um…Dad…

11 Comments »

1. How about Lamb of Chicago’s Hardcore Marxist official campaign blogger.

   Bill Ayers. Jeremiah Wright. And now this communist hyphen-boy. Is it just a coincidence that the Obamassiah has so many associations with hard-left America-hating radicals?

   Comment by V the K — April 24, 2008 @ 10:59 am - April 24, 2008

2. His supporters don’t care, or even like it. Whether the American people in general care, is something we’ll find out.

   So, Bruce – have you re-registered for the primary?

   Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2008 @ 11:23 am - April 24, 2008

3. Awwwwwww, cute poopy. Labs rock. My yellow lab was my best friend for 15 years. I hope to adopt another soon.

   Comment by American Elephant — April 24, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - April 24, 2008

4. Be patient, Bruce, the process is almost over.

   While you are not a Democrat, you should be very proud that you live in a state where every Democrat who wants to vote will have access to a polling place and the opportunity to vote. That’s the American way; the right to vote is guaranteed.

   In the state where I am spending the spring and much of the summer the Democratic AND Republican parties rigged their caucuses to make sure most voters would not (or could not) take the time to participate.

   By the way, VtheK in comment #1: To learn even more about Obama read the current issue of National Review. As we learn more and more about that man it becomes ever more obvious that he could be the most dangerous man to ever be so close to capturing the American presidency.

   Comment by Trace Phelps — April 24, 2008 @ 4:09 pm - April 24, 2008

5. While you are not a Democrat, you should be very proud that you live in a state where every Democrat who wants to vote will have access to a polling place and the opportunity to vote. That’s the American way; the right to vote is guaranteed.

   …and proud that you are not a member of a party that has instituted “superdelegates” so that in the end, your vote means nothing and the ruling elites will do what they want regardless of how the ignorant masses vote.

   Comment by American Elephant — April 24, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - April 24, 2008

6. “American Elephant” you are jumping to a premature conclusion when you assume the so-called “super delegates” are going to make a decision contrary to that made in the primaries and caucuses. There is every reason right now to believe that unless something is revealed that will blow Obama’s campaign apart, a majority of the unpledged delegates will join a majority of pledged delegates to nominate Obama.

   When you look back at why Democrats created the unpledged delegates to make sure Governors, Senators, Representatives, state party chairmen, DNC national committeemen and national committeewomen, etc., were included in the national conventions, it was a good idea and there may come a day when we Republicans regret we don’t have a similar arrangement at our national conventions.

   Of three DNC rules or provisions getting a lot of attention this election year, the unpledged delegates seem to me to be the least objectionable. In fact, the other two should make Democrats glad there are unpledged delegates.

   It wasn’t a factor in years when one candidate dominated early and easily rode to the nomination, but the Democrats’ proportional allocation of delegates was a bomb just waiting for a closely contested race to light the fuse. Democrats wouldn’t be waiting for unpledged delegates to give either Obama or Hillary the delegates needed to reach 2,024 and the nomination if it weren’t for proportional representation. If I heard an election night panel of talking heads correctly, without proportional representation Hillary would have won the race a primary or two ago.

   The provision is not fair to a candidate who comfortably carries a state. In Pennsylvania, for example, one of the inner city congressional districts in Philadelphia was worth nine delegates but a suburban district gave the winner of the district just four delegates. In Texas, mainly black congressional districts in the big cities had more delegates for the winner in the district than heavily Hispanic congressional districts. In Nevada, the winner of the statewide vote, Hillary, ended up winning fewer delegates than the loser, Obama.

   If the federal courts hadn’t decided years ago to give political parties a free pass to establish their nominating processes, the Democrats’ proportional representation wouldn’t make it through oral arguments at the Supreme Court because it conflicts with every law passed by Congress or ruling by the Supreme Court establishing one man, one vote standards in legislative and political apportionment.

   (With the exception of winner-take-all states, the Republicans are much more democratic in awarding delegates. In most states, if the winner takes 60 percent of the statewide vote the winner gets 60 percent of the delegates.)

   And both parties ought to banish caucuses and require every state that wants to send a deolegation to national conventions to have a primary. Caucuses are the most undemocratic aspect of the nominating processes. The way they are organized, the time of day they are held and the time required to participate generally discourage all but the most committed party activists from taking part. On the Democratic side these activists tend to be farther to the left than the party’s mainstream and on the Republican side they tend to be farther to the right than the party’s mainstream. And the two extremes are definitely to the left or right of the general election mainstream voters.

   In fact, what these activists might do in caucuses was one of the major reasons the Democrats established the unpledged delegates (or what are called “super delegates”). While Nixon’s 1972 landslide didn’t badly hurt Democratic candidates down the ticket, we are in a different media environment today and the focus on a McGovern’s policy proposals (or a Gary Hart’s) could give the Republican winner long coat tails (as Reagan had against Carter).

