What happened to 'count all votes'?May 21st, 2008 - 20:23:00

It is unconstitutional for the votes in 2 states to be not counted because Howard Dean and Donna Brazile want to see Barack Obama elected.


Remember this Florida and Michigan on election day: The Democrats do not want your vote to be counted.

Report this comment

Abridged:May 21st, 2008 - 20:27:01

Obama needs a quick refresher course in Cold War history

BY K.T. McFARLAND

Wednesday, May 21st 2008, 4:00 AM

Recently, Sen. Barack Obama reiterated his pledge to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, among other rogue leaders, without preconditions, suggesting his approach would be consistent with the best, and strongest, American foreign policy of the past century.

'Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries,' said Obama. 'That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao.'

Not so fast. I was in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and I can attest that those Presidents understood the danger of prematurely forcing top-level meetings without sufficient preconditions. Neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan would sit down for face-to-face meetings with their counterparts in enemy nations until America hadsome realistic - and playable - bargaining chips. They recognized that negotiating without leverage isn't negotiating, it's begging.

Nixon and his brilliant national security adviser Henry Kissinger knew that to end the Vietnam War, they would have to cut off North Vietnam's supply chain, which came from the Soviet Union through China. What leverage could Nixon get with the Soviets and the Chinese? China needed training and technology to enter the modern world - as well as breathing space from foreign threats in order to modernize its economy. Nixon calculated that, taken together, these were more important to China than fighting a proxy war in Vietnam.

Nixon also recognized the Sino-Soviet Communist alliance was cracking, and we could exploit it by being China's great power counterweight to the Soviet Union. The threat of a loose Sino-American alliance gave us the leverage we needed to get the Soviets to the negotiating table on arms control. Nixon met with Mao Zedong only after he had the leverage needed to negotiate.

Similarly, Reagan waited until his second term to deal with the Soviets. He used the first term to line up the leverage necessary to negotiate from a position of strength. He rebuilt America's defenses, which had atrophied after Vietnam. He reached out to allies in Europe and strengthened our alliances worldwide. He knew the Soviet economy was a sham; the Kremlin was heavily dependent on hard currency from selling oil abroad. So Reagan worked to drive down the international price of oil, which weakened the Soviet economy from within.

And when all those elements had been put in place, Reagan delivered the coup de grace and introduced his Strategic Defense Initiative, the missile defense plan that challenged the Soviets to a nuclear arms race Reagan knew they could neither afford nor win.

Obama said recently that Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev 'led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.'

He's got it turned around. Reagan built up the leverage first, and then negotiated. He didn't believe we could talk the Soviets into anything they didn't want to do, nor trust them without verification. Reagan was a man of considerable persuasive powers, but he didn't defeat communism and win the Cold War because he was able to charm and cajole Gorbachev during direct negotiations. He won it because by the time he sat down to negotiate, America held all the cards.

Report this comment

Joe in CAMay 21st, 2008 - 21:39:46

Maybe they should keep Florida out of the elections until they learn how to vote.

Report this comment

PperfectMay 21st, 2008 - 21:46:48

As usual same old half truths from the neo-con liar.

Michigan and Florida both had the choice to change the dates of their primaries, but stuck with the earlier dates. Both states knew they would not be counted in the primary process if they did not go back to their original primary dates, but choose to test the resolve of the DNC---they lost, quit trying to make more out of it than is really there!

Report this comment

You are a hypocrite and liar.May 21st, 2008 - 22:43:01

'As usual same old half truths from the neo-con liar.'

Since I am not a neo-con you must be referring to yourself. In that case 'Full on lies' would be a better term for 'half truths'.

' Both states knew they would not be counted in the primary process if they did not go back to their original primary dates, but choose to test the resolve of the DNC'

Oh we can't test the resolve of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile to get their chosen one anointed as the nominee, can we? The only way it is constitutional for the democratic party to not count the votes in Florida and Michigan is to 'reject' them, which is exactly what they are doing.

'they lost, '

They lost? So it is a contest? The DNC 'won' by telling everyone who voted in a democratic primary that they did not count. They did this in 2 states that Obama was week in.

This, along with Obamas buying of super delegates is NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS yet the lemmings seem to be content with seeing democrats 'disenfranchised' when it comes to Clinton but not when it was Gore/Leiberman.

Report this comment

The DNC is a trying to make us a banana republic.May 21st, 2008 - 22:46:23

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

'While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,' the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000....

www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegat es.html

This, and the disenfranchising of the democratic electorate in 2 states should be enough to get anyone to vote against Obama.

Report this comment

@ You are a hypocrite and liarMay 22nd, 2008 - 00:06:28

No matter how you liars on the right want to paint it, Florida and Michigan kenw what they were doing, they were warned. Both Obama and Clinton agreed to the banishment and now it is happening you (and she) want to make more out of that is justified. You are a liar, pure and simple and so is Ms. Clinton!

Report this comment

You are a hypocrite and liar.May 22nd, 2008 - 01:49:18

'No matter how you liars on the right want to paint it, Florida and Michigan kenw[sic] what they were doing, they were warned'

No matter how you liars want to paint it, the only constitutional way for the DNC to deny the voters of Florida and Michigan their say is to REJECT their votes.


'. You are a liar, pure and simple and so is Ms. Clinton!'

