PDA

View Full Version : Sore losers again, repubs just won't give up



Tyrone Bigguns
09-19-2007, 12:19 PM
Well, if disenfranchising voters doesn't work, playing legal maneuvers, or just plain cheating doesn't work there is always a legal way of getting what you want.

Republicans trying to split California Electoral Vote
A well-connected California Republican law firm is pushing a ballot initiative that would split the state's Electoral Votes according to Congressional districts won

Election chicanery -- aka voter fraud --is as American as lead-laden Mattel toys, air polluting "clean skies" initiatives, and closeted Republican Party politicians. In recent years, GOP partisans have cleansed voter rolls of legitimate voters; hatched schemes to disenfranchise thousands of minority voters; mastered the art of push polls and robo calls, and supported the use of voting machines with no paper trail.

While counting votes has on occasion become more art than science in recent years, a new ballot initiative being pushed by California Republicans would apportion the state's electoral votes according to congressional districts won, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Only two small states, Nebraska and Maine, allow the splitting of electoral votes, although in practice a division has never happened. In recent years Democrats have had a near lock on California's 55 Electoral Votes.

A high-powered California-based Republican Party-connected legal outfit with ties to a Texas homebuilder/GOP donor who gave significant amounts of money to finance attacks on Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the 2004 presidential campaign is promoting the ballot initiative called the Presidential Electors Initiative.

According to the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg, "one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento [has] quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district."

The initiative is sponsored by a group calling itself Californians for Equal Representation. "But that's just a letterhead -- there's no such organization," writes Hertzberg. "Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm's managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for election matters."

"What can be more fair than this?" said Kevin Eckery, spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation. "Everyone's voice is going to be heard. It could even help third-party candidates, like the Green Party, in a place like San Francisco."

On Wednesday, September 5, the offices of the secretary of state and the attorney general-- now run by former California Governor and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown -- approved the language of the initiative. Californians for Equal Representation has until February 4 to gather the nearly 434,000 signatures from registered voters necessary to place it on the June 2008 primary election ballot. It is estimated that the signature gathering process will cost more than $1 million.

Phony Electoral College reform
In late-August the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a Field Poll found that while "California voters are inclined to support" the "proposed ballot initiative ... they're not yet sold on the idea."

Clearly, many voters are fed up with the Electoral College and would like to see it changed: At Slate, Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Democratic state senator in Maryland representing Silver Spring and Takoma Park, wrote that "as it works today, the Electoral College undermines American democracy ... in three fundamental ways":

First, it betrays the principle of majority rule, threatening every four years to deliver the White House to the popular-vote loser.
Second, it reduces the general election contest to a matter of what happens in Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other swing states, leaving most Americans (who live in forsaken 'red' and 'blue' states) on the sidelines. This in turn depresses turnout and helps give us one of the worst rates of voter participation on earth.
Third, because of its proven pliability, the Electoral College invites partisan operatives, legislators, secretaries of state and even Supreme Court justices to engage in constant strategic mischief and manipulation at the state level.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently editorialized: The Electoral College is "unwieldy, it seems anti-democratic and it has given rise to one of the more despicable facts of modern presidential campaigning: rather than addressing the concerns of the entire country, major-party candidates choose to do most of their post-primary campaigning in just a few battleground states - Ohio and Florida happen to be the most popular ones right now."

The Chronicle noted that Democrats tried to do a similar thing in Colorado in 2004 -- which was rejected by that state's voters -- in the hopes of giving John Kerry an advantage, and concluded that the proposed California initiative "is nothing but dirty politics."

"Colorado voters, who initially supported the measure, realized a couple of things that Californians must come to recognize should No. 07-0032 make it onto our June 3 ballot:"

Splitting the number of electoral votes a candidate can win from any one state is highly unlikely to motivate them to spend more time here, and
Measures such as this are useless and, usually, highly partisan, unless the entire country adopts them.
A recent New York Times editorial titled "Stacking the Electoral Deck" maintained that the initiative proposed by a "shadowy group" of California Republicans will "do serious damage to our democracy."

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP
According to its website, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP "specializes in campaign, election and administrative law and litigation at all levels of government."

In early September, the Associated Press reported that the law firm "is one of the most politically involved law firms in the state .... [and] [a]ccording to a news story on its Web site, Bell keeps a life-sized cardboard image of President Bush in his office."

The "law firm banked nearly $65,000 in fees from a California-based political committee funded almost solely by Bob J. Perry that targeted Democrats in 2006," AP reported. "Perry, a major Republican donor, contributed nearly $4.5 million to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated but damaging attacks on Kerry three years ago."

