Sitting the delegates

Lots of my Republican friends are sending around this article from the AJC, complete with a picture of Andre, relishing the potential for a delegate showdown in Denver.

Andre is quoted in the article thusly:

This is unlikely to end well, said Andre Walker, 24, a College Park Democrat who supports Clinton and has applied to be a Georgia delegate from the 13th Congressional District.

“We’ve reached a point that whatever happens, the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters are probably going to walk away with a bad taste in their mouths,” said Walker, a prominent Democratic blogger who runs the Georgia Politics Unfiltered site (georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com) and is a regular contributor to MyDD.com, a leading liberal site.

“If Michigan and Florida don’t end up getting seated at the convention, Hillary supporters will be upset and say they should have counted,” Walker said. “If they do, and she wins the nomination, the Obama supporters will be upset.”

Walker said his biggest fear is that the tumult carries over to the general election campaign.

14 comments

  1. Rick Day says:

    Yes, except it ain’t gonna happen. Coin flip will determine POTUS. The back room smoking boys already have everything laid out… until Nov of 2012.

    Relax. Don’t fight the rape, lady.

    Lets suppose….oh, McCain is suddenly ‘unfit’ for POTUS (health, scandal, etc).

    And you have all these closet Paulistas at the Republican Porn Political Convention, waiting for a chance to vote RP.

    heh heh heh. McCain has many months to fumble this football, and I bet you 10 dried squid that he will.

    So you are ‘passing this around’ as what, some glimmer of desperate hope that Manchurian Candidate ™ will magically change newly created Democrats into Newly Created Republicans?

    Do tell?

  2. Rick Day says:

    this is the cool part of being a heathen. While you are all out for your annual church morning meeting, I’m here blogging FIRST up.

    There are perks for signing up to tour the Road to Hell ™

  3. AubieTurtle says:

    One good thing to come out of this election cycle is that neither party nomination was settled by the first few states. Hopefully that’ll put an end to the “me first” competition that states like Florida became part of and caused this problem.

    Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences of moving their votes up. They created the problem, not the national party. I might feel sorry for them if the party after the vote decided to not have it count but the consequences were made clear ahead of time. Hopefully the voters in those states will take it out on the party leadership of the state and make them pay politically for rolling the dice and coming up with a vote that did not count.

  4. That’s not exactly true. Ahead of time, both the RNC and DNC told states that if they moved up their vote ahead of the accepted time, their delegations would be halved. So Florida and Michigan’s Democrats accepted that and went ahead. After they moved their dates, the DNC went back on their word and cut their delegate count to 0.

    The media went along, not covering the Democratic contests there (since they weren’t worth anything) but giving lots of press to Romney and particularly McCain after they won these two states.

    The problem with the sanctions that remove delegates or even halve them is that Iowa and New Hampshire essentially have no delegates anyway. I believe each state in total has about 50 delegates, or less than 2% of the total. So lets say that the DNC tells Iowa and New Hampshire next year that its time for someone else to go first and if they disobey they’ll lose half or all of their delegates.

    So what? Their full slate of delegates is essentially worthless anyway, especially when you consider that on initial delegate projections both states were worth a net delegate of 1 for Obama and even Edwards was only 6 behind at that point. The media will continue to cover Iowa and NH if they move up their contests even if they don’t award any delegates.

    The people on the DNC who reneged on their initial deal with Michigan and Florida (to halve the delegates) are responsible for this mess. Ironically, if these two large states had been allowed to count or had just had their contest on Super Tuesday, we’d probably have a nominee by now. Tough luck in politics, sometimes.

  5. Harry says:

    Obama says “Don’t label me liberal”, yet he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

    I do think his voting record will be a campaign issue.

  6. ksuowls81 says:

    Let me go ahead and preface this by saying I am not 100% sure who I am voting for.

    Even though I have no idea who this guy is other then his brief about statement below his name I can already tell he is lacking of credibility on this decision.

    Though out the article he contradicted himself many times.

    On Gay Rights: As he states “I strongly wish to perserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society.” What Obama says “My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would’ve come up. I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.” Like most things Obama says this is real ambiguous and most could take it however they want to depending on if they are in a liberal or conservative mood. Of course I would hope Obama would know that marriage is not a term that can be left up to religous denominations because different churches within different denominations have verying views on this issue.

    On abortion: Doug Kmiec says “As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement.” Obama is a different breed on this issue as he is rated at 0% by National Right to Life which means that he is strongly pro-choice. And he has voted against banning the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure in the Illinois legislation. At the sametime he is not liked by NOW for voting present on abortion bills in the Illinois senate instead of voting in favor of the bills. So far we have 2 issues that the blogger and Obama ardently disagree on.

    On the role of the Judicial branch of Government: Doug Kmeic says “As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role.” Obama says “When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected. Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far–that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account. I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution–that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison’s design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation. ”

    On small government: Doug Kmiec says “As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below.” Obama says “to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.” Obama prefers seeing the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest.

    On religion: Doug Kmiec says “As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.”. This may be the one thing that Obama and Kmiec agree on because Obama has religious “leaders” like Rev. Wright on boards in his campaign, and they serve as advisors to him.

    Kmiec goes on to state his disapproval of George W. Bush, and makes it seem as though his endorsement of Obama is because of his disillusionment of George W. He criticizes the war (but then again who doesn’t) and blames our economic downfall on the war. Ignoring the fact that only 4.5% of our nation GDP is used on defense and this is including the Iraq War and loans taken out due to the war.

    He also seems to acknowledge that the one reason why he will endorse Obama is because of possible ability to thwart extremist Islam. As he continues to write he also acknowledges that Obama has not clearly stated what he will do about this threat of Islam therefore making a moot point of one of the reasons he will endorse Obama.

    As far as I can tell the ONLY reason which is a valid reason for his endorsement of Obama is that he feels as though Obama understands opposing view points, and will “as best as humanly possible”, try to respect them. In America today almost any elected official is forced to understand opposing view points and if they don’t respect them all hell will break loose.

    IMHO this has to be the worst written endorsement of all time. He might have well summed it up by saying even though I disagree with Obama on every policy issue I am going to endorse him because he is a good public speaker. For a man of so much intelligence he must have been drinking the magic Kool-Aid on this one.

  7. ann says:

    Chris, I believe your information is half correct. The RNC, but not the DNC, said they’d halve their delegates if the Florida and Michigan dates were moved up. In the case of the Democrats, all the candidates agreed to abide by the decision of the DNC, and therefore did not campaign in Florida or Michigan. There was never a proposal to seat those delegates until after the Clinton campaign realized that was the only way they could win.

Comments are closed.