election 2008

District 7 Special Election will be Tuesday, March 11th

From the [link deprecated: http://www2.indystar.com/articles/7/254061-5937-127.html – Indy Star] via Taking Down Words:

Republican and Democratic state party officials have agreed on Tuesday, March 11 as the date for a special election to select Rep. Julia Carson’s successor.

State Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said Friday he and GOP Chairman Murray Clark had recommended the date to the governor’s office. Gov. Mitch Daniels must set the date for the special election to replace Carson, who died Dec. 15.

Other Key election dates:
* January 23: Primary filing period begins
* February 16: Marion County Democratic Party slating convention
* February 22: Primary filing period ends
* March 11: Seventh District special election
* May 6: Primary election
* November 4: General election

Continue ReadingDistrict 7 Special Election will be Tuesday, March 11th

Iowa Caucus Stats 2008

Here’s an interesting stat about Iowa’s Caucus

Total Voter Turnout (approximate):
356,000
Percentage of total vote:
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Despite Iowa’s rather convoluted caucus rules on the Democratic side, they still turned out more voters for Democrats than for the more straight-forward Republican process. That is a REALLY an interesting statistic, although there could be a couple different explanations for it, so it’s hard to say what it really indicates.

According to the New York Times:

A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.

The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucusgoers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.

I’m hoping that the correct interpretation of this is that middle-of-the-road Republicans stayed home because of Bush and the War, and only the nuts came out for Huckabee, who is, frankly, a nut himself.

I have to disagree a bit with my friend Davodd’s assessment of Iowa as a red state – it’s a pretty big swing state and isn’t a guaranteed win for Republicans. It is almost completely rural and religious, but very well-educated – Iowa’s education system is consistently in the top ten of the country for decades.

He’s right about them never picking a winning Democrat for office – even when a Democrat ultimately wins the White House, they were never a winner in Iowa. But the Iowa winner is always consistently in the top three, I believe. Iowa does have a way of winnowing out the pack. I think the “Democrat winners don’t win in Iowa” is more an effect of the super-early date than an indication of staunch conservative voting in Iowa. After Iowa, people get a better handle on the candidates. But it is a bit foreboding for Obama, though.

I do agree with Davodd that Iowa and other less important states have too big an advantage in selecting candidates. As I said yesterday, I think the system is screwed up and needs to be evened out so that we can get the candidate in the primaries that people actually want to vote for in November.

Continue ReadingIowa Caucus Stats 2008

How Primary Elections Could Be Better

The U.S. would have five days of political primaries, each a week apart, starting the last week of March. The first primary day would consist of the 10 states with the smallest voting population; the rest would increase upward until the fifth week when the largest voting states would hold their primaries in the final week of April. Then there would be a month of campaigning before nominating conventions in May.

The campaigning would be compressed into a shorter cycle that would make it easier for people to follow, and something would actually HAPPEN regularly, rather than endless shots of candidates’ tour buses and baby kissing. The primary wins would actually be representative of the various states and we wouldn’t be unduly influenced by states that don’t really affect the election cycle.

But it isn’t up to me, so there you go.

Continue ReadingHow Primary Elections Could Be Better

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Ties Dog to Roof of Car

I’m a couple weeks late on this story, but it bears repeating. According to Time Magazine, and itchmo.com, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney tied his family dog’s crate to the roof of the car for a 12 hour trip on the road. You can visit site to know more about the other packages offered by them.

It was 1983 and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and now presidential candidate, was going on a vacation with his family. The family was driving from Boston to Ontario, and Seamus, the dog, was also coming along for the trip.
Where did Romney put Seamus? Romney strapped a dog carrier with Seamus, an Irish setter, in it, to the roof of the family station wagon for the twelve hour drive. Fortunately, Seamus survived the long trip on the top of the car, although he protested being on top by releasing his bodily fluids on the car.

…

Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.”

An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying “it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.” The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it’s against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and “if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal.”

And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said “even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we’d hope that people would use common sense…Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we’d think is inappropriate… I can’t speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation.”

Too damn bad that we aren’t allowed to put Mitt Romney down for that stunt. Fucker.

Continue ReadingPresidential Candidate Mitt Romney Ties Dog to Roof of Car

Edwards Blogger Resigns

Although John Edwards decided against firing the two bloggers from his campaign that were under attack by notorious homophobe and anti-semite Bill Donohoe, one of them, Amanda Marcotte, has decided to resign anyway.

