Ryan Blethen says that Democrats should give up their constitutional right to freedom of association because it inconveniences his wife.
My wife’s frustration with the caucus and primary are emblematic of many who are sitting out this round of voting. The logistics of caucusing did not work for her on a Saturday with two kids at home and me out of town. She will not vote in the primary because the ballot requires her to sign a party oath.
First: Hire a babysitter. Second: It’s not unreasonable for a political party to insist that the people who participate in their nominating process actually be, at least nominally, members of that political party.
If the parties cared about democratic input from an energized public they would scrap the Tammany Hall caucus for the presidential primary, which the voters passed into law in 1988.
That’s really one of the more dumb things I’ve read in a while. I saw no party bosses at my caucus, no one telling anyone how to vote. All I saw were excited, energized Democrats expressing their presidential preference.
What this state needs is party registration at the polling place. We could do away with a caucus and just vote, but I’m sure some folks are turned off by the icky thought of actually having to register for a party.
Even if we do all of this, I get the feeling that Blethen (and others) would still bitch and moan.
He’s just mad because of the inheritance tax.
Or he’s mad because Hickabee is weak.
Or maybe he’s mad because Willard gave his delegates to McCain.
Or maybe he’s just mad?
Fairly reasonable, Will. But what is indeed frightening to know is that The Piper agrees with you on this subject.
We really are a loony-tunes species.
Despite being a voter since 1972, I’ve only been able to participate in caucuses only for the last two cycles, because prior to that my job kept me from participating. Even if I could have taken the day off by getting at replacement, someone else would have been giving up their place at their caucus. Thousands of voters are in that boat, and it’s a real problem. I’m sure there are plenty of single moms who would also find it difficult to join in, although there were no complaints at my caucus this year when kids were brought in. It’s easy to lob tomatoes at rich nitwits like the Blethens, but caucus voting is a deeply flawed system that disenfranchises the working, the disabled, and those who are otherwise unable to attend.
“Hire a babysitter” isn’t a real constructive response to the fact that caucuses are inherently disenfranchising to a large number of voters — especially core democratic voters. If you hire a babysitter, then she (or he) can’t caucus, right? And child care ain’t that easy to come by — or cheap — for working class people, especially on a saturday afternoon. You are wrong to dismiss childcare as a trivial obstacle to participation in our party’s process.
And what about those who have to work on the weekend? I’m an ER doctor. We can’t shut down the ER, much though we might like to. So I was lucky enough to be off, but several of my partners and dozens of nurses, registrars, techs, paramedics, etc didn’t get to vote.
Blethen might be an ass, but his point is valid. Yes, the parties may have a right to set the process however they like. But they are wrong, dead wrong, to insist on an exclusionary process like caucuses.
“The logistics of caucusing did not work for her on a Saturday with two kids at home and me out of town.”
There was someone at my caucus with three kids, ages ranging from 3 – 10 (I think), and they were having a great time. And if you don’t feel like hanging around, you can always just sign in and leave, which altogether takes 15 minutes max. A lot of news organizations have been misreporting that a caucus requires that you give up an hour of your day. It doesn’t. So I don’t buy the “I have kids” excuse.
Sounds like Ryan is a closet GOPer.
This is one of those issues that I can see from both sides.
The voters have taken the position that the primary is a device to winnow the field and decide which two candidates, regardless of party, will be on the November ballot.
The parties take the position that the primary is a device to pick the party’s candidate.
While I enjoyed the caucuses, and am a delegate to my county’s caucus, I still tend to agree with the voters on this one.
Nothing in the primary law prevents the parties from deciding which, if any candidates to support, and parties can also decide which, if any, candidates can use the party name and symbols in their campaign and on the ballot.
It has been said that we could end up with two Democrats or two Republicans on the November ballot with this system. My response is “so what?” Also, it has been noted that a candidate other than the party’s choice could end up on the November ballot. Again, so what?
If a candidate, with the support and backing of one of the major political parties, cannot manage to be one of the two top vote-getters, then that party would be better served by putting its resources elsewhere.
Or, the party could reconsider its choice and decide to support the winning candidate. THAT would be the party’s choice, and where “freedom of association” comes into play.
I do agree that if a candidate that is not the party’s choice makes it to the November ballot, then the party is not obligated to support that candidate, nor should that candidate be allowed to use the party name or symbols on the ballot.
At most, something like “Democratic (self-declared)” might be allowed in the ballot descriptions, and only with the additional comment “Not endorsed by the Washington State Democratic Party”. Such candidates would be given the designation of “Independent” on the ballot, unless the party decided to endorse him or her.
(We should also take note that in the case of President and Vice President this could become a serious problem, where we could end up with a ballot that does not include one or more of the major party choices. We could end up with Edwards and Huckabee on our ballot, with the rest of the country having Obama and McCain.
Obviously, we’d need to have some mechanism to ensure that all major candidates for national office were on the November ballot.)
