 
Arcas
Member
Username: Arcas
Post Number: 36
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 3:24 pm: |    |
A note - Also see the similar thread over on the Non-Detroit side for other opinions: https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5843/115876.html?1191977 366
Check out Jelk's comments there and here. I agree with everything he said.
------------------
But I'll comment over here as well.
Dhugger, English, I was Barack Obama supporter yesterday. I'm an Obama supporter today. And I'll be an Obama supporter tomorrow. If your support of Obama was so fragile that a soft breeze through the trees is enough to make you jump ship... then I'm speechless, I don't even know what to say. Obama is practically a way of life for a lot of people I know.
But let's talk about these events of yesterday with a few points:
* Don't forget, first and foremost, Michigan broke the rules. We all agree that Michigan should have a bigger say. We all agree that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have a monopoly on presidential elections. But that doesn't give the Michigan Democratic Party the right to throw a hissy-fit and say "I'm taking my ball and going home." Did anyone in the Michigan Democratic Party contact you, the Michigan voter, and asked what you thought about them just ignoring the party rules that they agreed too? Where was the outrage in that? Why isn't some of the blame being thrown at them?
* The proper way to go about this, and what's hopefully done after 2008, is for Michigan and Florida to get together with California, New Mexico, Idaho, Hawaii, Alabama, and every other state that isn't Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada; and say to the DNC that we want a single national day for primaries. And then make it happen in a calm and legal way. And they can make it happen too, I'm assuming of course that the political power of 46 states trumps the power of 4.
* When Michigan broke the rules, the DNC told all the candidates that they didn't want them campaigning in Michigan and Florida. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AGREED. This was weeks ago... where was your outrage then? Or were you all just not paying attention?
* Now let's look at this from the shoes of Hillary Clinton. Staying on the Michigan ballot is a sly and bold move for Clinton for a variety of reasons.
A) The main reason the other guys left... they don't want to piss off Iowa/NH, where they need all the support they can get. All the other guys are throwing everything they have into Iowa/NH. Clinton, honestly doesn't even know if she can win Iowa. Bill didn't run there in 1992 and she's not nearly as liked in Iowa as she is elsewhere. Clinton can realistically come in second in Iowa and NH, and still be in a pretty strong position nationally. She's in a position where she doesn't need to pander to Iowa/NH. The other guys are. You may not agree with it, but this is how the game works until all the states get together to change it. The candidates have to intelligently play the hand they're dealt.
B) The power struggle. Hillary is the front-runner. Staying on the ballot is a slight jab to the DNC. Saying in part, "I'm the front-runner, you guys don't have the balls to do anything to me... your move, Mr. Dean." Now we'll see how Dean chooses to respond.
C) A gamble with almost no risk. Hillary is such a big name that it may actually convince the Michigan Democratic Party to do something truly retarded and KEEP the January date, just to spite the DNC. In this scenario, Hillary wins the state by default and even though the thing would be entirely meaningless, it would still be some positive PR for the Clinton campaign right around the time of the Iowa/NH business.
* And the genius part, the really sneaky part, is that Hillary picks up tons of support from people by doing absolutely nothing. Don't forget, Clinton already said that she isn't campaigning in Michigan, just like the rest of the field. Everyone that is now jumping into the Clinton boat because "She cares about Michigan", is rushing to support a candidate that will NOT set a single toe into the state to campaign. Clinton, ultimately, just got all of your support, completely for free, by having her name on a piece of paper. On one hand it's kinda sad, on the other, it's remarkably brilliant. Hillary played yesterday like a political genius.
And even if they move the date back to Feb. 9th, the damage has been done. Clinton just picked up a ton of Michigan support today by doing nothing.
* Ultimately, the most sensible and logical choice at this point is for the Michigan Democratic Party to chalk this one up as a loss, move the date back to Feb. 9th, let everyone back on the ballot, and pray that the DNC will actually let our votes count. To do otherwise, as a single act of stubborn defiance and grandstanding, would be to do a true disservice to the Democratic voters of this state.
Go back to the drawing board, and try again next time, the right way.