The initiative's success, AP pointed out, "could hinge on whether ... [it] get[s] the financial backing to collect" the necessary "petition signatures." Although "Perry has not donated to" the ballot initiative campaign, "his wealth and connections make him a potential financier for a drive that could cost more than $1 million. Running a statewide campaign would cost millions more."

Hiltachk's official bio, posted at the law firm's website, points out that he "specializes in drafting complex tax and constitutional measures and counsels on qualification efforts for ballot measure campaigns as well as all aspects of election campaigning related to such measures. He litigates ballot and ballot pamphlet language issues and advises nonprofit corporations and associations on formation and tax exemption issues."

Kevin Eckery, the spokesperson for Californians for Equal Representation, told the AP that Perry was not connected to the new group and "as far as I know, Perry has not been solicited for any donations."

Eckery is the head of the Sacramento-based Eckery Associates. At its still-to-be-developed website, the firm claims that it is "A full-service strategic communications, crisis management and public affairs firm dedicated to serving client needs in California and around the world."

According to Frank D. Russo of the California Progress Report, Eckery "criticized the initiative process as a representative of the Timber Association of California and is mentioned in a book 'Green Backlash: The History and Politics of the Environmental Opposition in the U.S.' As former Republican Governor Pete Wilson's press contact, he is listed in the release announcing the recall election date for then California Senate President pro Tem David Roberti." (Roberti was the target of a failed recall campaign in his Senate district, that was tied to his authorship of the state's assault weapons ban. However, many observers believe that the recall succeeded in draining his campaign coffers, making him a less than viable candidate in his losing the Democratic primary for State Treasurer.)

In late August, Eckery appeared in the news as a spokesman for the beleaguered Catholic Diocese of Sacramento. According to the Sacramento Bee, leaders of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) , a victims rights group, "criticized the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento Tuesday for suing an alleged clergy abuse victim, but church officials say they are just trying to clarify the law." The newspaper reported that "The diocese is challenging the legal standing of a Texas man trying to sue for alleged sexual abuse more than two decades ago."

Eckery told the Bee that the suit "has nothing to do with intimidating a victim and everything to do with getting everybody into the same court."

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP also specializes in representing an assortment of front groups reports SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy. Perry laid out $5 million to fund the Economic Freedom Fund (EFF). EFF lists its contact as Charles Bell, who is general counsel to the California Republican Party, is Vice Chairman of the Federalist Society's free speech and election law practice group, and is active in the Republican National Lawyers Association.

The firm's client list has included:

The California Tribal Business Alliance--"an 'Indian Gaming' organization" whose mission statement is "to safeguard and enhance the success of the business enterprises of our tribal government members" ... and "'will foster business development and coalition building with like minded government and business leaders in California."
Californians for Paycheck Protection which sponsored a California anti-union ballot initiative, and whose major funders in 2005 included the Chamber of Commerce and the California Republican Party.
Former California Congressman Richard Pombo.
According to SourceWatch, BM& H has also worked with:

Californians for Schwarzenegger, "a committee formed to promote the election of Governor Schwarzenegger during the recall election of 2003."
Chico Greenline Coalition, with Thomas W. Hiltachk as Treasurer.
Citizens Against Measure R, a California group "sponsored by and with Major Funding provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.", used Bell's Sacramento office address in 2005. Note: The LA Voice reported September 7, 2006, that "Judge Robert H. O'Brien ordered that Measure R - the term limits extension/ethics revision package - be removed from the November ballot because it improperly combines multiple subjects in a single question." Charles H. Bell Jr. "called the judge's decision a win for voters."
Californians For A Fair Business Policy, a "Tobacco Institute-created front group in California" at BM&H's Santa Monica address fought "local efforts to enact smoke-free bans in California in the early 1990s" and "Conducted referenda on existing bans."
Employees of Northrop Grumman PAC, using BM&H's Santa Monica address, contributed to Sen. Bill McCollum's Florida campaign in 2000.
First Federal Bank of California PAC, which received termination approval in January 2006, received two contributions in 2003 and 2004 at BM&H's Santa Monica address.
Global Crossing Development Corporation PAC used the Santa Monica address 1997 through 2005 to make contributions, including $10,000 in 2001 to George W. Bush's "President's Dinner Committee"
and a number of current and former political candidates, including George Allen, John Ashcroft, Sherrod Brown, Sam Brownback, Conrad Burns, Eric Cantor, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Tom Davis, Harold Ford, Jr., Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Dennis Hastert, Daniel Inouye, Rick Lazio, Carl Levin, Bill Luther, John McCain, Zell Miller, Jim Nussle, Charles W. Pickering, Jack Reed, Tom Reynolds, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, Louise Slaughter, Billy Tauzin, Henry A. Waxman, and Heather Wilson.
Democratic Party leaders are taking the challenge seriously. In a conference call with California Senator Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, Dean blasted the initiative. "This is not reform. It's just another Republican attempt to rig an election."