Bottom line. The voters of this state have said, in no uncertain terms, that they want primaries, and they want those primaries to count for something. We need to find ways to make that work, rather than just asking the courts to overrule the voters.
Will,
I usually agree with your writing, but you’re just dead wrong on this one. First, there’s no requirement whatsoever that you be a member of the party to caucus. Second, the parties shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways. That is, the state pays for all primaries, to which the parties benefit. If the parties aren’t going to have open and accessible elections, the state should force the parties to pay for 100% of their primaries. Third, get a babysitter is a glib and disrespectful comment. Yes, the Blethen’s certainly can afford a babysitter, but many people cannot. Further, many people simply have to work on Saturdays or have religious obligations. The caucuses are a shitty relic of a bygone day.
The primaries mean (almost) nothing anyways. And some ‘party faithfuls’ on here have insisted that they only do them because the Secretary of State insists.
If both those things are true (yes I know the Rep one matters a bit, but not damn much), why not just let us have our old primary anyways?
Why piss us off and slap us in the face, when it doesn’t matter anyways?
Oh wait I know, they want full control, and if, God forbid, the primary shows something different than the caucus, it makes the party look really damn bad (Yeah, the republicans are panicking about this re: huckabee).
The whole primary thing is about parties controlling the process.
oh, and spitting in the face of longstanding washington tradition of course.
There were a whole bunch of kids at my caucus and everyone seemed happy to see them there.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You need to look at how many people vote in the primary Vs. how many people attend the caucus’s to make the disenfranchise argument, not just say it. I’m not making a claim one way or the other, just pointing out you need use the numbers to make the case.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ultimately the choice of how a party picks it’s nominee is up to the party. But, if they’re choosing methodology, they should be footing the bill.
On the Democratic side, I don’t believe the groaning is justified. The minimum participation required was to just come, sign in and indicate your vote for your choice. That is how the delegates were apportioned. If time was a problem you did not have to stay after that. I saw many families who brought their children, not a problem.
On the GOP side, you had to stay there until the bird was actually cut and the sign-in sheets were given no weight. Luke Esser called the results in for you. I am not very sympathetic to the Blethen whinning on this as I know anyone who brought their children would be accomodated by those courteous enough to give up their place in line.
How come the same people who complain about no difference between the candidates, are the first to complain when the parties work to get candidates that actually represent the beliefs and values of the majority of their party?
If you can’t even bring yourself to sign up as a member of a party for a day, you have no business choosing their nominee.
The problem of comparing voting to caucusing is that voting is only the first step to ‘enfranchisement’. If we just had a primary, you could express ‘only’ you preference for a candidate.
If you think that democracy stops with voting, maybe join the party of GWB, he likes to give you a voice ever four years.
But once the votes are counted, then what? Who selects the delegates to represent your choice? Not just who you voted for, but why?
Those who are complaining about how they are being disenfranchised because the process is too time consuming, apparently don’t care about those who wish to participate locally.
If Clinton wins 1/5 of a local precinct, she at least gets one person to carry on to the next level. This seems to be the opposite of disenfranchisement because, we elect politicians to take our view into consideration. A system which generates grass roots participation, will better represent your area. And given the fact that it takes a large percentage swing in support to change the actual number of delegates, it is unlikely that the caucus system swings too far from the base.
BTW – from the WA Democratic Party
Can I vote absentee or by proxy in the Caucuses?
No. There are only three reasons you can vote in the Caucuses without being there.
If you serve in the military, have a medical condition that prevents your attendance, or for religious reasons cannot attend your Caucus, download our Caucus Surrogate Affidavit Form. You must return this form by 5:00 pm on February 1st. No one else can vote without being there.
You can become a delegate without attending your Caucus by submitting a Declaration of Candidacy Form.
@14
Good point!
But, WHY DO YOU CARE?
0 delegates are chosen by the democratic primary. ZERO
Keeping the primary open would have no effect at all on how the state went, except maybe as an embarassment.
I understand the republicans caring some, but… I’ve been doing some research on this but I can’t find a SINGLE incident of primary raiding (crossparty voting to change the general election) or even an accusation of it. Its just a bugaboo used by the parties (or maybe just paranoia, I need to be fair)
I don’t remember how fair use works, so I thought I’d just link the source I was gonna cite:
http://secstate.wa.gov/documen.....ms-920.pdf
Like it says, this is a pretty clear case of the parties vs the voters of WA.
Its not like this effects anything in the long run, but it does discourage alot of people from taking part in the primary process in general, and is just a black eye on the parties.
Roger_Rabbit: where you are with your snarky comments about “neocons” and “Rethugs”? Are are you a bot?
At the Democratic caucuses, one does not “sign up the be a member of the party for the day.” You declare instead that you will not parcipate in the caucus of any other party. Different.
Windie @17,
Apparently you aren’t very good at doing research. Peter Jackson, the son of Democrat Henry “Scoop” Jackson, DID cross vote for McCain in the Republican primary.
