that I'm missing?

Thanks

DC, based on your comments, it appears that you think that I don't believe the voters should be heard. Nothing could be further from the truth. I agree with you that the voters should NOT be punished because of someone else's mistake. However, if they (DNC or state election committees)are not going to hold a "do over", I don't think it would be fair to Senator Obama to count the votes "as is". Since his name was not even on the ballot in MI, it can hardly be fair.

As for candidate preference, you're right. I don't care about others preferences, but neither do I mind sharing my views, and reasoning. I didn't start this blog to hear who is voting for who. I was simply curious to see how folks felt about the MI and FL primaries.

Do others feel as I do that the media has tried to run this campaign? I used to feel that you could never get too much information on candidates so that we could make an "informed" choice. I'm rethinking that at this point, because it seems like it gives the media too much power in the election and because I am hesitant to trust the quality of the reporting. (No offense if you are reading this, Daniel!) The media used to be different too--it seems like in the past they valued journalistic integrity and they used to independently check, verify, and back up sources before they spouted stories. Now it seems like they care more about the shock value and getting it on the air or in print first than they care about factual accuracy (for example, the New York Times). It doesn't matter what party you support, it is plain to see who the major media outlets support by the tone of their stories--that's not reporting the news, that's influencing the news.

It's times in these kind of debate topics that I miss hearing what Daniel Suddeath has to say. Don't always agree but he always brings up good points.

Every vote should count no matter what. You can say whatever you want I don't give a crap about what anyone thinks about my opinion.

A few comments from an article in the NY Times.
A little interesting when it comes to the fight about Florida Delegates.

Florida's Governor Mr. Crist, 51, is frequently mentioned as a potential running mate for Mr. McCain, and has traveled with the senator a few times since endorsing him just before the Republican primary in Florida. But the timing has been tricky. Florida is facing its worst financial crisis in decades, mostly because of the housing downturn, and the *Republican-controlled Legislature* is struggling to patch a $3 billion budget gap.

The state legislative session began March 4, the same day Mr. McCain clinched the Republican nomination. Mr. Crist gave a cheery State of the State address that night, playing down Florida’s fiscal problems, and he went on the road with Mr. McCain the next morning.

hummmmmm

My answers are:

1) I order to maintain so order certian states vote at different time. While this may not be the best way, it's what we've got at this time.

2) Each action has a reaction. They knew if they changed the date what would happen.

3) The Super Delegates are the Dem's way of saying "The People don't know who to choose, so let's do it for them". This strikes me as the main thoughts of the Dem party. "Here you can't do this(think,feed,house,etc.)for yourself let me do it for you."

4) I can only hope. Not that I like the Rep.'s any better.

Tho I'm not with any party I knid of lean to a Lib./Rep. frame of mind. I don't belive in "everything" that any party stands for.

DC, If I was told before I voted, that my vote was not going to count....then I would not vote.

These people in Florida and Michigan need to be upset at the folks who moved the election, even though they were told by doing so, the primary would not count...and they did it anyway.

The only reason this is even an issue is because Clinton is behind, if she were not behind, she would not care if any one's votes were counted.

I think the people of FL and MI were done wrong, I also think that sometimes people need to be able to think for themselves....when every media outlet, newspaper, TV and everything else is telling you your vote is not going to count, that the primary is nothing more than a beauty contest, what more needs be said. That makes the whole thing pointless.

What FL and MI should have done was kept their primaries where they were in the first place, then there would not have been an issue. That is the bottom line here.

So Now because Clinton is behind, there is all this "Concern" about people's votes counting....PLEASE...this is nothing more than a ploy by the Clinton Campaign to make waves becuase she is behind and nothing more.

Everyone's voice should be heard no matter what. It wasn't the voter's that moved the Primaries and they shouldn't suffer for someone else's mistake. They have every right as You JW and you Chuck Siniff. Would you like it if you were told your vote didn't count because of a dumb choice i made.

I won't say who I'm for and not for because it isn't important and it wasn't the Question to start with. Everyone want's to throw out who they are for on here and all I can say is who cares.

As far as this hurting the Democratic party it shouldn't. Remember how easy people in this country forget stuff and move on. Nothing seems to bother people in this country any more except the price of Gas.

Sorry, I meant to post the link to the entire article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm

JW,
As much as it pains me to say so, I have to agree with you. By the way, it doesn't pain me to agree with you, just having to agree not to count votes. I'm not sure who should be held most responsible, the DNC or the individual states parties.

Regardless of how they handle (or don't) this fiasco, I think it will severely damage the party.

Personally, I'm fine with that. Nothing either of the democratic candidates have said anything that appeals to me. As you mentioned earlier, tax increases will kill you, and it's small businesses like your that contribute to the greatest amount of job increases. Raising taxes will be murderous on our economy, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I'm also leaning toward McCain because he has PROVEN that he can "cross the aisle" and work with others in the opposing party. The other candidates talk about doing it, but neither has anything to back up such talk.