Does the initiative stand a chance of passing? The June primary will likely have a lower than usual turnout; a turnout that is often dominated by initiative enthusiasts. However, a recent polling memo shows voters becoming less enamored with the ballot measure as they learn more about it. What may have seemed like "fairness," now looks like crass base politics.

In early September, after a number of editorials in major newspapers nixed the idea, and reports in the blogosphere exposed BM& H's linkages to highly partisan GOP campaigns and operatives, Jason Kinney of the California Majority Report ("Red Meat for a Blue State") reported that a August 31 memo prepared by Paul Maslin and Jonathan Brown, of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, found that the measure was starting to lose public support:

"The measure starts off below 40%. In California, initiatives that start off below majority support almost never pass."
"The more voters learn basic, factual information about the measure the more likely they are to oppose it."
"Opposition already appears to have increased over the last several weeks."

Harlan Huckleby
09-19-2007, 12:32 PM
you got to give the republicans credit on this one - pretty smart tactic. I wish our dirty trick guys would get off their asses. Unfortunately, there really isn't a comparable red state, it will have to be a new trick.

You can't imagine that it will actually pass, tho. This referendum next June would effectively amount to the presidential election! The media attention and debate would be intense - bigger than OJ! The people of California wouldn't pass it after careful consideration. Right now it is riding on smoke & mirrors.

A local radio talk guy in Madison has been thumping on this topic for a month. It is damn interesting.

HarveyWallbangers
09-19-2007, 12:39 PM
The Chronicle noted that Democrats tried to do a similar thing in Colorado in 2004 -- which was rejected by that state's voters -- in the hopes of giving John Kerry an advantage

Payback is a bitch, I guess.

SkinBasket
09-19-2007, 12:55 PM
I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.

Tyrone Bigguns
09-19-2007, 01:15 PM
There really is no point.

I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.

Harlan Huckleby
09-19-2007, 01:17 PM
I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.

we need to cleanse this forum of all ethnics. starting with kiwon, of course, but Tyrone high on the list. And I don't care if you really are "ethnic", the avatar is bad enough.

Joemailman
09-19-2007, 02:00 PM
I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.

You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.

Harlan Huckleby
09-19-2007, 04:15 PM
You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.

The other way I've heard of is that it would be done state by state, but would not go into effect until all (most?) of states had signed on.

Freak Out
09-19-2007, 04:29 PM
I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.

You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.

...and that is what needs to be done. Of course it will take some serious nut and tit twisting to get the Congress to take it up.

Harlan Huckleby
09-19-2007, 04:34 PM
...and that is what needs to be done. Of course it will take some serious nut and tit twisting to get the Congress to take it up.

just forget it.

Ummmm, the state-by-state approach has at least some chance. If that succeeded, then the electoral college would become mute, or nearly so.

sooner6600
09-19-2007, 04:54 PM
This just in..........

Its in the Constitution to split electorial votes by congressional
district.

Its not done due to winner take all.

Cali is just too large a number for the electorial college


Well if the split happens; then Cali should switch to
Die Bold Election Brand machines that are owned by Carl Rove.

Oh what sweet justice.

Harlan Huckleby
09-19-2007, 05:03 PM
Its in the Constitution to split electorial votes by congressional district.

I think constitution just specifies that each state gets one elector for each congressman and senator. (which gives the small states extra representation :x)

Tyrone Bigguns
09-19-2007, 05:39 PM
I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.

we need to cleanse this forum of all ethnics. starting with kiwon, of course, but Tyrone high on the list. And I don't care if you really are "ethnic", the avatar is bad enough.

Ethnic. LOL. I'm pretty far from being black.

Avatar: What is wrong with Dave Chappelle?

Deputy Nutz
09-19-2007, 05:47 PM
If you leave it up to the individual state district I agree that it could lead to problems with proper voting protocol. It is after all a federal election. At the same time I could see issues that arise in such places like Milwaukee where transportation is damaged people are bribed for their vote and so on and so forth to win the state, well we all know that the congresional districts taht make up Milwaukee County always go democratic so in that case there should be less voter fraud same can be said for districts in St Croix County and Waukesha County that are almost always 90% republican. It is the swing districts that become a problem say like Kenosha or Racine.

Scott Campbell
09-19-2007, 05:51 PM
I'm pretty far from being black.


No way!

What about the crack? Was that all a lie too?

Tyrone Bigguns
09-19-2007, 05:55 PM
I'm pretty far from being black.


No way!

What about the crack? Was that all a lie too?

No. The crack was truthful. Nothing like loading a big fat rock in my pipe and hittin it with my six wives. I live in Mesa.

Or do i?

