GOP Power Grab For California Votes Linked To Swift Boat Funder
GOP Power Grab For California Votes Linked To Swift Boat Funder
This summer, a group of California lawyers filed a ballot initiative that would apportion the state’s presidential electors on a district-by-district, rather than statewide, basis. The ballot initiative “would rig elections in a way that would make it difficult for a Democrat to be elected president, no matter how the popular vote comes out.” The New York Times notes:
The net result of the California initiative would be that if the Democratic candidate wins in that state next year, which is very likely, the Republican candidate might still walk away with 20 or more of the state’s electoral votes. The initiative, backed by a shadowy group called Californians for Equal Representation, is being promoted as an effort to more accurately reflect the choices of the state’s voters, and to force candidates to pay more attention to California, which is usually not in play in presidential elections. It is actually a power grab on behalf of Republicans. [...]
If California abandons its winner-take-all rule while red states like Texas do not, it will be hard for a Democratic nominee to assemble an Electoral College majority, even if he or she wins a sizable majority of the popular vote. That appears to be just what the backers of the California idea have in mind.
As more evidence of the initiative’s partisan motives, today the AP reports that the law firm behind the ballot initiative, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP, has strong ties to a major donor of the 2004 PAC, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:
Charles H. Bell and Thomas Hiltachk’s 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. 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.
Bell is also the General Counsel for the California Republican Party and the Vice President of the Federalist Society’s free speech and election law practice group. Thomas Hiltachk serves as legal counsel to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), who has so far given the proposal “a chilly reception.”
There’s no doubt that the Electoral College needs reform. But as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) put it: “We are all for reforming the Electoral College but that must be done in ALL of the states, not just California.”
(The Carpetbagger Report and Digby have more. Find out the facts about the ballot initiative at Californians for Fair Election Reform.)
UPDATE: Calitics points out that “Bell keeps a life-sized cardboard image of President Bush in his office.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I agree with Boxer on this. I actually like the idea of the electoral votes being meted out district by district, instead of a winner take all deal. However it does have to be an all or nothing deal. I am surprised the republicans would even suggest this. It could backfire on them badly in the future.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWe’re talking about Gerrymandering, and its not the first time its been tried in KaleeFornJa.
Someone needs to go to jail over this.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pmFine. Let them do this, even encourage it. It will set a precedent to allow the dems to do the same thing in many other areas.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThey’re moving legislative boundaries and divding up the electoral vote, so as to give the Republicans electoral votes regardless of the popular vote.
Its criminal desperation.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pmFine. Let them do this, even encourage it. It will set a precedent to allow the dems to do the same thing in many other areas.
Comment by Chris L — September 4, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
No Chris. That would effectively defeat our democracy. Right now the electoral college decides the president. Its given however, that the electorate will vote with the popular vote of their district, if they don’t want to be run out of the state that is. So the voice of the people is heard, at least via proxy.
This method however, would turn the vote over to the electoral college, and the peoples votes would no longer matter.
The best solution here, is to do away with the electoral college and go back to the popular vote. Of course the repugs will fight that because they know the majority of the people, despise them.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI smell congressional investigations in the wind…
September 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe best solution here, is to do away with the electoral college and go back to the popular vote. Of course the repugs will fight that because they know the majority of the people, despise them.
Comment by TROLL BRAINER — September 4, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
#
Agreed.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pmCharles H. Bell seems to be a Completely Useless American (CUA)!!
September 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pmCalifornians for Equal Representation…
boy, these guys are the masters of contradiction…
in their bizarro opposite world…
September 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pm.
I’ve heard about this…this is really scary – I’m hoping this is not likely to happen in CA for ‘08? Thoughts?
September 4th, 2007 at 4:27 pmIf we’re talking about Federal elections, and we are, then this must be a nationwide endeavor. The electoral college is mandated out of the Constitution, and any changes to to the way votes are cast and counted must include all states. I still don’t like the idea, but at least that makes sense.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:28 pm“The best solution here, is to do away with the electoral college and go back to the popular vote. Of course the repugs will fight that because they know the majority of the people, despise them.”
Comment by TROLL BRAINER
Or, it would make the current situation worse, requiring much more fundraising to be competitive in both Chicago and Hootersville, dahlink.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pmDon’t know David. Bush is still in power. While he is, you can bet he and the right wing will be pulling out all the stops to keep from getting a Dem president.