An article in today's USA Today also struck a positive chord for me. Arizona and Alaska rank dead LAST for earkmarks (pork projects). The remarks below come directly from that article:

That's mostly because three of the state's 10 lawmakers in Washington — McCain and House Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg — refuse to ask for any federal money for local projects. Another Arizona Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl, strictly limits his earmark requests.

Me again. This proves to me that McCain "walks the walk".

Chuck,

I am a bit of a Hardliner on the whole Florida Michigan thing, here's how I see it.

Both states were told when they announced their intention to move their primaries to earlier dates, that they would not count...Yet they did it anyway....is it just me or does that seem like madness.

Now, people are worried about their votes being counted? where was this concern when they were told their votes would not count and went and did it anyway?

I am certain, that if Hillary was ahead in the delegates...ect...she would not be half as concerned about votes counting. Which just further verifies how I feel about her. Anything to win.

How should it be handled....well rules are rules right? They were told what would happen if they moved these primaries and yet they did it anyway, and now they are worked up because they violated the rules, that they were told they were violating, and want votes to count, that they were told would not count.

Both states had thier chance to do this right and they both blew it. They should live with the consequences.

JW, you made some great points about all the candidates, some of which I agree with, and some not, but isn't that what makes this so great! We can disagree without getting shot at, LOL.

Before I spout out my feelings on the candidates, I was wondering what you think about how Michigan and Florida will, or should, be handled. Also, since I am in such agreement with you concerning Hillary, do you believe, as I do that she will do ANYTHING to get elected, even if it means a brokered convention.

PS. Even though I lean Right, I quit listening to Hannity and Rush a long time ago. The killer was after an "interview" with actress Jeaneane Garafalo (sorry about the spelling). Although she had some very well thought-out, intelligent positions, she could hardly get a word out because Hannity kept interrupting. That was the end for me.

Well this is going to be an interesting thread to read.

I think the entire primary should be done in one day Nationwide.

As for the Superdelegates, stupid Idea that is obviously back firing on the Dem's.

This will probably be a fairly long post so bear with me because I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. (for what they are worth)

First a little history, I have never missed an opportunity to vote, everytime there has been an election I have voted, even if it is a small local election. I have basically been a Republican all of my life. BUT, the Republican party has left me behind, much of what it stands for no longer represents me. And frankly, the fact that it is pretty much run by the religious right doesn't help.

Now my thoughts on each Candidate.

Ralph Nader........Who?

John McCain: I don't like him at all. It seems he wants more of the same that we have had for the past 7 years. He has admitted that he knows nothing about the economy, is a very poor communicator, was for amnesty and just seems like more of the same out of touch Washington that we see today. You put on top of this that by the time he is elected, he will be the oldest first term president (newly elected) in American History. I know this may offend a few people, BUT, his age is an issue for me. By the time he is sworn in to office he will be nearly 73 years old. He isn't the healthiest of people, so chances are he would not make it through 2 terms, if he makes it through the first, so his pick for Vice President would become abundantly important. I just don't see much of a future there. More of the same makes my stomach turn. I was for the war in Afghanistan but against Iraq. I think we should go back and finish the job in Afghanistan, which should have been finished in the first place, but was not. My conclusion is, I can not and will not vote for John McCain, more of the same is not good enough for me.

Hillary Clinton, well, when I think of Hillary Clinton, I think of Whitewater, and Savings & Loan scandles, the death of Vincent Foster, secrecy and dishonesty. I really think she would do and say anything to win office. I was not a huge fan of Bill Clinton, but honestly he was a much better President than Bush has been. Of course I believe alot of people are voting more for Bill than they are Hillary. Frankly, the thought of Bill Clinton roaming the white house with nothing to do scares me to death. My biggest problem with Hillary is that I just don't like her either, I don't see her as an honest person, she seems very deceptive to me. Her policies are much the same as Obama's so there isn't much difference there other than healthcare, which is also a bit scary. She want's to force people in to healthcare. I understand why she believes that is necessary, but I just don't think it is enforcable. I also don't see her to be as experienced as she claims she is. There are alot of things, like her tax returns, transcripts from her days as First Lady etc...that she just seemes overly determine to keep out of the public eye. I get a little irritated with her constant harping on being able to lead on day 1. Yet, she never seems to explain why she believes that way. Is it because she was First Lady? That doesn't fly with me, being First Lady no more qualifies her to be President that putting a Volkswagan bug on a car lot with Corvette's makes the Volkswagan a Corvette. Frankly if it comes down to her and John McCain, I will vote for her.

Barack Obama, I am from Illinois and I am fully aware of many of the things that he did there, which are clearly available to view on his website. Obama does not scare me, but he does make me nervous in that he isn't real clear with regard to many of his policies such as what he want's to do with Tax's. This does make me a bit nervous. I own a small business, I can't afford higher tax's, this would put me out of business. I see Obama as much more diplomatic than any of the other candidates. When I try to imagine turning on the TV and seeing the president visiting other countries, I can picture Obama more than I can the others. I do believe he would be a decent President. Like I said there are some things he could be a little clearer on for me, and hopefully he will do this. I do like his policies on transparency and accountablity with Gov't, his commitment to acknowledge the Native Americans of this country who have been tossed aside. Also, I have an Autistic son, and Obama is the only one who has specifically addressed this. I don't agree with what I have heard with regard to his tax policies, anyone who earns $75,000 or over would have thier tax's raised is a little vague to me. is that $75,000 total or each. In other words, does that mean a couple would earn $150,000 before tax's are raised. There is very little clarity there. A big PLUS for me is he is not a Bush or Clinton. Frankly the rhetoric that has recently come out about his preacher doesn't carry any weight with me, to tell you the truth I actually agree with some of what I heard him say. This is not to say I agree with everything he said, BUT, there are certain aspects of what he said that I felt had some truth to it.