Kiwon
09-19-2007, 06:14 PM
we need to cleanse this forum of all ethnics. starting with kiwon, of course, but Tyrone high on the list. And I don't care if you really are "ethnic", the avatar is bad enough.

You racist pig! 60% of the world's population lives in Asia. What's your problem? Can't eat with chopsticks?

We'll show you. There! Take that! Perfect scores on the SAT and ACT. What do you think of that?

Teen gets perfect scores on SAT, ACT

Asians for Farve (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-19-perfect-scores_N.htm)

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/09/19/perfectx.jpg

Joemailman
09-19-2007, 06:32 PM
Its in the Constitution to split electorial votes by congressional district.

I think constitution just specifies that each state gets one elector for each congressman and senator. (which gives the small states extra representation :x)

What the Constitution actually says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Merlin
09-21-2007, 10:05 AM
Congressman are determined by population in a state. You can lose a seat in congress to another state if your population has shifted. Redistricting should only happen when the population centers move, not because one party or another says it's needs done. It should be a citizen vote only type thing. But that is up to the individual states to decide.

The Electoral college for all of it's nuances is the only fair way to elect a president. Without it, four states could decide the outcome of the election: New York, Florida, Texas and California. The other 46 states would be completely ignored by any candidate. Since we are a Republic, the people are represented and the States are represented (People = House of Representatives, States = Senate). Although the majority of people vote one way, the State may vote another. If you take the States out of the equation then you have essentially knocked one of the pillars of our Constitution out and you are one step closer to Socialism. The Individual State has the right to determine how their electoral votes are cast. Today, this is done by general election normally. However, in some states, the electorate does not have to cast their vote based on the outcome of the election in their state. There are several examples of the electorate splitting their vote within a given state. If States elect to give their electoral votes based upon the national vote and not the state vote, you have effectively taken the State out of the equation and made the Electoral College mean next to nothing. Meaning, you have just taken a huge step towards letting 4 states elect the president and have one foot in the grave towards Socialism.

Individuals do not have the right to vote for the office of president. This was introduced into the election process to give the electorate of a state a direction of where the population that they represent. This was NOT a Federal decision but a State by State decision. The Federal government has very limited powers. They do not have the right to control Public Education, Health Care, Welfare, Abortion, and most controversial things that they attempt to control. All of these issues and many more are powers of the States. The Constitution can only be amended four ways, but the all involve approval of the States by either 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the States depending on the road the amendment took. It is very difficult to get the Constitution amended. Income Tax is an example of an amendment that was passed (16th Amendment). The last amendment was the 27th ratified in 1992 that deals with limiting Congressional pay increases and was introduced in 1789.

More over the political left in this country want us to be a Socialist country. At no time in our history has a Socialist government been successful. They failed and the remaining continue to fail. Our Founding Fathers believed that democratic or "mob" rule was not the way to run a country. This is why we are a Republic based on Federalism with more rights given to the individual then to the Government. However, if things continue the way they are, those people without health care who have 2 cars, a house, cable/satellite, internet, iPhones, etc. will get free health care while the rest of us who make the better life choices live with less so they can have more.

Harlan Huckleby
09-21-2007, 10:21 AM
The Electoral college for all of it's nuances is the only fair way to elect a president .
:shock:

Merlin
09-21-2007, 10:32 AM
The Electoral college for all of it's nuances is the only fair way to elect a president .
:shock:

If you believe in the Constitution it is. If you don't, then by all means let the mob rule, but it will take an amendment to allow that unless the States (who are already turning into their own little Socialist dictatorships) turn into a bunch of panzy asses.

Harlan Huckleby
09-21-2007, 10:42 AM
Merlin, we are unique in the world wih this electoral college system. The other democracies shake their head in bewilderment. The electoral college is an archaic bad joke. I will give a more thoughtful reply to your post, tho, jus a minute.

Harlan Huckleby
09-21-2007, 11:41 AM
If you take the States out of the equation then you have essentially knocked one of the pillars of our Constitution out and you are one step closer to Socialism.

Socialism has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to guess what this is code for, I guess more power in the central goverment. But it doesn't even do that, the president has no more or less power if he is elected by a popular vote.

And the States don't actually get any power out of the electoral college. SOME states are advantaged at the expense of other states.


States elect to give their electoral votes based upon the national vote and not the state vote, you have effectively taken the State out of the equation and made the Electoral College mean next to nothing.

I don't know who suggested this or why. Perhaps you misunderstand. The only suggestions I have heard is that States apportion their electoral votes according to the popular vote within the same state.

Federalism has nothing to do with the electoral college.

The only good argument for the electoral college, and I think you might have mentioned it, is that it strengthens the voice of smaller states who might otherwise be ignored.
This was a strong argument in the 18th century. But now elections are conducted largely through the media, where it doesn't matter whether you live in California or Wyoming.