   According to several historical accounts I’ve read, many in the Democratic establishment, worried in 1980 about losing Senate and House races, wanted to dump President Carter. But they were not delegates to the Democratic convention.

   Look at this year’s situation. Forget all the Democratic movers and shakers who started jumping on Obama’s bandwagon a year ago. Obama is where he is today because he was a fresh face in Iowa and his passionate and articulate call for change attracted a lot of the liberals who dominate the Iowa caucuses — and young, first time voters provided much of his winning margin. Once blacks saw he could win in white Iowa they flocked to him. The truth is that after Iowa, young voters and blacks propelled Obama trough the victories he’s had and his delegate lead over Hillary. It’s had a rock star-like atmosphere, with girls fainting at his rallies.

   I don’t want to be cruel (or, heaven forbid, sound elitist) but those young voters who scream at his rallies and then vote for him include a goodly number of political lemmings who know more about the annual winners of “American Idol” than they do about what Barack Obama means by “change”. And most of the blacks voting for him don’t care what he means, he’s black.

   So an untested, inexperienced candidate is the odds on favorite to be the Democratic nominee even though as the non-lemming voters learn more about him there are growing concerns among the Democratic establishment about whether he can win in November (even against a Republican with unbelievable baggage).

   Much of Obama’s base in the primaries and caucuses probably couldn’t tell us the names of their state legislators and most assuredly haven’t thought about how important Democratic-controlled legislatures will be after the 2010 census.

   But be assured the so-called “super delegates” are concerned about achieving new or adding to existing Democratic majorities in state legislative bodies. And as Governors, Senators and Representatives, themselves, they are concerned about re-electing Governors and adding a few more Denicratuc chief executives. And they want to get as close as they can to a 60-vote majority in the U. S. Senate and to build up their majority in the House of Representatives.

   While the pro-Obama left wing in the Democratic Party, a lot of the media pundits (and some conservatives at this site) are up in arms at the idea of unpledged delegates deciding the outcome, the Clinton-Obama contest, in which they are running almost even in delegates and popular votes (if Michigan and Florida aren’t counted) is exactly why the unpledged delegates (remember, they’re the party’s major elected officials, key fundraisers and senior activists and strategists) were established. After the McGovern debacle in ‘72 (which excluded most of the major elected officials from the convention) and the Carter disaster in ‘80 and the threat of a Gary Hart in ‘84, the party’s establishment decided the party needed some brakes to slow down a mob of lemmings that thinks only of the presidential race and doesn’t appreciate how important that race can be to the rest of the Democratic ticket.

   One could almost compare the elected pledged delegates and the 20 percent of delegates who are unpledged (the “supers”) to the Congress. The framers of the American Constitution established a House of Representatives to be close to the pulse of the people and a Senate to slow things down so there was a chance to think: “Is this really what we want to do?” “Is this legislation as attractive as it was when the House voted?”

   A slight majority in the Democrats’ “house” favors Obama over Hillary but because of the baggage both carry, the Democrats’ “senate” — at least many of them — is trying to decide which candidate will most help the rest of the ticket or (in the reality of the current situation) which candidate will least hurt the rest of the ticket.

   Unless Hillary happens to take off and wins every primary remaining on the Democats’ calendar or some really damaging revelation surfaces to destroy Obama, the “senate” will vote with the “house” sometime in June and make it official in Denver come August.

   A goodly number of the unpledged delegates who haven’t committed themselves yet likely realize that Hillary is probably a stronger candidate against McCain but the left wing bloggers and the media’s talking heads have convinced them it’s better to take a gamble on Obama than risk alienating the black leg of the party’s base. (Giving the nod to Hillary, even if for the good reason that she can win, would alienate the young first-time voters but if Obama is elected they’ll be jumping ship when they realize he can’t deliver most of the change he promised.)

   ****
   And a PS to Saxby. You’re one good looking Lab. My (mainly) yellow Lab Charlie, who is one year old this month, would enjoy meeting you. So would his little sister, Gracie, who, because more than one male dog can “contribute” to a litter, is (mainly) a beagle.