Bush and Cheney know that if a Dem takes the White House, then they’re going to jail.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pmRe: …an effort to more accurately reflect the choices of the state’s voters…
To more accurately reflect the choices of the voter, let’s go to a popular vote across the board.
Re: …and to force candidates to pay more attention to California, which is usually not in play in presidential elections.
That’s because the Dems generally have CA locked up, and the Repubs just can’t stand it.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pmOnce again the Republicans are trying to cheat to give the electoral vote to the Repblian candidate even though the people vote for the Democrat, just as they did in 2000.
The reason the Republicans have to cheat is that they know that they do not represent the will of the people and only represent two special interest groups, the haves and have mores, and the religious right.
This is a major attack on the American system of government. If the Democratic candidate gets a solid majority of the popular vote and would have won the electoral vote under the present system, but loses it because of the change the Republicans are trying to push through, our whole system of electing Presidents will be discredited and the Republican president will be completely devoid of ant mandate.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pmdavid, yes, it is aimed at 2008.
The nascent initiative, aimed at the June 2008 ballot, would change California’s winner-take-all system to require that electoral votes be apportioned by congressional district.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pmPlease add to the post Courage Campaign’s grassroots fundraising effort to stop this dirty trick. Californians for Fair Election Reform is a top-down effort. The Courage Campaign effort is a bottom-up, people-powered movement designed to strengthen the progressive infrastructure in California and make us better-equipped to fight this in the future. Thanks.
20 for 20 – contribute with ActBlue
September 4th, 2007 at 4:31 pmOr, it would make the current situation worse, requiring much more fundraising to be competitive in both Chicago and Hootersville, dahlink.
Comment by barfly — September 4, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Not at all. The country by and large vote democrat, regardless of popular belief.
That means we can forget Hooterville, or any place that is inhabited by indigenous inbreds, and focus on the Dense urban populations which so overwhelmingly vote democrat.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pmhttp://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352587402&path=!living&s=1037645509005\
Check this out: Now even the Papal State (*Catholic Coalition of Nuns) is calling for the immediate Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Gotta love it!
September 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThe entire repudiates the Bush Cabal and now even the nuns are getting into the act: Sister Act 3??
“Californians for Equal Representation”
They’re only for equal representation in the Blue states, not in the Red states. If this were done in all states, it would be a good idea. But to do it only in the Blue states and not in the red states is another Republican dirty trick, worthy of Karl Rove.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pmThe problem with getting rid of the electoral college, I’m afraid, is that neither the Dems or the Repubs in Congress will go for it because both parties benefit from it: the odds at winning are better with the current system — Win both popular and electoral, or lose the popular but win the electoral. Eliminating the E.C. limits them to only one way to win.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pmCA Senator Dianne Feinstein said this morning that she will introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College.
• Detox from Fox: Starve The Beast
September 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pm“Fine. Let them do this, even encourage it. It will set a precedent to allow the dems to do the same thing in many other areas.”
Since the Democrats do not, on the whole, control the legislatures in the Red states, they could not do it there. As a result all the Red states would continue to give all of their electoral votes to the Republican candidate, while the Blue states would divide their votes between Democrats and Repubicans. This would guarantee that the Republican candidate wins the Presidency even when the Democratic candidate wins a large majority of the popular vote.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pm…worthy of Karl Rove.
Comment by CaptainVideo — September 4, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Perhaps his final act?
September 4th, 2007 at 4:41 pmThe problem with getting rid of the electoral college, I’m afraid, is that neither the Dems or the Repubs in Congress will go for it because both parties benefit from it: the odds at winning are better with the current system — Win both popular and electoral, or lose the popular but win the electoral. Eliminating the E.C. limits them to only one way to win.
Comment by WC — September 4, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Sorry, but that really dosen’t translate into a logical deduction.
You’re talking about two parties both wanting the electoral system because it makes it easier to win, yet only one party can win, so obviously it didn’t make it “easier” for one party.
Sorry. Non existent argument.
NEXT.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm“Swift Boat Funder” == LIAR.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:44 pmRigging the system: the only way Republicans can win.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pm.