* Everyone has to ask the question of yourselves; who are voting for? The President of You and Your Family? The President of Detroit? The President of the Auto Industry? The President of Michigan? Or the President of the United States? What if it turned out that each there was a different and better candidate for each one of those roles. Which would you choose to cast your vote for? Ask that question to the people of Hawaii and Alaska. They still contribute money to campaigns. They still vote in primaries. They still organize, hold rallies, and show support. Even though they know that none of the candidates will ever show up to see them. They do it because they believe that if the nation itself is better, then that helps them out as well. Michiganders, unfortunately, are still mired in the "politics of me, me, me". Isn't it time for everyone to move on to the "politics of US." Wouldn't it be a shift if everyone cared more about what a candidate can do for the nation and the world as a whole, than they do for what a candidate can do for you personally, or your city/state specifically by bringing home the pork barrel?
* I honestly expect that the Michigan Democratic Party will steam about this for a week or so and then move the date back to Feb 9th. Why would they keep it in January at this point? Principle? Stubbornness? Look at their position here. They never asked you, the Michigan voter, your opinion. They broke the rules. Much like Fnemecek said. This is analogous to a guy shoplifting from your store, you chase him down and tackle him, and later the thief sues you for roughing him up too much.
But if we do, in fact, live in a loony twilight zone world, and I do find myself at the booth in January. I'll do just like Pam. Step up to the booth, get out my pen, and write-in whoever I want. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4216
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 3:43 pm: | |
To get lost in near-sighted bean counting is to overlook media reaction and its influence of the impact created by the winner of the first states.
Everyone who knows the history of primaries knows that early primary voting determines the race and all the resulting delegates that come with it later. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this fight.
If Michigan and Florida went first, as I hope they do even with zero delegates to the winner, who IA and NH elected would be as meaningless as North Dakota in terms of impact, fundraising and influence on subsequent races.
If the MI, FL and NH and IA primaries were held on the same day and MI and FL elected, say, Edwards and NH and IA chose, say Obama, there would be no comparison in the impact. The die would be cast. Obama would be severly crippled and probably finished.
The point of my argument is that the influence of going first is worth the loss of delegates because a large populous swing states that more closely mirror the national electorate would set the tone.
Maybe we lose delegates this cycle, but I guarantee you that the IA / NH monopoly would be broken by the next.
More equitable would be to rotate first primaries so that each cycle starts with a different yet balanced cross section of the country. It takes rebellion like this to make it happen.
As it is the door is wide open for Hillary. Obama should fire the bone-head advisor that lead his down this blind alley. He easily could have taken Hillary's stance [don't campaign but stay on the ballot]. Better yet he could have announce his defiance and looked like a fighter rather that a bend-in-the-wind candidate. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4264
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 3:53 pm: | |
At some point, Lowell will have his epiphany and discover than his anointed candidate is yet another crooked South Side Chicago politician. And Hilliary is similar--except that she's from the northern burbs there. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2579
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 3:54 pm: | |
quote:Dhugger, English, I was Barack Obama supporter yesterday. I'm an Obama supporter today. And I'll be an Obama supporter tomorrow. If your support of Obama was so fragile that a soft breeze through the trees is enough to make you jump ship... then I'm speechless, I don't even know what to say.
Amen.
quote:Ultimately, the most sensible and logical choice at this point is for the Michigan Democratic Party to chalk this one up as a loss, move the date back to Feb. 9th, let everyone back on the ballot, and pray that the DNC will actually let our votes count.
That would unquestionably be the best course of action, in my opinion. However, I'm not sure if the folks in the MDP are smart enough to do it.
quote:The proper way to go about this, and what's hopefully done after 2008, is for Michigan and Florida to get together with California, New Mexico, Idaho, Hawaii, Alabama, and every other state that isn't Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada; and say to the DNC that we want a single national day for primaries.
This is where I disagree. In my opinion, a single national day for primaries would be a disaster.
All that really comes out of the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries is that the herd of candidates gets thinned out a bit. Candidates who never really had a chance of getting elected leave the race. ($50 says Chris Dodd will be gone after the NH primary.)
Once that happens, the real race begins. The 5 - 10% of the electorate that those candidates had as supporters will begin to move. The person who was in 3rd or 4th place in NH can easily find himself in 1st or 2nd place, depending on how those voters move.