Partial
09-21-2007, 12:16 PM
Republicans will win the next presidential election.

mraynrand
09-21-2007, 12:41 PM
Republicans will win the next presidential election.

Americans want Hill-Billy


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2006/08/22/babenson500.jpg

Chamelot!

SkinBasket
09-21-2007, 02:23 PM
Betcha that one's framed up at Hillary Central.

Kiwon
09-21-2007, 07:21 PM
Republicans will win the next presidential election.

Americans want Hill-Billy

Younger dems want Hussein Obama but the media and older dems want to elect Hillary. The media will do everything to ensure that Hillary is elected. The fix is already in.

And Bill, the First Perv, can't wait to troll for 22 year-old interns again. Ah, the good ole days....... (harp music background) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/lewinmug_undatedr.jpg


"Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit. They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare XXXXX with his hands and mouth. At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call. Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname. While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed XXXX sex [Which we all know now doesn't meet his definition of sex]. Again, he stopped her before he XXXXX.

During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/clintmug_0997ap.jpg
He "liked her energy." :D :D :D

hoosier
09-21-2007, 07:50 PM
Republicans will win the next presidential election.
Americans want Hill-Billy
Younger dems want Hussein Obama but the media and older dems want to elect Hillary. The media will do everything to ensure that Hillary is elected. The fix is already in.
And Bill, the First Perv, can't wait to troll for 22 year-old interns again. Ah, the good ole days....... (harp music background) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/lewinmug_undatedr.jpg

"Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit. They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare XXXXX with his hands and mouth. At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call. Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname. While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed XXXX sex [Which we all know now doesn't meet his definition of sex]. Again, he stopped her before he XXXXX.

During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/clintmug_0997ap.jpg
He "liked her energy." :D :D :D


Boy, that Clinton really got under you Republicans' skin, didn't he?

MJZiggy
09-21-2007, 08:16 PM
Well, he did actually get laid...and by a girl no less! No wonder they were so pissed.

LEWCWA
09-21-2007, 09:43 PM
This would be bad for Dems as most of the more ppulated districts vote blue and more rural districts vote red....why would you give a district with less people as much clout as a district with more people. This would play directly into the reds hands!

Harlan Huckleby
09-21-2007, 09:44 PM
Well, he did actually get laid...and by a girl no less! No wonder they were so pissed.

right on. What's classier, sex in the oval office or sex in the bathroom?

Joemailman
09-22-2007, 06:06 AM
If you take the States out of the equation then you have essentially knocked one of the pillars of our Constitution out and you are one step closer to Socialism.

Socialism has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to guess what this is code for, I guess more power in the central goverment. But it doesn't even do that, the president has no more or less power if he is elected by a popular vote.

And the States don't actually get any power out of the electoral college. SOME states are advantaged at the expense of other states.


States elect to give their electoral votes based upon the national vote and not the state vote, you have effectively taken the State out of the equation and made the Electoral College mean next to nothing.

I don't know who suggested this or why. Perhaps you misunderstand. The only suggestions I have heard is that States apportion their electoral votes according to the popular vote within the same state.

Federalism has nothing to do with the electoral college.

The only good argument for the electoral college, and I think you might have mentioned it, is that it strengthens the voice of smaller states who might otherwise be ignored.
This was a strong argument in the 18th century. But now elections are conducted largely through the media, where it doesn't matter whether you live in California or Wyoming.

Actually, there was a proposal being put forth in California last year to award California's electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. Don't know if it's stiill being considered. Haven't heard anything about it this year.

Merlin
09-24-2007, 12:12 PM
It's not only California, several states are considering it.

Harlan:

The states have more power then Federal Government does. They choose to not be represented by allowing Senators to be elected by the people. Ever since then you have the Governors of states lobbying the Federal Government. That's what the Senators are there for according to the Constitution. The "President" does have some power but not the power most people think, like spending money. The President can't spend a dime and he can be over-ruled by the Congress. The biggest authority that the President has that has long lasting effects on our country is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. Cases like Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the Federal Government, it was a State issue. The Supreme Court usurped the Constitution and there are many other cases like that. Take the separation of Church and State for example. Under the Constitution, it is very limited in scope and only applies to the government mandating a religion. The States could mandate a religion but the Federal Government could not. That has since changed. The Supreme Court has extended it to encompass anything and everything, mostly pertaining to Christianity. There are several public schools in this country teaching Islam. So that our children will have a better understanding of the religion. BUT, if you utter the word God or bring a bible to school, you are suspended and that is happening.

Socialism has everything to do with it. There is a very small minority in this country that thinks everyone is entitled to what you have. Even though they made poor choices in life, they have a right to what is yours. The general push with the electoral college is going the route similar to what California is trying to do. Federalism is waining and so is our Republic. All for the sake of a small percentage of American's who think they are entitled.