So, this is where I find myself, I don't like McCain or Clinton. Could vote for Clinton before I would McCain and would vote for Obama before I could McCain, so with these things in mind I guess it will be either Clinton or Obama for me this time around.

Maybe I could hold out hope that a viable third party candidate will emerge....its still a long way to election day.

Lastly, I am so sick and tired of these talking heads like Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and even Steve Gill. They are doing everything they can to destroy Barack Obama...and the only reason being, they are afraid he can beat McCain. This attempt to discredit Obama is nothing more than their way of trying to get Clinton the nomination, what they don't understand is she very well could be McCain as well. If that happens, I can not wait to turn on the radio and hear them pouting about it.

The only third party candidate I'm aware of is Ralph Nader. Not a chance in....well, anywhere that I'd vote for him. My biggest complaint with Hillary, and most other Democrats of today, is there willingness to give my hard earned money to others. I'm all for helping the needy, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should have everything that I do.

I think the DNC should finance a "do over" in both Fl and MI. Give the candidates a chance to campaign, and let the vote fall where it may.

I'd still like to here what everyone else thinks about "Super delegates".

Sad thing is--I like none of these 3 candidates, but I don't dare vote for a third party candidate for fear that I will be responsible for leveraging Hillary or Obama into office, neither of whom I feel is qualified to do anything but provide more handouts with more money from my pockets.

Well to be honest Obama scares the hell out of me!! I do not trust him!! I felt that way even before the Rev. Wright fiasco.

I was leaning towards McCain but after listening to him I'm afraid if it comes down to him and Hillary I will have to vote for her.

Every Americans voice deserves to be heard so MI and FL need to have a do-over or just divide the delegates between Obama and Hillary.

I like the idea of running the primaries in the same manner as the General election. The various convolutions are not fair, or even understandable many times. As with Super Delegates, the various types of primaries seem to open the charges of unfairness. I still like the concept of "one person, one vote."

As for our choice of candidates.....
It is a sad day, but as you see time and time again, if you're not a millionaire, you're not going to be able to muster much of a campaign. In addition, the muckracking is so prevalent now on both sides, I can't imagine having to go through with it. If they went all the way back to my High School and College Days, my campaign would crash and burn before it ever got off the ground.

I'm still leaning towards McCain, because I don't think it will be four more years of Bush. I do believe he's gotten the message that his previous stance on immigration is unacceptable, and I also think his economic policies will be better for the country.

HOWEVER, I'm afraid that even if he is elected, the Democrats will increase their majorities in both houses, and we'll end up with a four year Lame Duck. Just think, four more years of what we've had for the last 18 months. A terrifying prospect.

Chuck - Yes probably will start a war, but what the heck, things been a little slow here.

My thoughts: Florida, that is a shame so many votes/voices that will not be heard..... makes one wonder why you take the time to vote. Should not of been allowed to happen in the first place. I say let the votes count. Michigan, again should not of been allowed to happen and since both candidates were not even listed on the ballot, it should be void, allow a revote!

It is a sad sad day when a candidates wife notes "for the first time I am proud of our country" What the heck!!! A vote for Obama is a vote for Opra, that's the way I look at it, sorry he's not qualified to lead our country! Just my opinion. As for Hillary, she does have more experience, however I don't think it is her time, which leaves us with McCain, another 4 years of Bush if he is elected so we're back to square one. This is a Sad, Sad day for the leadership of our country when this is the best we have to offer, but then again who in their right mind would want to take on the task ahead of cleaning up the 8 years of Bush!!

Primaries should run like a general election, this crap of different days, is totally disfunctional, let everyone vote at once for all the candidates, then when that is over there will be lots of money left for the non elected candidates to donate to charity!! The amount of money spent is rediculous!!

I think the problem was that they decided to disenfranchise those voters before the primaries even occurred, but I don't think they should go back and "redo" those primaries now. The voters were not responsible for the state party's decision to have the primary earlier, and their voices deserved to be heard.

I'm convinced that our primary system is broken. I'm not sure how we can justify the present system that basically makes some people's votes more important than others because of the caucus system in some states, the 2-tiered primary in some states, the standard primaries in others, and gosh knows how many other primary systems. I believe the primaries should operate like the general election, same day everywhere, same requirements in each state, in order to give all voters an equal voice. I suspect that would change outcomes significantly, if all voters had a chance to vote for all the candidates, rather than only the ones left in the race by the time your state holds its primary.

Just my opinion...

Just so there is no confusion, I started this blog but failed to change how my name was posted. Name should have read, Chuck Siniff