If we switch to a single national primary, we lose our chance to have the race grow organically. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 137
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:01 pm: | |
The problem is that the Dems and the Repubs both tailor their messages to the front-runner states in order to avoid getting out of the race for the exact reasons you state Fnemecek. They entire focus of a campaign is on winning/surviving these early primaries.
Unfortunately, that leaves our issues muddled with very little in the way of focused attention. Seriously, how much focused discussion occurred last night in the GOP debate about Michigan and the Great Lakes issues? We got a nibble last night which is more than we've gotten in the last 20 years. (Well, other than Obama coming in and slamming on us about being bad for the environment).
I heard a lot of generalities but no real plans, no specifics, nothing. At least they acknowledged that we have different needs in this region than farm subsidies and whatever else a bunch of farmers and tree-huggers want addressed in Iowa and New Hampshire. Frankly, it seems the only good politicians have for Michigan any more is to use us as a whipping boy for their agendas. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4682
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:04 pm: | |
Poppycock. No Democratic candidate is going to campaign in Michigan's show primary. All but one of the major candidates has removed themselves from the ballot. If Michigan holds this January primary no one will pay attention. Louisiana pulled this stunt in 1996 giving up actual delegates for the first "primary" and they ended up with a thrilling race between Pat Buchanan and Phil Gramm that no one cared about.
The early primaries aren't necessarily as important as people think anymore. Take a look that the recent contested Iowa/New Hampshire results:
1992 Iowa Democrats: Tom Harkin
1992 New Hampshire Democrats: Paul Tsongas
1996 Iowa Republicans: Bob Dole
1996 NH Republicans: Pat Buchanan
2000 Iowa Republicans: George Bush
2000 NH Republicans: John McCain
2004 Iowa Democrats: John Kerry
2004 NH Democrats: John Kerry
That's eight races over four election cycles with eventual nominees winning four and losing four. Personally, I'd rather vote for actual convention delegates so Michigan has a real voice as opposed to a symbolic one. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2580
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:08 pm: | |
quote:Everyone who knows the history of primaries knows that early primary voting determines the race and all the resulting delegates that come with it later.
Actually, everyone who knows the history of primaries knows that, more often than not, the person who wins the early primaries does not become the nominee.
Remember Bill Bradley in 2000? Paul Tsongas in 1992? Gary Hart in 1984? Ed Muskie in 1972?
All of them won the NH primary but failed to win the nomination.
quote:Otherwise we wouldn't be having this fight.
This fight is about the rule of law vs. the ego of a handful of politicians.
quote:The point of my argument is that the influence of going first is worth the loss of delegates because a large populous swing states that more closely mirror the national electorate would set the tone.
President Paul Tsongas called while you were out. He was playing cards with President Gary Hart and President Ed Muskie. They were all wondering what influence they got from the first primary. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2581
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:17 pm: | |
quote:The problem is that the Dems and the Repubs both tailor their messages to the front-runner states in order to avoid getting out of the race for the exact reasons you state Fnemecek.
Actually, candidates tailor their message for whatever race that happen to be in at the moment. Once the first round of primaries are over, they forget about everything they said during the early primaries as soon as they touch down in the next state.
Of course, if you don't have any votes that count then they never get around to addressing your issues.
quote:Frankly, it seems the only good politicians have for Michigan any more is to use us as a whipping boy for their agendas.
That's what happens when you don't have any votes. Politicians respect votes. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 143
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:49 pm: | |
Fnemecek,
It almost seems as though you are attempting to justify an obscure rule passed by the DNC that basically says any primary held before Iowa and NH has no bearing on the election of a candidate.
The point is that absent that rule, all state primaries have equal weight. What is difficult to understand about that?
Additionally, how many candidates have ever had much to say about Michigan, the Great Lakes region, manufacturing, cross-border traffic, or other issues related to us over the last 20 years? Name some. I'm game to look them up and eat crow if you can find it.