Where have I lied, liar?

Report this comment

Not from 'the right'...May 22nd, 2008 - 01:53:13

Abridged:


Something deeply disturbing has gone down in the Democratic Party over the course of the last year. 50% of the Democratic electorate is being thrown overboard by the elites. It is now evident that this was planned by numerous people high up in both party's power structures with the assent of some powerful media outlets. Not to mention George Soros. Below I list the evidence for my allegation that a fix was put in to stop Hilary Clinton....

Obama makes no sense as a national candidate[...] and yet the DNC and 'liberal' media seem hell bent on anointing him. Since he admittedly has less experiecne than the stronger G.E. candidate, Clinton, why? His policy proposals are the same as Clinton's or weaker by Dems standards . He is, in fact, a divisive, figure now not a uniter. So why is the DNC and the media STILL determined to crown Obama? I believe there is more to the story - like the run up to the Iraq war - and am genuinely curious. Yes, I am furious about the sexism in the media abetted by the Obama camp. Yes, I resent how badly she has been treated. Yes, I am sad and disgusted it looks like she came in a close second. (except in the popular vote) And YES I think her campaign made some large mistakes. All of that plays a part - in my thinking. Still I wonder if a fix was not put in on Hillary early on. I am allowed to. The blog is 50% mine.

The 10 points below that indicate a plan for creating Obama and stopping Hillary Clinton and are worth deeper investigation:

1. Almost all Obama's legislative 'accomplishments' came in his final year as a state senator. He had little to do with any of it aside from putting his name on the bill.

2. With heavy pressure from the Chicago owned Los Angeles Times a family court judge released the sealed divorce proceedings of BHO's main opponent for the U.S. Senate. This paved the way for an easy victory. Since the documents contained salacious information both parties in the divorce proceedings loudly protested the release of the documents. It was done anyway, flying in the face of ALL family court precedent. Why?

3. The poison pill in Florida GOP 'paper trail' voting bill: Moving the primary up in violation of DNC rules became impossible for Democrats to vote against. They would have had to vote against a 'paper trail' - after the 2000 thievery. Check mate.

4. Immediately following Florida's move Donna Brazille loudly pushed for the DNC to use the 'nuclear' option and strip Florida of ALL it's delegates. Not the saner choice, made by the GOP, to remove half the delegation. Donna got her way. Florida, now denuded of power, was assumed to be a Clinton state. Turned out it was.

5. The same irrational, draconian punishment was meted out to Michigan, another Clinton stronghold. Nevertheless, fearing a Clinton rout in a large state, Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. He was not forced. 4 Democrats remained on the ballot. Clinton easily defeated them all.

6. Two of the largest Democratic political blogs suddenly became righteously anti - Clinton. Kos had an insurrection on its hands and without a murmur of concern allowed all Pro-Clinton writers to leave, though previously it supported moderate Democrats and Liberals. Americablog, run by the openly Gay man, John Avarosis, changed its tune even more abruptly. After years of viciously going after any and all homophobes, including Obama friend Donnie McClurkin, Americablog has surrendered its previous principled stance. Obama's homophobic fellow travellers are not an issue at Americablog. Why? Can I say a quid pro quo is behind this? No. Do I think there is more than meets the eye here? I certainly do.

7. The media drumbeat for Clinton to 'get out' began right after Iowa. It was often loudest after she WON primaries. Bizarrely, the noise would peak after she had come from behind in Texas and soundly beat Obama in Ohio. It revved up again after she won PA handily -again after she came from behind to win in Indiana. There was no logic to the media's demands. The race was, and remains, close. The week of Obama's 41 point defeat in West Virgina Time magazine 'declared' him the winner. Go figure.

8. Howard Dean has demanded adherence to the rules when it comes to Florida and Michigan while ignoring them when if comes to Iowa. According to the DNC's stated policy Iowa violated the rules by placing its caucus on Jan 3. Why did Dean ignore this violation?

9. Obama's well timed endorsements have been suspicious to me for a while. John Edwards' timing is most suspect. A solicitation email from an Edwards group was sent out the same day leading a logical observer to conclude that money had something to do with it. Elizabeth Edwards was not present when her husband endorsed Obama.

10. The Wright tapes were roundly ignored for months by all major media outlets. How is this possible? They were out there. Purchasable on the church's web site, for goodness sake. Yet, voters in fully 2/3 of the states had to decide BEFORE seeing them. Given the 'gotcha' media environment - a logical person can only conclude that the media decided to ignore the tapes - until they no longer could.


www.liberalrapture.com

Report this comment

CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUEMay 22nd, 2008 - 02:50:09

Just a point.

All you punters of these posters should recognise the infinite wisdom and accuracy of everything SP4 says, not simply try to ridicule him.

I have never come across somebody who knows so much detail about his country, politics and a wide variety of current affairs, past and present as he does.

He is a verbal encyclopedia and should be listened to.

Most replies to his enlightening, educational and prolific scripts, come from those who are obviously not on the same intellectual level and being unable to compete with such magnificent and articulate material, can only sling abuse and trivia at him.

I know he has the hide of a rhinoceros and shrugs it all off with superb responses in immaculate style.

Keep it up ESS PEE, we scholars understand you even if the dumb Democrats don`t.

Report this comment