Nancy Pelosi is a threat to the Republic and should be impeached.
Even before she took the helm of the House of Representatives, Pelosi made clear her position about impeachment of the President.
Whether or not you agree about impeachment of George W. Bush, it is a basic and fundamental DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to consider impeachment.
Several variations of articles of impeachment against W. have been drafted, citing real High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes that - if proven true - represent a real clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Representative John Conyers (D-MI, Chair House Judiciary Committee), whose job it is to initiate the consideration, had made clear his intention to begin investigations that could - if evidentiary hearings proved substantively in favor of impeachment - lead to it. His approach (HR 635-2005) was reasoned and not a knee-jerk to gaining power - as he himself said that that type of approach would lead to a political backlash just as it did for the Republicans when they made it their primary mission to impeach President Clinton in 1995 when they gained power. Conyers is following the investigation that a half of Americans want. (Which was far more than the 36% that favored hearings to impeach Bill Clinton.)
Pelosi made it clear that his approach was doomed to failure before it ever got started - before finding out whether there was sufficient grounds for impeachment, she killed the possibility of it. By refusing to consider the possibility of impeachment - by "removing it from the table" (paraphrased), she has made it clear that she has ABROGATED HER DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).
This is in fact old news. Her continuing transgressions include the poo-pooing of the Democratic reconcilation through the "Dream Team" and telling the super-delegates (from a position of authority as House Speaker) how they should be voting - essentially increasing the polarity of the party. Pelosi is as far to the left of the Democratic Party as you can be without being a Communist eco-terrorist. Clinton is as far as you can be to the right of the party without being a Republican. [I also am in the latter category.]
Pelosi is attempting to influence the remaining nomination race by repeatedly killing the only real chance the party has of guaranteeing victory in the general election, despite the fact that it is what most Democrats want. Most polls put either Obama or Clinton ahead of McCain in the general election by only 1.5-3%. The same lead Kerry had in 2004 against W - and far more than the lead Al Gore won the 2000 election with. That should be disturbingly close for anyone. We can't afford another election that is anything but a decisive slam dunk. A dream ticket is exactly that: Clinton-Obama polls a win at 53%-40% over McCain, and an Obama-Clinton win at 49%-45%.
Similarly, she's made statements on how they should vote - following the delegate count and ignoring their own individual criteria. If they follow that directive then even if Hillary closes the gap to 2 pledged delegates then all the super delegates should vote for Obama. There becomes no point in running the remaining primaries - and their votes, like Michigan and Florida, count for nothing.
As a key super-delegate - one in an authoritative position over many other super-delegates making statements like that is basically telling them how to vote.
Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she is essentially working to split the party and destroy our chances of victory in the general election.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Does Hillary's Big-State Argument hold water?
Even as a Hillary supporter, I found the big-state argument to be a bit of a stretch. Would the big states that voted for Hillary NOT vote for Barack if (when) he ran in the general election?
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
Friday, April 25, 2008
A Recipe for destroying the Democratic Party
Ingredients:
2 popular Democratic Presidential candidates
Both candidates should be history-making quality. Don't scrimp on quality on this part.
2 Botched Primaries in large states
1 Republican Presidential candidate with an otherwise little chance of winning.
First, excite the Democratic base by offering both history-making potential Democratic candidates at the same time. Make sure they have different history-making qualities (for example, make one an African American male and the other a white female. Don't mix the qualities - an African American female would have twice the history-making potential and might ruin the recipe). If you can get dual poles (for example, experience vs. exuberance, heart vs. mind, etc.) the result will be much more powerful.
Give both democratic candidates a nearly identical platform. Make sure there's just barely enough difference to have the focus on splitting hairs with though.
Add in a long history of voter disenfranchisement. The result will be much better if both democratic candidates represent constituencies with such a history.
Add in 1 or 2 completely botched primaries. Make sure voters actually had some hope of seeing their votes count, then remove the hope and any chance of it. Not only will this disenfranchise the 1 or 2 states involved, but other aware Democratic state parties will realize that it could just as easily happen to them.
For the Republican candidate, make sure the candidate isn't so overwhelmingly popular that it would shadow the infighting of the Democratic party. Or if he is (we'll assume it's a white male - he's Republican), have him sit off on the sidelines and just poke in every once in a while. Staying out of the spotlight and quietly building up his party's support and fundraising will force the media to put the magnifying glass on the Democratic self-destruction.
No other Republican intervention is necessary. The recipe should self-bake itself better without it.
Bake and simmer for 3-4 months. If possible, allow the recipe to heat up steadily to a boil until the convention. Make sure riot gear and extra police are available in the likely event of an explosive boil-over (see previous experiments with this recipe such as Chicago 1968).
2 popular Democratic Presidential candidates
Both candidates should be history-making quality. Don't scrimp on quality on this part.
2 Botched Primaries in large states
1 Republican Presidential candidate with an otherwise little chance of winning.
First, excite the Democratic base by offering both history-making potential Democratic candidates at the same time. Make sure they have different history-making qualities (for example, make one an African American male and the other a white female. Don't mix the qualities - an African American female would have twice the history-making potential and might ruin the recipe). If you can get dual poles (for example, experience vs. exuberance, heart vs. mind, etc.) the result will be much more powerful.
Give both democratic candidates a nearly identical platform. Make sure there's just barely enough difference to have the focus on splitting hairs with though.
Add in a long history of voter disenfranchisement. The result will be much better if both democratic candidates represent constituencies with such a history.
Add in 1 or 2 completely botched primaries. Make sure voters actually had some hope of seeing their votes count, then remove the hope and any chance of it. Not only will this disenfranchise the 1 or 2 states involved, but other aware Democratic state parties will realize that it could just as easily happen to them.
For the Republican candidate, make sure the candidate isn't so overwhelmingly popular that it would shadow the infighting of the Democratic party. Or if he is (we'll assume it's a white male - he's Republican), have him sit off on the sidelines and just poke in every once in a while. Staying out of the spotlight and quietly building up his party's support and fundraising will force the media to put the magnifying glass on the Democratic self-destruction.
No other Republican intervention is necessary. The recipe should self-bake itself better without it.
Bake and simmer for 3-4 months. If possible, allow the recipe to heat up steadily to a boil until the convention. Make sure riot gear and extra police are available in the likely event of an explosive boil-over (see previous experiments with this recipe such as Chicago 1968).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)