Harlan Huckleby
09-24-2007, 12:24 PM
Actually, there was a proposal being put forth in California last year to award California's electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. Don't know if it's stiill being considered. Haven't heard anything about it this year.

Ya, I guess I do vaguely remember that suggestion. I think it is a dead idea.

The electoral college favors republicans because of the way our population happens to be distributed. If you think of democrats as socialists, then I guess abolishing the EC could favor socialism.

Merlin, I understand what you are saying about federalism. I was just making point that Federalism has to do with power sharing between Fed goverment and states. The electoral college is about checking populism, giving some of the voters' power to the political elites ("electors" at state level). And also EC is about power sharing among the states, giving smaller states a little more power.

Zool
09-24-2007, 12:28 PM
Well, he did actually get laid...and by a girl no less! No wonder they were so pissed.

right on. What's classier, sex in the oval office or sex in the bathroom?

Which one's illegal?

SkinBasket
09-24-2007, 03:26 PM
why would you give a district with less people as much clout as a district with more people.

Maybe because 46% of California's 12,000,000 or so presidential votes were essentially tossed out the window when the state gave 100% of it's electoral to the dems?

Every vote counts, right? Or is that only when interpreting hanging chads?

Harlan Huckleby
09-24-2007, 06:40 PM
why would you give a district with less people as much clout as a district with more people.

Maybe because 46% of California's 12,000,000 or so presidential votes were essentially tossed out the window when the state gave 100% of it's electoral to the dems?

Every vote counts, right? Or is that only when interpreting hanging chads?


you both are arguing for the same thing: elect the president by popular vote.

What the Republicans are attempting to do in Calfornia is a good idea. But it's undemocratic (in the big picture) to do it in only one large state. They'll never get away with it.

SkinBasket
09-24-2007, 09:27 PM
you both are arguing for the same thing: elect the president by popular vote.

What the Republicans are attempting to do in Calfornia is a good idea. But it's undemocratic (in the big picture) to do it in only one large state. They'll never get away with it.


California obviously makes an easy target due to its size. With so many electoral votes at stake, it makes no sense to have them all go to the winner, especially when the winner only carries 55% of the vote, and less than half the districts - each with their own interests, needs, and politics. I'm not sure that it's "undemocratic" to do it in Cali and not other places, as the result is still a more accurate representation of the popular vote, which, supposedly, can only be a good thing - not necessarily for Democrats, but for voters anyway, which is what voting is allegedly about. Allegedly.

Harlan Huckleby
09-24-2007, 11:01 PM
If California alone were to go with proportional allotment of electoral votes, the Democrats would have little chance to win the Presidential election.

If Texas alone were to make this reform, the Republicans would be even more screwed, the Democrats would be shoe-ins for the presidency.

This sort of gaming-the-system would cause a furor, the election would be even more controversial than 2000.

It ain't gonna happen, I'm not losing sleep over it.

The only fair reform is for EVERY state to scrap the "winner take all" system. And that could happen, at least it's certainly a lot easier to do than a consitutional amendment.

LEWCWA
10-04-2007, 06:39 PM
I am glad you mentioned Texas, as it is a large red state. It has to be a univesal thing. Either or but not pick and choose. Either the EC is done away with and Presidents are elected by popular vote or we keep it the way it is. Splitting up California and say not Texas would not work. You can have either side gaining that kind of advantage!

How many Dem. votes are tossed out in Texas? Hell by popular vote Bush wouldn't even be president!

mraynrand
10-04-2007, 11:45 PM
There's really only one fair way to do it:

http://www.bingo-on-net.net/i/bingo.jpg

The always fair, always balanced, NBA draft lottery format:
http://rushthecourt.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/boston-celtics.jpg

Or better yet, we could just have Patrick Ewing be president for life

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/luke_winn/05/23/draft.lottery/p1.ewing.si.jpg


Those guys in suits really look honest and forthright, don't they? No fix here, gentlemen. Move along, nothing to see here.
http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/nba/2002/1216/photo/a_stern_hi.jpg

SkinBasket
10-05-2007, 06:58 AM
Hell by popular vote Bush wouldn't even be president!

Funny statement considering the title of this thread.


And to answer your question about Texas, 2.8 million Dem votes were tossed aside, a hanging chad under 40% of the vote, which is actually less than the number of Republican votes lost in the big ol' blue state of NY (2.9 mil). So yes, Texas is a big red state, but still only half the problem California poses - which as stated before, makes Cali an easy target for this kind of talk.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this. Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

Harlan Huckleby
10-05-2007, 10:30 AM
To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this.

Glad you've finally come around. It's not too late to edit your earlier posts. :P

The issue on the table is whether California should make this change. Hello?


Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

You may see this justification, but it is not the purpose of the maneuver. If the Republicans were motivated by fairness, establishing one-man-one-vote, they'd be championing the end of the electoral college.

SkinBasket
10-06-2007, 11:00 AM
Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

You may see this justification, but it is not the purpose of the maneuver. If the Republicans were motivated by fairness, establishing one-man-one-vote, they'd be championing the end of the electoral college.

No shit it's not the purpose of this maneuver. I'm telling you why Cali makes an easy target. It has the electoral size of at least two states, and given the electoral composition by county, it has the political make-up of two states. The later is not by any means unique, but the former is, which is what makes it a stronger case than say... Colorado.

Would doing this in only California be fair? To the dems, no. To the voters? yes. I love how the Dems are all about fairness and every vote counting... until it's the difference between winning and losing.

As far as I can tell, you're still arguing that an unfair, less representative system is better than an unfair, more representative system.

SkinBasket
10-06-2007, 11:03 AM
The issue on the table is whether California should make this change. Hello?

Yes, because the threads here tend to stay so on-point. I'm sorry I strayed outside your imaginary topic guidelines and boundaries.

Harlan Huckleby
10-06-2007, 12:44 PM
To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this.

Would doing this in only California be fair? To the dems, no. To the voters? yes.

:crazy:

SkinBasket
10-10-2007, 12:41 PM
To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this.

Would doing this in only California be fair? To the dems, no. To the voters? yes.

:crazy:

I'm guessing from your juxtaposition of the above quotes followed by your use of an emoticon that you somehow feel those two statements are mutually exclusive? I think you missed a connection somewhere in your brain, but please, feel free to elaborate how those two statements can't possibly co-exist without being an indication of mental illness and maybe I can help you help yourself. Maybe. Probably not. Really, it's not likely at all, but we can still try.

Harlan Huckleby
10-10-2007, 12:51 PM
You have been arguing in favor of the California initiative all along, and then "to be clear" claim that you are against it.

And then you say the initiative is unfair to Democrats, but fair to the people. So we are to believe that you value fairness to Democrats more than fairness to the people.

I'm sure this all makes sense in your head.

SkinBasket
10-10-2007, 01:13 PM
You have been arguing in favor of the California initiative all along, and then "to be clear" claim that you are against it.

I never said I'm against it. I said "I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this." Your attempts to twist everyone else's statements seems to be confusing yourself more than anything these days.



And then you say the initiative is unfair to Democrats, but fair to the people.

I said voters, not people.


So we are to believe that you value fairness to Democrats more than fairness to the people.

I value fairness to voters - all voters - over fairness to how changing an unfair system effects political dynamics in a given state. I value a fair, representative vote, independent of the issue or politics involved. Whether that vote only happens in California or whether it happens nationwide, I value a more representative vote over a less representative vote. I simply stated I understand it happening only in Cali could be considered "unfair" to Dems through poor use of equivocations like Texas. That doesn't change the fact that a more representative vote is more fair to voters - no matter the scale.

Harlan Huckleby
10-10-2007, 01:31 PM
I said "I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this."

This issue at hand is that only California is changing. And you never argued against it, you simply mentioned the (weak) arguments on the other side.


Whether that vote only happens in California or whether it happens nationwide, I value a more representative vote over a less representative vote.

:crazy: Here we go again. I know this means something in your head, but the words state that you support California (alone) moving to proportional voting.

The only consistent thing you say is that you value a more representative system. So lets work from there.
I take it you are in favor of a Parlimentary system? Because our presidential system is horribly unrepresentative, it's winner take all. The big advantage of a Parliment is that it fosters multiple parties, all of which retain power to challenge the Prime Minister. It's much closer to true democracy than our presidential system.

And I HAVE to beleive that you despise the electoral college. It was invented expressly to take power from the voters and move it to the educated political elites. And it gives voters in small states 1.3 votes, large state voters .84 votes (or some such thing.)

As a fair representation freak, why aren't you simply railing against the electoral college?

SkinBasket
10-10-2007, 01:56 PM
Jesus fuck, what a waste of time.

Yes, I support the Cali initiative because I see it as a step in the right direction (as I've explained several times now), and I can understand the reasons given as a front for political motivations as having at least some merit because the state is unique (again, covered).

But that doesn't mean, as you seem to suppose, that I don't support an end to the electoral college system. You're arguing as if supporting the Cali initiative excludes supporting the same nationwide, which is where I'm assuming your confusion lies.

You're arguing with yourself again, and if you didn't try so hard to turn everything into something you think you have an answer for, this wouldn't be so difficult.

Harlan Huckleby
10-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Yes, I support the Cali initiative

finally! :lol:

So you aren't :crazy: It just seemed that way when you were trying to have it both ways.