Point is, we didn't have respect when we had the votes so who cares now? You're only reinforcing my opinion more about the DNC. Calling the state's demand for a different primary schedule a "show primary" only shows more disrespect for us. If that is the case, why on Earth would I want to respect the DNC enough to contribute any further money, time, or votes to it? The party exists to serve its constituency, not the reverse. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 5:01 pm: | |
Screw Michigan. I'm in the Obama camp whether he's on your ballot or not. He's still on mine! lol.
j/k
I don't know how any of you could possibly support Hillary "Two-Faced" Clinton. If she and Giuliani get the nominations then I probably won't vote for that category. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2582
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 6:22 pm: | |
quote:It almost seems as though you are attempting to justify an obscure rule passed by the DNC...
First, if a rule is widely known and reported in hundreds of news outlets then, by definition, it is not "obscure".
quote:The point is that absent that rule, all state primaries have equal weight. What is difficult to understand about that?
With the rule, all state primaries have equal weight as long as you comply with the rules. What is difficult to understand about playing by the rules?
quote:Additionally, how many candidates have ever had much to say about Michigan, the Great Lakes region, manufacturing, cross-border traffic, or other issues related to us over the last 20 years? Name some. I'm game to look them up and eat crow if you can find it.
With exception of the current cycle, all of the candidates in past 20 years have talked about those issues. From Jimmy Carter talking about urban renewal in 1970s to Bill Clinton talking about retraining workers for jobs in the new economy, they've all talked about it. If there's one thing that candidates love doing, whether they be presidential candidates or candidates for dog catcher, is talking about the issues - usually in vague terms.
The challenge has always been transforming the pre-election talking into post-election action. That is a challenge that every state and every cause faces, no matter when their primary is held.
There is also the issue of what we as a community chose to spend our political capital on. No one gets everything that they want, but you can usually get one or two things if you play your cards right.
CAFE standards haven't changed in roughly 20 years, despite mountains of evidence that they should and the fact that a lot of people around the country would like to see them change. The fact that they haven't changed is because of the respect that people have for Michigan and its needs. That is what we have spent our political capital on.
quote:Calling the state's demand for a different primary schedule a "show primary" only shows more disrespect for us.
Respect is earned. No one has ever earned respect by throwing a temper tantrum like Debbie Dingell and her crew have done. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 291
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 7:09 pm: | |
If Hillary wins I'm moving out of this Country
Only losers would vote for that socialist bitch. |
Umstucoach
Member
Username: Umstucoach
Post Number: 140
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 8:14 pm: | |
"If Hillary wins I'm moving out of this Country
Only losers would vote for that socialist bitch."
Good, maybe you could join Alec Baldwin...oh wait... |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 297
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 9:29 pm: | |
Just what this country needs, a feminist, anti military, vindictive hungry power socialist who will stop at nothing to control your lives on a micro level. |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 9:40 pm: | |
quote:If Hillary wins I'm moving out of this Country Crap. Now I have to vote for Hillary.  |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 21
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 11:20 pm: | |
Well, I've heard from a number of friends and acquaintances who are Democrats or vote Democratic that they plan on voting Republican in 2008, regardless of the nominees, for the purpose of sending a message to the Democrats in the following ways, as it's been explained to me:
1, to the DNC, that if they want Michigan voters to vote Democratic, the DNC needs to respect Michigan. 2, to the Michigan Democratic party that if they want voters to vote Democratic, they better not play games with the rules that jeopardize Michigan delegates.
and 3, to the Democratic candidate, that if they care about any Michigan votes, they need to campaign here and care, and not just during the general election campaign.
I'm just amazed at the stupidity of the Democratic party in all respects. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4683
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 11:50 pm: | |
quote:Well, I've heard from a number of friends and acquaintances who are Democrats or vote Democratic that they plan on voting Republican in 2008, regardless of the nominees, for the purpose of sending a message to the Democrats...
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This snit is reducing our already beleaguered political process to some petty form of tribalism. Forget policy, experience, and leadership. It's all about respecting our turf...dawg. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3660
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 11:59 pm: | |
Don't worry, my buddies on the Christian Right are threatening to abandon the Republican party for a doomed third party candidate so I am sure the Dem protest votes for the GOP will be offset by that.
As much as we are trying to tell them that doing that ensures a victory for Hillary they seem to be holding firm for now. Strange times. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4684
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:15 am: | |
Maybe so many people will be wasting their votes to prove a point that this will finally be the year Lyndon LaRouche breaks through!
