olyclimber Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 Wow, Huck made up some ground on McCain tonight...it could be a sweep just like Obama. I guess McCain just isn't conservative enough. Quote
builder206 Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I worry that the popular and caucus votes will only narrowly favor Obama and that the superdelegates, who are all Establishment, will then throw the nomination to Clinton as their fellow insider. If McCain is the GOP nominee, a Clinton candidacy assures another Republican in the White House. That would be a McCain landslide. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries Quote
Fairweather Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 But do you think it is morally right for partisans (like Maylou) to corrupt the nominating process--Dem or Rep--of the other party? Only silence from Ms. Lou... Meanwhile, I will forward her name, along with her stated desire here to perjur herself, to my local party chair. Her choice in the primary is public record and failure to uphold her oath is (perhaps?) actionable. Maylou: I encourage you to vote with your party. Quote
catbirdseat Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) I've heard Republicans claim they'd rather have their nominee run against Clinton than Obama, but I think that is just a lot of bombast. I think the in the case of Clinton, all of the skeletons are out of the closet. All of the past issues have been rehashed ad nauseum. Any attempts to bring up these issues to use against her will result in yawns from the electorate. Obama on the other hand is an unknown. We don't know what surprises await. There are things that her Republican opponent will dredge up that Hillary wouldn't think of giving voice to. I have to agree with Fairweather that it is unethical, if not illegal to caucus in a party other than your own. I wouldn't do it myself. Regarding Huckleberry, his insistence in soldiering on in the face of McCain's success is an indication that he would like a place in the administration either as VP or a cabinet official. He'd use his "mandate" to acheive that. Edited February 10, 2008 by catbirdseat Quote
Mal_Con Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) Well, it seems that ML is voting in accordance with the GOP majority is favoring Huckleberry with McCaine 2d followed closely by Ron Paul with the Mittster close i.e. about 60% of the elephants against their picked target. I agree that it would be a violation of ML went to a D. caucus then voted in the GOP primary and people were urged to not do this both on legal nd ethical reasons. This is the oath:Republican: I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. As long as she can say she was a member of the republican party at the time of the oath it is OK legally morally it is another question. Note you do not need to pay money contribute or do any affirmative action to be a member in WA although other states may differ. If I were a Republican I would go for Ron Paul as he is anti Iraq war pro civil liberty etc. Edited February 10, 2008 by Mal_Con Quote
builder206 Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I've heard Republicans claim they'd rather have their nominee run against Clinton than Obama, but I think that is just a lot of bombast. I think the in the case of Clinton, all of the skeletons are out of the closet. All of the past issues have been rehashed ad nauseum. Any attempts to bring up these issues to use against her will result in yawns from the electorate. The problem with Clinton *is* that history! The memory of those issues lives long. It is the reason for the visceral dislike and immense negatives she causes. A huge fraction of people despise her and gravely distrust her. I, for one, believe she has no integrity at all. A large number of people who would vote for Obama over McCain will vote for McCain over Clinton. You better believe the GOP wants Clinton as the Dem nominee. They would win the White House easily. Clinton will do all the work for them merely by being the other candidate. Quote
iluka Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I worry that the popular and caucus votes will only narrowly favor Obama and that the superdelegates, who are all Establishment, will then throw the nomination to Clinton as their fellow insider. If McCain is the GOP nominee, a Clinton candidacy assures another Republican in the White House. That would be a McCain landslide. While the Republicans will clearly be happier if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not so sure it's a slam dunk they win the election in that situation. The big issue will be the economy and the tremendous economic insecurity that people from wide swaths of the country are feeling. She's got ideas/plans that speak to that insecurity while McCain not only has openly admitted to knowing little about economics but also continues to spout off about his plans to cut taxes, cut spending and let the free market reign, which I think, after the past 8 years, sounds to many people like not much of a plan at all. That and enough replays of his line that we could be in Iraq for 100 or more years and I'd say he's not such a slam dunk. Quote
catbirdseat Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I've heard Republicans claim they'd rather have their nominee run against Clinton than Obama, but I think that is just a lot of bombast. I think the in the case of Clinton, all of the skeletons are out of the closet. All of the past issues have been rehashed ad nauseum. Any attempts to bring up these issues to use against her will result in yawns from the electorate. The problem with Clinton *is* that history! The memory of those issues lives long. It is the reason for the visceral dislike and immense negatives she causes. A huge fraction of people despise her and gravely distrust her. I, for one, believe she has no integrity at all. A large number of people who would vote for Obama over McCain will vote for McCain over Clinton. You better believe the GOP wants Clinton as the Dem nominee. They would win the White House easily. Clinton will do all the work for them merely by being the other candidate. Tell me what those issues are, my friend. What has she done to affect your trust in her? She tried to do away with the insurance companies, didn't she? They villified her for that. She was trying to take away the gravy train. Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 maybe one of the mods could retitle this thread "Waah State Caucus" Quote
marylou Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 But do you think it is morally right for partisans (like Maylou) to corrupt the nominating process--Dem or Rep--of the other party? Only silence from Ms. Lou... Meanwhile, I will forward her name, along with her stated desire here to perjur herself, to my local party chair. Her choice in the primary is public record and failure to uphold her oath is (perhaps?) actionable. Maylou: I encourage you to vote with your party. I am voting REPUBLICAN in the primary. My voter information and history are available online if you need further information on me and know where to look. Note that my marriage and name change shows a gap in voting history, if you're a stickler for such things. Since I was not involved in the caucuses and will only vote for one (republican) candidate in the primary, I encourage you to lodge your complaint. Since what I am doing is entirely legal, it will only waste your party's limited time and resources to pursue your frivolous claim. I love it when people like you waste resources of your party on this, so get busy. Quote