The electoral college, ironically enough was first intended by social elites to keep “poor dumb dirt farmers” from becoming president.
Obviously that didn’t work out too well.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pmAll states or no states. This is all about repukians rigging elections, which is the only way they can get into office.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:55 pm#17
Please add to the post Courage Campaign’s grassroots fundraising effort to stop this dirty trick. Californians for Fair Election Reform is a top-down effort. The Courage Campaign effort is a bottom-up, people-powered movement designed to strengthen the progressive infrastructure in California and make us better-equipped to fight this in the future. Thanks.
20 for 20 – contribute with ActBlue
Comment by dday — September 4, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Thanks, dday. This is important. I contributed earlier today.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:57 pmSo much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..
September 4th, 2007 at 5:04 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — September 4, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
I guess the point I am making is that neither party is going to give up the option of losing the popular vote while still winning the big prize. And yes, I suppose in the situation of winning both the popular and the electoral vote, the popular vote part of it is rather a moot point.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pmSo much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 4, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
We do, just not one it is only one state. If the whole union went to this system I am all for it, as I said in post #1. Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pmThis is another case of “be careful what you wish for.”
September 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pmSure, it may benefit the Reps now, but in the future the tables could be turned. Then watch them squeal.
So much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 4, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
of course, if it is nationwide. otherwise, it’s just another underhanded power grab from those who least deserve power, and who have most abused it when they had it. I was born at night, but not last night. why do you persist in thinking that we are as f*cking stupid as you?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pmThe electoral college, ironically enough was first intended by social elites to keep “poor dumb dirt farmers†from becoming president.
Obviously that didn’t work out too well.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 4, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Ha! That IS pretty freakin ironic!
Aren’t there several states that already divide their electoral vote? Like Vermont and maybe one other? Nowhere near the power of CA, of course, but I think there IS precedence elsewhere in the union for this…
September 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pmSo much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 4, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Did you miss the part where every single commenter has said it’s fine ONLY if it applies to EVERY state? Get out of your own box – or is that a man-sized safe you are holed up in?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pmThese are SLIME-boaters. Disgusting LYING pieces of radid dog crap. Totally unAmerican Fascists.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI have no problem with nationwide implementation….
Pssst….Ron, you might want to remove than permanently attached cinder-block size chip from your shoulder…..you might be finding friends are “too” busy to hang with you, downer that you are.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated attacks on Kerry three years ago”
Name one?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated attacks on Kerry three years agoâ€
Name one?
Comment by michael — September 4, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Looks like most or all of it http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
September 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI guess the point I am making is that neither party is going to give up the option of losing the popular vote while still winning the big prize.
Comment by WC — September 4, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
No. There are many on the democratic side who’d want to give it up, as well as a few republicans. Most of the party members don’t WANT to go back to a popular vote, but they’ll like it a lot more when their seats on the line over it.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:28 pmOne of the many unsubstantiated attacks was that his wounds were self-inflicted.
Now, on to the subject at hand. Why in the world would the most powerful electoral state in the union and the 7th largest economy in the world want to neuter itself with respect to presidential politics. Why would you take all our political power away and turn us into a collection of little non-states? It just doesn’t make sense.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:29 pmName one?
Comment by michael — September 4, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
None of them were in the boat with Kerry, and their stories years after the fact, contradict the stories of the men who actually served with Kerry.
They were right wing stooges. Nothing more.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThat is not Tom Hiltachk – mislabled photo
http://www.theaapc.org/content/aboutus/board/thomashiltachk.asp
September 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pmwhy do you persist in thinking that we are as f*cking stupid as you?
Comment by ronjazz — September 4, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
This Mighty Ass-O-Mighty’s MO! Unchecked ego without a brain is dangerous thing!!
September 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pmBrassmask, even John O’Niell has admitted that he, himself was in Cambodia. There is an audio tape of him bragging about it to Nixon. This came out about six months ago. And, since you’re so light on the facts, let me remind you that O’Neill is the one who claims that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia! You’ve been played like an old fiddle, dude. These guys are frauds.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pmEverything the Swift Boat Veterans said about John Kerry was true. Kerry fabricated his record in Vietnam, and he was never in Cambodia.
Comment by Brassmask — September 4, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Wrong.