That'll make Ed Vaughn and the Lemmonses happy. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3664
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:24 am: | |
Yes, it has become "who are you voting against this year?" The sad thing is that even if I were to ignore who is running, I am hard pressed to come up with anyone who I would see as the ideal candidate in the current political spectrum. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4217
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:52 am: | |
I am starting to feel that 2008 has to potential to become a four-way race as voters peel off both Republicans and Democrats. A Hillary - Giuliani contest could precipitate it.
Since none of the major Democrats are committing to end the war in Iraq an anti-war candidate could rise and it could be surprising, like a Ron Paul, someone with bipartisan appeal.
The Republicans, as PG notes, will watch their religious right walk away although I am not sure who would be their figurehead.
Then there is the potential of late arrivals, like an Al Gore or Colin Powell.
I also think the possibility that both parties could go to their convention with no candidate holding a majority of delegates, particularly the Republicans.
The Michigan primary issue is a Democrat-Republican rebellion, about the only thing they agree on, and underlines discontent with and vulnerability of the old mega parties. They are speaking with one voice calling BS on letting a couple of tiny nationally non-representive states continue to have disproportionate and undeserved influence cycle after cycle. Better to give up delegates to a coronation convention and call out the BS until this changes.
It promises to be a very interesting campaign in the offing, if you are a political junkie. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 866
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:37 am: | |
...which I am.
Interestingly, so far as I have been able to tell, no candidate has really taken a position on any real issue. It's been a strange campaign so far. What I have learned is that Hillary is a woman (which I had figured out), Mitt Romney is a Mormon (which I don't give half of a shit about), and Rudy Giuliani is an asshole (which, being from Noo Yawk, I already knew).
Do politicians take positions on issues anymore? I mean real issues, things that affect you and I, not whether gay people should be "married" or "domestic partnered" or "none of the above", or whether abortion should be "legal" (in which case it will happen all the time) or "illegal" (in which case it will happen all the time). |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:03 am: | |
Our voices in Michigan need to be heard. I never understood the importance of the Iowa and NH primaries until now(misrepresentation of the true demographics of the country)
I was actually sitting on the fence looking at both Hillary and Obama. Having contributed to both campaigns, I just wanted to see what direction each candidate was headed. Barack pulling out of MI gave Hillary my money. That is twice he has failed to really listen to what the people of my state and my city has to say.
Good Luck Barack!••• Way to stick it out Hillary. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 144
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:02 am: | |
I half wonder if Jelk and Fnemecek are Republican staffers attempting to purposefully outrage and incense Michigan Democrats and Independents so much with their arrogance and attempts at justifying the actions of the DNC that those voters latch onto the GOP as the only party showing us the common respect and decency to at least show up in our state.
I've heard similary slicing of the narrow issue before. It's something I see attorneys do every day. Fnemecek will now describe the definitional differences as to what "is" means.
Fnemecek, if you are a democratic supporter, I'd suggest not talking anymore to any other independents that don't share your view. You just turn us off completely. If you're a republican, nice job. You're doing it quite well. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4685
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:12 am: | |
Yeah you caught me Umcs. That's why I worked for a statewide Democratic campaign in 2006. I was planted there by Bob Haldeman and Don Segretti to obtain key information in order to discredit Democratic presidential candidates in the minds of 15-20 deranged and paranoid internet chat board participant. I also put fluoride in the water and help plan the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. Eisenhower planned in all in 1946 during secret meetings with Kremlin officials. Bob Welch told the whole story in the Blue Book. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 147
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:18 am: | |
Jelk,
I'm half-joking about you. Sarcasm laced with a bit of astonishment... |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 148
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:38 am: | |
In all seriousness though, the attitudes shown by the national candidates and the DNC seems to be the following:
1. Michigan will vote Democratic whether we campaign there or not. When it comes time for the real election, they'll forget that the rest of the country decided the Democratic candidate without their input and like it because they're loyal democratic supporters.
2. It doesn't matter whether or not I show up in this state because the DNC is not going to count their votes for the party candidate anyway.
3. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. are more important to our national political strategy.
4. It's okay Michigan voters, we understand your issues.
"By the way, here are the new proposed CAFE standards. Don't complain, just deal. Here is NAFTA and CAFTA, don't complain, just adapt like California."