Days after Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards decided against firing two liberal bloggers with a history of inflammatory writing, one resigned last night with a blast at “right wing shills” for driving her out of the campaign.

Amanda Marcotte, whose writings were assailed as anti-Catholic, wrote yesterday on her blog that the Edwards camp had accepted her resignation. She blamed her most vocal critic, Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing that he “and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics,” which Marcotte described as being “anti-theocracy.”

I have to say, if I were receiving mail from Catholics like this, I would resign in order to respond to it as well:

From my mailbag:

I pray that I had some small part to play in your “resigning” from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

—
Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it.

—
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

—
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX:
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

—
From Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

—
Bud Phelps, another person who opposes “bigotry”:
It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

I linked above to some choice quotes by “Catholic League” president and anti-semite Bill Donohue, but here’s new one that will make your eyes pop. You can watch the video of him saying it at this link.

DONOHUE: Look, just hold on here. You had your time. Look, the kid’s a phony and here’s why. I dealt with him earlier today on an MSNBC show, and I said we could hypothesize that there’d be a Columbia University ping-pong team made of Asians, and somebody goes out there and says “All gooks go home.” So I — I asked him about my gook joke. And guess what? Andy’s — Andy’s sense of humor just collapsed. He found that offensive. You see what you are? You’re a phony. You’re a typical Ivy League little brat who thinks it’s OK to dump on Catholics, but you don’t like my gook joke. Now, what’s wrong with a gook joke?

Continue ReadingEdwards Blogger Resigns

Melissa gets to keep her job

I mentioned yesterday that there was some question about whether blogger Melissa McEwan, aka Shakespeare’s Sister at the site of the same name, would get to keep her job with the John Edwards campaign after complaints from the nutty rightwing blowhards over things she’s said in the past on her personal blog.

Turns out that she does get to keep her job.

That part is really cool. I wasn’t thrilled with the wishy-washy support that Edwards gave her, though.

I can’t believe that people who are certifiably crazy get to shake the trees and get a response like this from Edwards.

Continue ReadingMelissa gets to keep her job

A Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

A letter written by the very wise Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend (link has been deprecated) is a great help in sorting out the marriage equality issue for fair-minded people, so I’m reprinting it here in full…

Dear John Edwards,

I have read about some comments you made recently in New Hamphire about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. The article quoted you as saying:

“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”

I hope that is an accurate quote of your words.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you have not yet considered the right question and that perhaps the right question would help you find the “right answer.”
First, a preliminary question. “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”

If your answer to the preliminary question is no, then there is no need to go on.

If your answer to the preliminary question is yes, then things get a little more complicated. Here we go.

Which of the three options mentioned in your quote offers genuine equal treatment, at least potentially, to all American citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Please keep in mind that the benefits and protections of marriage come from multiple levels of government. The most numerous and significant ones come from the federal level, 1,138 of them according to the latest summary by the GAO. This document, GAO report number GAO-04-353R entitled ‘Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report’, which was released on February 24, 2004 may be obtained from the United States General Accounting Office website. It is available at the following URL. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R

Some of the benefits and protections, considerably fewer, come from the state level. Others come from the county and municipal levels as well as from the private sector.

As you know, the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits any same sex marriage from receiving the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage. If my recollection is correct, you are on record as opposing DOMA. Unfortunately, however, I think the reason you give is not a fully correct reason. As I recall, your reason has something to do with states regulating marriage. That “reason,” which seems to be the Democratic Party line, is oversimplified and misleading. While it is true that each state regulates who can get married, none of the states provide the federal benefits and protections of marriage. They cannot do so. What I’m hearing from your recent comments is that even though you oppose DOMA, you are uncertain as to whether or not gay and lesbians Americans deserve full citizenship benefits.
For the sake of my question, however, lets just assume that DOMA does not exist or has been repealed.

Which of the options you note would provide equal treatment for all US citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Civil unions cannot give access to any of the benefits and protections of civil marriage. They require a separate set to be specified. If these civil unions are at a state level, they only apply within the single state that issues them. They are not portable and provide absolutely no protection to couples crossing a state line. More significantly, they cannot provide access to the most significant and numerous set of benefits and protections at the federal level. The first example that comes to mind is the fast-tracking of citizenship in international marriages. This is something completely outside the jurisdiction of the states.