But since John Kerry is not running for President then I hope all of you guys keep focusing on him. It will make November 08 that much more pathetic for you.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pmMA: “So much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..”
What would the people of California gain by doing this, especially if states like Texas, Nebraska and Florida won’t do it? Nothing. We’d lose all of our electoral clout. Now, if everyone does it, and we move towards a national popular vote kind of system, we can talk. But for Cali to simply drop it’s pants is absurd.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pmproportional representation???!!!
What like the biggest state in the union having NO electoral clout. Is that what you would call “proportional?” Get serious.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:49 pmRepublicans don’t like, that the large electoral vote of California typically goes to the democratic candidate, that is why they want to change the system, but only in Cali.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:52 pmCalifornia needs to lead the way, and other (blue) States will follow.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pmthis isn’t necessary, with giuliani likely beating clinton in nj, pa, ohio, and mich, along with holding the southern states, he will win a big enough electoral margin.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pmYou can dream if you want, Cowboy, but check the polls. Guiliani hasn’t beaten Hillary in a poll in quite a while. She’s beaten him in 12 of the last 14 major polls conducted. Ohio’s election will not be run by corrupt repubs next year and Florida is leaning heavily towards whomever the Dem candidate will be. As far as NJ, PA and Michigan are concerned, hey, you can always dream. Nah, I think you’re in for a profound disappointment in eary November of next year.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:57 pmRecently Rudy said he left NY City with a surplus after inheriting a debt. But, oh, oh, the fact is he left Bloomberg with a bigger debt than he inherited. Now, I remember when they used to thrash old Al Gore for supposed mistatements that Al didn’t even make. Why does Rudy get a free pass on a lie like this?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pmGuiliani is the Republic candidate, already? I thought Big Slow Fred T. was the shoo-in. Or was it Shiny Hair Romney?
I get confused by Republic certainties.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:00 pmRemember when they called old Al Gore a “serial exaggerator?” It was a deeply troubling sign of a marginal personality.
Rudy recently bragged that he had spent more time at Ground Zero than most of the 9-11 workers. But, oh, oh, his schedule seems to show that he spent more time at Yankees games than at ground zero. Why does everyone ignore things that sent them into a tizzy about Al Gore?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:01 pmRemember when they called Al Gore a phony for wearing jeans and boots? Fred Thompson shed his lobbyist thousand-dollar suit, rented a used red Ford Truck, and went around Tennessee in jeans and workshirt trying to convince voters he was a regular guy. These days, Fred sits there sucking on a Cuban while threatening Michael Moore for going to Cuba. He’s a prime phony in a field of phonies.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pmPlease, whatever you do, Republicans, don’t run any of the losers you’ve put up so far. If the Democrats gain more majority and the White House, I’m really, really screwed. Do you really think we could have pulled off 9/11 with Al Gore in the Shite House? Please, it’s to laugh. we needed our old oilfield friend Bush to accomplish this, and he came through in beautiful fashion, praise Allah. You must find someone as easy to work with as George is so we can complete our goal of turning you into our best friend and collaborator is jacking up the prides of crude worldwide, or else we’re really screwed. I mean, Thompson would be fine, he’s quite lazy, like Bush, and not too bright, like Reagan, but he can’t possibly win, even I can see that from a cave. You must do better, or America will reagain her power and I will be out of luck.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:07 pmWe have all been warned – the GOP will stop at nothing.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:15 pmOrdinary, run-of-the-mill dirty politics is chickenfeed to them — they have perfected the art of dirty tricks.
They are desperate and will fight bare knuckle, no holds-barred.
No Marquis of Queensbury rules. No rules whatsoever. Anything goes.
If it can win, it’s in play.
manboobies, and an accent that just skareems
conviction.
feel the velva, lol
September 4th, 2007 at 6:28 pmThis is scary shit.
Many people don’t realize how easy this might be, the ramifacations are extraordinary.
Placed on the proper ballot, this thing could sail through.
After all this is a state that twwice elected our current governor.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI would like to see presidential candidates support global poverty, we see that the focus of most candidates has been “fighting” immigration but I believe that global poverty and immigration have to do with the same core issue. If we focused on fighting global poverty there would be less need for people to leave their countries in search of a better future.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm#48
Unlike Kerry, O’Neil wasn’t running for President, saying he was Cambodia. Maybe O’Neil was in, maybe he wasn’t, haven’t heard the tape.