"We understand your issues, but we're sorry, we just can't help you out like we do other states. Thanks for the $1.00 you sent us in federal tax funds, here's your $0.92 back. Iowa needs some farm subsidies."
"Ah, Detroit. Yes we understand you have poverty and crime issues. Sorry, but New Orleans recently had a sudden hurricane and needs billions of dollars in support to get back on its feet. We know you Michigan voters understand that the Mississippi port access is vital to our national interests and that we must rebuild that area first due to the human tragedy."
"What? You have a human tragedy on a mass scale too that has occurred over the last 40 years? Well, it's really the state's issue alone and the supporting industries' issue so we really shouldn't be bothered with noticing it."
The point is that tribalism, regionalism, whatever you want to call it, is alive and well at the national level. If you think that these comments or the comments of others are far off base and you truly support the Democratic party, notice them. Don't belittle them. Don't pretend that you're much more intelligent that the rest of us.
Don't belittle Lowell as being ignorant of the process. The point is the tone that is coming forth from the major players and national party is that Michigan broke the rules so alas, we need to be punished like children. I think maybe the reaction will be to move out of the parent's house if that is how they feel we are to them. I have a donation card sitting on my desk at home. Last year I gave substantially. This year I'm writing a check for -0-. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3667
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:40 am: | |
WOW, I just heard a sound clip from Barak Obama giving a speech bragging about how gave the folks in Detroit "what for" with his remarks about increased fuel efficiency. He seems to be using us for a punch line in his stump speeches.
I know you all think I am very partisan, but don't some of you think the Democrats seem openly hostile to our state and the industry that sustains whats left of our local economy? I am not saying the Republicans are a panacea either. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 149
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:41 am: | |
Thanks for the comment Jelk. Calling me an idiot endears you more fully to me. I appreciate that you're trying to reach people like me to support your causes. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2583
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:45 am: | |
quote:They are speaking with one voice calling BS on letting a couple of tiny nationally non-representive states continue to have disproportionate and undeserved influence cycle after cycle.
Dear Lowell,
Former President of the United States Paul Tsongas called. He wants to know what "disproportionate and undeserved influence" he got from winning in New Hampshire.
Former Presidents Bill Bradley, Gary Hart and Ed Muskie also called. They have the same question.
Please either answer them or stop complaining about something that doesn't exist in the first place. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 306
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:48 pm: | |
here is my guess of final candidates
Dem - Shrillery and Barack
Rep. Romney - Guilianni
well see what happens |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4222
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 3:14 pm: | |
Fnemecek, I think you are politically astute enough to know that in an early primary, whoever wins the primary is not always as important as who comes in second or third, particularly when expectations are exceeded or missed.
Tsongas was a de facto 'favorite son' coming from next door Massachusetts, like Harkin in Iowa in 92. Everybody discounted them as serious candidates and all the attention, an nominations, went to the runnerups.
The more you argue against the clout carried by going first, the more you make the point. |
Dhugger
Member
Username: Dhugger
Post Number: 206
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:15 pm: | |
Fnemecek....I never wrote this: "Dhugger" I was Barack Obama supporter yesterday. I'm an Obama supporter today. And I'll be an Obama supporter tomorrow.
Don't put statements out that are miss quoted. |
English
Member
Username: English
Post Number: 587
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:24 pm: | |
I received this message from the Obama campaign today:
--
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us. Obama for America filed paperwork to remove
Barack's name from the ballot in Michigan because Barack gave his word to honor
the national party rules and campaign only in contests before February 5 that
the DNC has authorized. All of the Democratic presidential candidates joined us
in making this pledge, and every major Democratic presidential candidate, with
the exception of Senator Clinton, has also removed their name from Michigan’s
ballot.
Barack encourages the Michigan Democratic Party to continue working with the DNC
to adopt a plan that complies with party rules and allows the voters in Michigan
to have a voice in the 2008 nominating process. We hope that Michigan will do
so because Barack is eager to vigorously seek the support of Michigan voters,
and if such a contest occurs, we will expand on our already strong foundation in
the state to build a winning campaign.
When Barack is the Democratic nominee, the tens of thousands of people already
involved in our campaign in Michigan will provide the organizational backbone
for a general election victory in November 2008.