marylou Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Well, it seems that ML is voting in accordance with the GOP majority is favoring Huckleberry with McCaine 2d followed closely by Ron Paul with the Mittster close i.e. about 60% of the elephants against their picked target. I agree that it would be a violation of ML went to a D. caucus then voted in the GOP primary and people were urged to not do this both on legal and ethical reasons. This is the oath:Republican: I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. As long as she can say she was a member of the republican party at the time of the oath it is OK legally morally it is another question. Note you do not need to pay money contribute or do any affirmative action to be a member in WA although other states may differ. Note bold above and below. I did not attend any caucus today, nor will I be a delegate to the Democratic (or Republican) convention. My vote breaks no laws. I am fine with being considered a Republican if it helps to get a losing candidate selected by the republicans. Ironic that the party of cheating cheaters and lying liars might attempt to ever take the moral high ground. You guys are funny! Quote
prole Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Meanwhile, I will forward her name, along with her stated desire here to perjur herself, to my local party chair. Her choice in the primary is public record and failure to uphold her oath is (perhaps?) actionable. Da, comrade. This is your duty to the Homeland and to the Party. May your actions inspire us all! Quote
olyclimber Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938 Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Do you have rights to distribute that video Porter? I will inform my precinct captain immediately. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 ah, the ends justify the means - the endless mantra of leftwingers. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 BTW, Marylou - looks like YOU are the liar and cheater here. Hypocrite. Quote
JayB Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Well, it seems that ML is voting in accordance with the GOP majority is favoring Huckleberry with McCaine 2d followed closely by Ron Paul with the Mittster close i.e. about 60% of the elephants against their picked target. I agree that it would be a violation of ML went to a D. caucus then voted in the GOP primary and people were urged to not do this both on legal and ethical reasons. This is the oath:Republican: I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. As long as she can say she was a member of the republican party at the time of the oath it is OK legally morally it is another question. Note you do not need to pay money contribute or do any affirmative action to be a member in WA although other states may differ. Note bold above and below. I did not attend any caucus today, nor will I be a delegate to the Democratic (or Republican) convention. My vote breaks no laws. I am fine with being considered a Republican if it helps to get a losing candidate selected by the republicans. Ironic that the party of cheating cheaters and lying liars might attempt to ever take the moral high ground. You guys are funny! -sbqIyeed4g The edifice of civilization quakes beneath the weight of this sinister treachery. Next comes taking *all* the pennies from the "need-a-penny-take-a-penny" at the local gas station owned by a Republican donor, and from there it spirals off into a free-wheeling maelstrom of underhanded political subterfuge that climaxes twenty years hence...in defacing the sidewalk outside the party head-quarters by peeling-out with the 18-volt Medicare-funded three-wheel-scooter-with-a-basket-on-the-front on the way to the luncheon with the rest of the Red Hat Society ladies. Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 ah, the ends justify the means - the endless mantra of leftwingers. This is pretty damn funny coming from a guy who supported the unilateral invasion of Iraq (as long as he wasn't doing the fighting) because they had weapons that posed an "imminent threat" to our way of life. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Employing the word "actionable" = winning the Drama Queen of the Week Award. Use of this word should be banned to give others a fair shot at this honor. Quote
AlpineK Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I don't have a copy of the law, but somehow I think the Republicans have better things to do than worry about a caucus vote here or there. As long as you didn't vote in both caucuses you're probably fine. There's a long history on both sides of voting in the opposite caucus to promote the candidate that you believe has the best chance of loosing Quote
mattp Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 It is pretty funny to see Fairweather and KK express such indignation how someone would consider doing something "illegal" as if they were morally superior somehow. Haven't both suggested that we shouldn't worry about past voter suppression aimed at discouraging Democratic voters in swing states? Haven't they both complained about a legal recount according to applicable law in the last gubernatorial election? And this is just in the context of discussions about the election process. Neither one has appeared to me to be particularly "moral" in their arguments about a wide range of topics around here. Personally, I don't really think that showing up as a Republican in order to try to sabotage their campaign is all that great of an idea: I don't think "the ends justify the means," nor do I think it is likely to be effective. But the moral indignation is misguided. Quote
mythosgrl Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 You are allowed to caucus for one party and vote in the primary of another. Your pledge is not legally binding in any way. The two parties just "hope" that you will stick with them. Don't trust me, here's the newspaper article with interviews from the two state party officials. http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/02/02012008_Oligopolycomposters-and-primary.cfm?emilStry=1 But hey, you all seem to like arguing back and forth about simple issues that could easily be straightened out with a few inquiries for the facts, so by all means don't let the revelation of these facts stop you. Quote
marylou Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 As Jay stated, I expect my crossover vote to be the end of modern society as we know it. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Bullshit, Matt. The hypocrisy is on YOUR side with the ilk like that dumb c*** Marylou. Keep undermining the system and bragging about it - and the next time you cry your crocodile tears about those "crooked R's", i'll listen to it even less. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 The phalanx of GOP legal eagles may now stand down. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.