But Kerry started to backtrack on Cambodia after that. It’s smart of the Dems to have nothing to do with him, but I wish he would run again, just for the entertainment of seeing O’Neil and the Swiftboat vets kick his ass again.
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”
However seared he was, Kerry’s spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry’s shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html
September 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pmJazzist, John O’Niell is heard on tape bragging to Nixon that he was in Cambodia. Whether or not he was running for president is irrelevant. He charged that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia. SO O’NIELL WAS EITHER LYING IN THE FACE OF A PRESIDENT OR LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT KERRY! Your choice. Either way, John O’Neill is a liar.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pmSince it was technically illegal for any of our military to be in Cambodia, it’s not hard to understand why Kerry would muddy up the waters on that. O’Neill, on the other hand, said it was impossible for Kerry to be in Cambodia after having bragged about being in Cambodia himself — that’s a distortion and a lie. O’Niell is a damn liar.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:59 pmAh, Republicans. Always on the look-out for a new way to steal an election.
O’Neil hates Kerry because Kerry wiped the floor with him in debates back in the 70’s. If you can find it, check out both of them on Dick Cavett. It’s Nixon vs Kennedy (junior high version) and O’Neil comes off looking like the fool he is.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:04 pmThe point is that the people behind the Swiftboat liars were a team of political dirty tricksters. Now, they’re trying to play a trick on the voters of California by defrauding them out of their massive electoral clout. It will not work.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pmWhether or not he was running for president is irrelevant. He charged that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia.
Kerry was proven not to be in Cambodia based on what his patrol records said. Kerry himself became silent when this pointed out.
Where you ever in the military? Really? OK, if you say so.
Another suggestion – use bigger capital letters when you make your arguments, it really makes up for all lack of logic.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:08 pm68#
As opposed to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, that went well.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:10 pmThere’s nothing wrong with trying to find the truth, and that is all that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth do.
Why does the Left hate the truth?
Comment by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR — September 4, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Ironic for a lying wingnut to put swiftboat and ‘truth’ in the same sentence! You’re such a lying sack of shit Mr. Pee!
September 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pmjazzist: “As opposed to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, that went well.”
Irrelevant. John O’Neill said it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Camodia. Two years later, tapes emerged on which John O’Neill bragged to Richard Nixon’s face that HE was in Cambodia.
To a sane, intelligent and honest person, this is simple proof that John O’Neill is a liar. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
“Kerry was proven not to be in Cambodia based on what his patrol records said. Kerry himself became silent when this pointed out.”
Exactly. Kerry may have thought he was in Cambodia at some point. Maybe he was, but it was illegal to be there so it wouldn’t have been in the official records. If you have been in the military and you know anything about the Viet Nam conflict, you would have to agree that there is nothing particularly strange about that.
Again, this is about political dirty tricksters trying to play a trick on the voters of California. One of them, John O’Neill, is a proven liar.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pmCaption Contest: “uhhh, why no Maria, we were just talking”
September 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm#75
But it was seared, seared in his memory on the floor of Congress, then the SBV’s come along, then nothing… or maybe Kerry’s muttering’s to Rolling Stone or some mag, “ya know I could of been there I think.”
Hey, you hate O’Neil, fine, whatever. But expending the energy on Kerry is odd. A Kerry presidency could have hurt the Dems as bad as Carter did.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pmjazzist: “Hey, you hate O’Neil, fine, whatever. But expending the energy on Kerry is odd. A Kerry presidency could have hurt the Dems as bad as Carter did.”
I didn’t say I hated O’Neil. He’s just a proven liar, that’s all. And, for the purpose of this discussion, Kerry is irrelevant. This is about the veracity of the Swiftboat people. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve proven that they cannot be trusted.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pmIf the Republicans REALLY wanted what they say they want, they would be advocating this: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
September 4th, 2007 at 7:35 pmThat’s their name, doucher.
Can’t you read?
“Swift Boat Veterans for Truthâ€
Comment by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR — September 4, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
That was the HUMOR, doucher.
Can’t you read?