   Comment by Trace Phelps — April 24, 2008 @ 11:05 pm - April 24, 2008

7. Oops! I forgot a point as I typed that tome.

   A good friend of mine who used to be in the Department of Justice told us it’s a good thing (mainly for the Democrats) that the federal courts have taken a hands off approach when it comes to how the two parties conduct their nominating processes. Otherwise, In his learned opinion, based on what he’s heard from around the country, the way some of the caucuses have been organized and conducted would be ripe pickings for a number of federal grand juries. He argues that if it weren’t so close to a changing of the guard in the Justice Department, which means most of the U. S. attorneys could be short termers, it would be interesting to let the grand juries compile the type of evidence that could convince lower federal courts to act in hopes the courts of appeal and the “Supremes” might take the cases. After all, my friend says, the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and a few other Articles and laws, some criminal, either mean what they say or they aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

   Comment by Trace Phelps — April 24, 2008 @ 11:24 pm - April 24, 2008

8. Good looking Lab! When California mattered, I was SICK AND TIRED of the robocalls from McCain and Romney. To coin a phrase, I feel your pain! Oh, and Trace, if you need to write so much to explain why the Democrat establishment has “Superdelegates” in the first place, it is a bad idea. If the Dems were smart, and I strees WERE smart, they would have simply let Michigan and Florida in with HALF the delegate total. That is what the Republicans did. Reminds me of an old GOP saying.
   IT’S REPUBLICAN, AND IT WORKS! And a big hug and a kiss to Saxby!

   Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — April 25, 2008 @ 1:22 am - April 25, 2008

9. Trace,
   You have your history wrong. The Democrat party instigated “superdelegates” after McGovern won the 72 nomination and lost the general in a landslide precisely so the ruling elites could prevent the base from nominating another unelectable loon. They weren’t created so elected Democrats could participate in the convention, they already did. They were created so the ruling elites would have enough additional votes to overrule the ignorant masses. Its incredibly UN-democratic, and I hope Republicans never follow suit.

   My point wasn’t that Democrats are necessarily going to overrule the will of the people, only that their rules are rigged precisely so they can. But in the end, it looks as though they may do just that. Far more Democrats have voted for Hillary, and yet the superdelegates seem poised to hand the nomination to Obama.

   Comment by American Elephant — April 25, 2008 @ 4:34 am - April 25, 2008

10. Aww, zatsagoodpuppy!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 25, 2008 @ 12:25 pm - April 25, 2008

11. American Elephant in #9. Yes, McGovern’s landslide loss in 1972 was a factor, and I pointed that out. But the “super delegates” were not put in place until the 1980s. (One resource I checked said it was for 1980 but two other resources said it was done in time for the 1984 convention.)

    Until they were made “super delegates”, the major elected officials (governors and members of Congress) and party leaders were not automatically delegates to national conventions. If they weren’t elected in their state primaries or conventions, they couldn’t vote at national conventions. And liberal young McGovern backers dominated some primaries, caucuses and state conventions and deliberately excluded many of the more moderate officials.

    The “super delegates” are comprised of elected officials and senior party leaders because those are the pols certain to look at the “big picture” and try to take action to stop a sure-to-lose loon whose presence at the top of the ticket could drag down the entire Democratic ticket in many states.

    Despite your hang-up about the “super delegates”, they don’t exist to be elitists to willy-nilly substitute their judgment for that of “ignorant” voters in the primaries and caucuses. But they have an obligation, for reasons outlined in my original comment posting above, to influence the choice of a nominee when there are substantive questions about whether a potential nominee can win in November and whether his or her presence on the ballot will help or hurt the rest of the ticket.

    As I wrote in my comment above, this year is a good example of why “super delegates” exist. A large portion of the first-time voters Obama has attracted to his candidacy are caught up in the rock concert-like frenzy of the campaign and excited more by the personality of the candidate than whatever his policies will be. Most of them probably haven’t given serious thought to the possibility that he might not be a candidate who can win in November. Most of them likely don’t have a clue as to what a loss could cost in governorships, seats in Congress and control of the legislatures that will redraw congressional district boundaries after the Census.

    But, remember, American Elephant, the “super delegates” don’t have “veto” power. In a close contest, like the Democrats have this year, when there are questions about the electibility of both canddates, the “super delegates” can settle the issue by lining up behind the candidate they think has the best chance of winning in November. If the candidates seem pretty equal in that regard, as they do this year, the “super delegates” will go with the flow.

    The “super delegates” comprise approximately 20 percent of the total delegates. If a candidate comes into a convention with the pledged delegates needed to win the nomination (2,024 this year) there isn’t anything the “super delegates” can do to overturn the decision of voters in the primaries and caucuses even if it is obvious he or she is going to lose in a landslide, costing the party a dozen governors and control of the House and Senate.

    There was a time, not all that long ago, when party bosses gathered in “smoke-filled” rooms and decided who the nominees would be. That system — as undemocratic as it might seem under today’s standards — produced some giants among Presidents. The current system hasn’t been as successful producing Presidents history will judge as great.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton begins to measure up to a Truman or FDR and McCain is not likely to be ranked with a Reagan or Eisenhower.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 25, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - April 25, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Live preview of comment