Sincerely,
Obama for America
--------------
Paid for by Obama for America |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 310
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 9:51 pm: | |
It sounds like Obama is a follower, not a leader.? |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:11 pm: | |
DHUGGER:
I never said that you said that. I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting a comment made by Arcas on this thread that was addressed to you and English and adding my own concurrence to Arcas' thoughts.
LOWELL:
I think you are astute enough to know that you can't throw around accusations without some evidence to support them. I've twice asked you to provide evidence to support your accusation that New Hampshire gets "disproportionate and undeserved influence". You have twice refused to provide any such support.
Regarding your claim that Paul Tsongas' New Hampshire win in 1992 was because he was a "favorite son" from neighboring Massachusetts, and that somehow explains why he won in New Hampshire without getting any "disproportionate and undeserved influence", I have to ask:
* Why didn't "favorite son" status help Ted Kennedy in 1980 when he was also from Massachusetts?
* Why didn't "favorite son" status help Joe Lieberman of nearby Connecticut in 2004 when the voters of New Hampshire preferred Wes Clark of Arkansas and John Edwards of South Carolina over their "favorite son"?
Would you care to clarify your accusation about New Hampshire having "disproportionate and undeserved influence"?
LEFTY2:
Yes, Barack Obama is a follower. He's a follower of the law. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 319
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 1:01 am: | |
Fencheck
Points proved =
New Hampshire does not historically like "poll leaders" or the country doesn't follow their vote.
1. New Hampshire knew that the bloviated Cape Cod Orca did not have a chance of being elected.
2. Connecticut Joe isn't a favorite son of NH, or will any Conn. Politician.
3. New Hampshire will vote opposite to the New york papers just to spite them.
And another thing- RE: Obama - The law says NOTHING regarding democratic primaries. Only the Dems want you to follow their lead. ie: loser
Shrillery will get all the delegate votes because all the losers failed to come to Michigan - even though I can't stand the bitch she will win this state. Osama just lost any chance he had for MI.
btw - tsongas was a loser |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 23
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 3:30 am: | |
quote:Osama just lost any chance he had for MI.
HAHAHA... wow. I assume you meant Obama.. but it is pretty funny how close his name is to Osama. Some things, such as your name (Barack *Hussein* *Obama*) you can't help. Now, other things, such as not campaigning in a state, you can help. Which is what makes this decision by Obama just so so stupid.. (not to mention disrespectful and disregarding of the Michigan electorate). |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 24
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 3:38 am: | |
Two funny videos on that note:
Obama... Osama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IDcSC7SoJRw
Kennedy Calls Obama "Osama Bin Laden"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3YaRpx3LphI |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2586
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 10:10 am: | |
quote:Points proved =
New Hampshire does not historically like "poll leaders" or the country doesn't follow their vote.
Thank you for confirming what I've been arguing all along. The New Hampshire primary does not give "disproportionate and undeserved influence", which Lowell and others have argued.
quote:And another thing- RE: Obama - The law says NOTHING regarding democratic primaries.
The law grants each political party the authority to set its own rules during the nomination process. During the 2004 convention, Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell co-sponsored a resolution, which called for the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling to be created and to determine the schedule for the 2008 Presidential primaries.
When that commission put the Nevada and South Carolina primaries ahead of the Michigan primary, Dingell, Levin, et al decided to ignore the very commission that they created.
The result is this mess we have now. Michigan won't have any say in who the Democratic nominee will be and, because of that, we get to be the favorite whipping boy of everyone who is running for the White House. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 324
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:23 pm: | |
I didn't say they don't have undue influence, they do because of "first seen" on television as "perceived leaders".
oh whats the point?
So you say then that Granholm illegally passed the primary date change? Should she be charged with a crime.
So Shrillary Rotten Cliton will disobey the LAW - should she be charged with a crime.
It's the National Democratic Party's rule - not a law. Each State can set a primary date as well!
Levin argues in favor and against the same issue all the time, he is a hypocrite.
We will see what happens when the media outlets all come here and televise it wont we. |
English
Member
Username: English
Post Number: 588
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 10:46 pm: | |
There's now a movement to get Al Gore on the Michigan and Florida ballots:
http://mivolstodraftgore2008.b logspot.com/ |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.