Partnership benefits have exactly the same limitations as civil unions. The difference between civil union and partnership benefits is in name only.

A civil marriage contract is the only option capable of providing access to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage from all levels.

So then, if you truly believe that all American citizens should be given equal treatment under the law, hopefully the answer you have found to be elusive in the past is now within reach. I have taken you to the end of that bridge. Only you can take the final step required to complete crossing it.

Continue ReadingA Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

Salon’s Election 2008 analysis of Clinton and other democrats

Salon’s interesting article “The Hillary Juggernaut” gives some strong reasons why Clinton will be the democratic candidate to beat in 2008:

But otherwise, you will face in Hillary the most formidable presidential front-runner in modern political history. (And, yes, I am counting George W. Bush in 2000.) Here are 10 reasons why the junior senator from New York will be a daunting foe:
1) Universal name recognition. (In contrast, JPW, only 3 percent of likely Democratic primary voters know that you were originally the president in the Gershwin classic “Of Thee I Sing.”)
2) Her capacity to raise $100 million without once working late into the night cold-calling strangers to beg and grovel for money.
3) The ability to dominate the free media. Hillary will never make a public appearance in this campaign without being tracked by 100 reporters. (In contrast, JPW, imagine how much coverage you will get for your first press conference bragging about your gubernatorial record and the “Tennetucky Miracle.”)
4) Her emotional support from a significant percentage of women voters out to make history.
5) Nostalgia for the Clinton era of peace and prosperity in the 1990s.
6) Continuing Democratic resentment over impeachment.
7) Hillary’s over-cautious political style that avoids risk and, quite likely, deliberate mistakes.
8) The most potent candidate surrogate in political history in the form of Bill Clinton.
9) The ability of the Clinton name and legacy to attract 75 percent of the African-American vote and a large slice of the Hispanic vote.
10) At least a half-dozen candidates (including JPW) who will divide the anti-Hillary Democrats, so that she could win major primaries with just her hardcore base of, say, 35 percent of the vote.

And they round up who they think the other democratic candidates will be:

The Non-Hillary Field: Start with Mark Warner and 2004 V.P. candidate John Edwards, who are unabashedly running. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh has privately put his own odds at 90 percent, and the latest word from Iowa is that Gov. Tom Vilsack is similarly poised to run. Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold — who wins headlines every other week with an anti-Bush gambit like a censure resolution — has to be counted among the likeliest contenders. And finally, Sen. Joe Biden, the Delaware motor-mouth who performed so garrulously during the Alito confirmation hearings, keeps insisting that he’s definitely running.
Depending on whom you talk to, John Kerry is either running or merely keeping his options open for a mid-2007 decision by maintaining his visibility and e-mail list. (An e-mail appeal from Kerry raised over $100,000 for Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran running for the House in Illinois.) Al Gore represents another puzzle; his wife, Tipper, is said to be definitely opposed, while his politically active daughter Karenna seems severely tempted. Bill Richardson is seriously mulling his chances, while former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is also playing the maybe game. And don’t forget former Gen. Wesley Clark, who has never lacked ambition or self-confidence.

The have some other great analysis of how to examine the candidates and compare them — and who stands for what, which is very interesting preliminary research for democrats who are studying up on the whole thing. They analyze them from the “electability” versus “left-wing purist” standpoints and throw in a few other ideas as well. This article is a great read.
Personally, I don’t think Clinton has been enough of a friend to GLBT issues to win my heart and soul, and her tendency to play to the middle on bullshit issues is disturbing as well. I honestly don’t know where I am on the “electability” versus “left-wing purist” issue; I go back and forth, which is why I haven’t decided yet. And when it comes to the hometown boy, I’m more of a fan of Vilsack than Bayh, who is only a Democrat because in Indiana the political spectrum is skewed so far to the right — in any other state he’s a middle of the road Republican.
I have to do a lot more research before I can pick my horse for this race. But in the end, it will probably just come down to “Whoever’s running against the retard in the White House.” Same as the last election.
If you’re planning to comment, please read the article beforehand, ’cause it’s tiresome to hash out all the issues that have already been examined in the piece.

Continue ReadingSalon’s Election 2008 analysis of Clinton and other democrats