I didn't have any idea of your opinion on the electoral college. But now that I hear you are against it, welcome aboard!

SkinBasket
10-10-2007, 04:46 PM
So you aren't :crazy: It just seemed that way when you were trying to have it both ways.

Don't foist your lack of understanding on me. Unless you're playing Dumb Harlan again. In that case, you can just go fuck yourself. Actually either way you can go fuck yourself.

Harlan Huckleby
10-10-2007, 07:03 PM
You operate at the level of name calling. You use the word "representative" but haven't even thought about what that word means. You are against democrats, and that's as deep as you go.

SkinBasket
10-10-2007, 08:15 PM
Cry me a river.


After you get done telling me what I know, believe, and think... again.

Freak Out
10-12-2007, 12:53 PM
Weren't some Giuliani people linked with the Cali initiative? Now it looks like his best friend wont be able to keep himself out of Federal Court. It's really to bad he never became Homeland Security secretary. ya...

Prosecutors expected to file charges against Bernard Kerik

BY GREG B. SMITH
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Ex-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik will likely face new federal charges, sources say, some linked to meeting at Walker's, a bar in Tribeca allegedly attended by Kerik and two then-city officials.

Bernard Kerik's legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.

The indictment, expected next month, could prove to be an embarrassing obstacle for Kerik's former mentor Rudy Giuliani, who is cruising at the top of the polls heading into the presidential primary gauntlet.

The bribery allegations against Kerik stem from a secret meeting at a bar in Tribeca, according to two sources familiar with the federal probe.

Kerik's lawyers recently agreed to waive the statute of limitations on the tax charges until Nov. 17, which will allow them to make one last plea to try to ease the pain.

Kerik will go to the Justice Department in Washington in the coming weeks to try to get expected criminal tax charges reduced to civil fines.

Meanwhile, witnesses have been appearing before a grand jury in White Plains, several sources said.

Last spring, Kerik turned down a deal to plead guilty to tax charges. Since then, the probe has expanded to include other charges, the sources said.

The indictment will have direct implications for Giuliani, the sources said.

For one, another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani's years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.

The Giuliani officials are Raymond Casey, former head of the Trade Waste Commission, a city agency set up to keep the mob out of the carting industry, and Michael Caruso, former inspector general with the city Department of Investigation.

In July 1999, Casey and Caruso met with Kerik, then the city Correction Department commissioner, at Walker's bar on North Moore St., court papers reveal.

At the time, Casey was investigating Interstate Industrial Corp., a company that employed Kerik's brother Donald and the best man at Kerik's wedding, Larry Ray.

An Interstate affiliate had applied to operate a waste transfer station in Staten Island, and Casey was looking into allegations that the firm had ties to the Gambino crime family.

During the meeting, both Interstate and Ray were discussed, according to an affidavit filed in a civil suit by Caruso's lawyer, Mark Freyberg.

Kerik has admitted that at the time Interstate was secretly paying to renovate his Bronx apartment. Prosecutors are now expected to allege that the free renovations amounted to Kerik accepting bribes, the sources said.

In return for the renovations, the feds will allege, Kerik used his city position to try to influence the city's probe of Interstate, the sources said.

During the Walker's meeting, Kerik allegedly told Casey that he did not see the allegations concerning Interstate's ties to the mob as credible, according to a source familiar with the case.

Kerik noted that his brother worked for the company, and said, "If I thought Interstate was mobbed up, do you think I'd let my brother work there?" according to the source.

Kerik also urged Casey to complete his probe and either reject or accept the application - but either way, to do it expeditiously, the source said. Years later, the agency recommended denying Interstate the license.

Kerik's lawyer Kenneth Breen did not return a call seeking comment. Casey's lawyer and Perry Carbone, the prosecutor handling the case for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia, also did not return calls.

Last year, Kerik pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges brought by the Bronx district attorney in connection with receiving payments totaling $165,000 from Interstate, but he was not charged with bribery.

The expected obstruction of justice charges from the feds are related to Kerik's statements to Bronx prosecutors, the sources said.

The expected federal tax fraud charges are linked to Kerik's failure to pay taxes on the income he received from Interstate, the sources added.

Giuliani has extensive ties to Kerik, promoting him to correction commissioner, then to police commissioner. Giuliani later also hired him at his firm, Giuliani Partners, and recommended him to President Bush for the job of Homeland Security secretary.

The relationship soured in December 2004 when Kerik withdrew from consideration for the Homeland Security job and a torrent of accusations of wrongdoing poured forth.

Giuliani has since admitted he had erred in pushing Kerik for the Homeland Security job.

"It was a mistake," Giuliani told CNN's Larry King in February. "I think the answer is I made a mistake and I took responsibility for it."