I know – stupid question – you’re a RUBE!
September 4th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI still can’t even believe the Swiftboat liars show their ugly mugs in public. These guys attacked the military record of a decorated veteran for political gain. My god, I’ve never seen a sleazier campaign in all my life. And today’s conservatives just loved it. Fat old rednecks stuck cute little purple bandaids on their red, blotchy faces and chanted “flip, flop, flip, flop.” An unbelievable performance by people claiming to be patriots. Amazing and unbelievable. What would Ike have to say about something like that? Or Teddy? They’d be pissed and embarrassed.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pmCaption Contest: “und dis is how vee do der guten tag hop clop”
September 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm“These guys attacked the military record of a decorated veteran for political gain.”
More than 200 veterans have signed a letter from the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking the release of records. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann commanded the fleet of swift boats — the Navy’s Task Force 115 — during Kerry’s tour of duty. Today he serves as chairman of the veterans’ group.
Actually they attacked a liar (Winter Soldier, etc) who was using his questionable military record for political gain. If Kerry was running today, he’d get his ass handed to him again by the same group. Alas Kerry days as a presidential canidate are gone forever, ask your own party.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm“So much for Dems thinking outside the box – I would think you would welcome the idea of proportional representation…..”
The Democrats would welcome this if it were done in ALL states. But if it is only done in the Blue states and not in the Red states it is a Republican dirty trick to make it possible for the Republican candidate to win the electoral vote even if he loses the popular vote by a substantial margin.
The only way that the Republicans can win the next election is by cheating, and they are perfectly willing to cheat.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:58 am“Sure, it may benefit the Reps now, but in the future the tables could be turned.”
The table would not be turned because the Republicans would not be stupid enough to do this in the Red states. They only want this in the blue states.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:00 amOne good thing about this upcoming Presidential campaign is that Schwarzenegger cannot run for President because of the farsighteness of our founding fathers, who put a provision in the Constitution requiring that the President be a natural born American. If it were not for that, the governator would be the Republican candidate this year and would win the election. Fortunately he cannot run.
(I am not a natural born American either and therefore cannot run for President, which is irrelevant. But I am grateful for this provision being there because it keeps the governator from running.)
September 5th, 2007 at 3:10 amIf our districts could be established by a non-partisan body, I would not object to dividing up our electorial voters. The problem is that we have all learned tht we can not trust the type of people that run for political office and especially the ones that are hard core party hacks.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:13 amSUPPORT A FEDERAL AMENDMENT TO FULLY ESTABLISH OUR VOTING RIGHTS!
“Most Americans believe that the “legal right to vote” in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides explicitly for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.”
“That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, …
`SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:hj28:
“H. J. Res. 28 [...] requires the Electors from each state [...] cast their Electoral College votes for the candidate who wins a majority of the popular votes in that state.
“Under the present Constitution, a state legislature can ignore the popular vote in a state and elect their own electors to the Electoral College regardless of the popular vote in the state – as the Republicans were prepared to do in Florida in 2000.”
http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingRightsFAQ.htm
http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm
September 5th, 2007 at 5:01 am“The Democrats would welcome this if it were done in ALL states.”
That’s NONSENSE, Captain.
On the contrary, we favor a Constitutional Amendment (not state initiatives) to EXPLICITLY establish our right to vote, over any manipulation by state legislatures, and that the Electoral College be required under that amendment to cast the EC votes for the majority winner (as stated above in the amendment text).
Our primary right under the Constitution is only implicit. WE must make it explicit, so that Bush v. Gore can never happen again (and so that this kind of ill-meaning initiative will be MOOT).
September 5th, 2007 at 5:07 amMisidentification: The picture thinkprogress has up is with Schwarzenegger and California Senate Pro Tem Don Perata not Thomas Hiltachk.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmThe ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. If the district approach were installed in only one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide.
The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground†states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground†districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.
A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.
The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
September 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pm“The only way that the Republicans can win the next election is by cheating, and they are perfectly willing to cheat.”
Exactly…They have ZERO chance of winning California, & that’s why there pushing that EV split initiative….
Republicans have nothing to run on, all that’s left is gerrymandering & the outright rigging of an election, which is all this California proposal is..
September 11th, 2007 at 9:15 pm