I would post the actual link to it, but if I do, the post will be immediately censored by the apparatchiks. Citing sources is apparently verboten here.
It is at heraldnet (DOT) COM. Published Wed Feb 6. Under local news.
Democrats have a history of cross voting to undermine their political enemies.
Here is the link:
http://www.heraldnet.com/artic...../815301159
I doubt it will be here long though as any links that proove liberals wrong is immediately removed.
4:
I would hardly consider a caucus ‘exclusionary’. If you want to participate badly enough, you make the time! The date is set far enough in advance so that allowances can be made. I took a day off from my night job (!) so I could rest up for participating in the caucuses here in Nevada (precinct chair), and asked for that day off several weeks in advance. You do what you have to do, make what sacrifices are necessary in order to participate, now more than ever.
18:
That’s just asking for trouble. Let the old bunny have his carrots first.
21 Z
Citizens have a history of cross voting to undermine their political enemies. Note Republicans in Connecticut voting for Holy Joe Lieberman.
21:
And the R’s are no different, bucko. I’ve come across articles about R’s voting for HRC in primaries and caucuses to try and derail Obama. And look at all the the righty talking heads undermining McCain…….when Coultergeist talks about supporting HRC over McCain, you just know that something is severely wrong.
Daddy Love:
PROVE IT! I showed proof of cross voting by Democrats in Washington. And the best you can do is talk about a state other than Washington on the other side of the nation, with ZERO proof.
BJ@25,
Show me the proof. If you have come across articles where someone admitted, as did Peter Jackson, then show me. That is the difference between hearsay and evidence. I provided evidence to back up my statement, is it too much to ask liberals here do the same?
If she won’t swear she’s a Democrat to vote at a caucus, she won’t be able to vote in the primary either.
And if “well the Republicans are no different” really an excuse? After all, I always see diatribes from partisans complain about those that say the R’s and D’s are no different. But when you point to others to justify your actions, you prove that in fact R’s and D’s are both the same.
“She will not vote in the primary because the ballot requires her to sign a party oath.”
If she’s not a Democrat she has no damn business sticking her beak in our party’s choice of a nominee.
@the whole cross voting thing.
Yes, people do cross-vote. No its never been done in large enough numbers to effect anything.
Yawn…
But Democrats are permitted to infiltrate Republican primaries eh?
Prove it.
The only way an asinine editorial like that gets published is if your daddy owns the paper.
Another fucking failure of capitalism.
@3 It was difficult to attend Bush’s “town hall” meetings on Social Security, too. Especially if you had an anti-war sticker on your bumper.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech.....70315.html
They won’t let someone disrupt a tow hall meeting. Boo hoo! Cry me a river.
@3 (continued) Nominating a party’s candidate is not the same thing as a general election. The parties have the right to control that process, decide who can participate, and set the terms of participation. By doing it on a Saturday, they make the opportunity as broadly available as possible. The vast majority of people work a Monday – Friday schedule, and many people consider Sundays as church and family time. In Washington, people who couldn’t attend the caucus can still express their wishes by voting in the primary; even if it doesn’t count for choosing delegates, it still makes a statement.
And then there’s the other party, which wants to make it substantially harder for Americans to vote in their own country in general elections. They seem determined to put up every obstacle to voting they can dream up, to drive certain people away from the polls: The poor, the elderly, the working class, people of color — anyone likely to vote against their party’s rich white elitist more-privileges-for-the-privileged-class agenda.
Besides, “peace activists” these days gun people down. Such peaceful people they are.
@36
They didn’t disrupt anything you horse-fucked moron.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech.....70315.html
DENVER, CO – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a complaint against three White House staffers for illegally ejecting Denver residents from a taxpayer-funded town hall with President Bush, even though they had done nothing to disrupt the event. The residents, who have been dubbed the “Denver 3” by the media, were singled out because of an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.
@39,
That is because they didn’t get the chance to. A terrorist caught before he gets to detonate a bomb is just as guilty as if the bomb had exploded.
Citing the ACLU, an organization whose founder stated “Communism’s the goal” discredits your argument.
@36 They weren’t disruptive, asshole. Get your fucking facts straight. They were simply there.
Let’s get something else straight, motherfucker. That meeting was paid for by us taxpayers. Bush is a public official occupying a public office. He was talking about a government program that affects all of us. He and his thugs have NO FUCKING RIGHT to kick people out of a public meeting about a public program on an unverified assumption that they might not agree with what the president wants to do.
These Social Security “town halls” turned out to be nothing but propaganda events designed to create an illusion of public support for a deceptive scheme the public overwhelmingly opposed. Guess what, some American citizens refuse to be used as propaganda props by dishonest politicians. It’s against the fucking law to arrest people because of their opinions in this country. At least, it used to be, before our government fell into the hands of the Bush/Rove nazis.
So, some wingnut with the IQ of a brick comes on here and complains about someone being “disruptive” by having a bumper sticker on their car out in the parking lot.
Want to know what’s disruptive? I’ll tell you. Wholesale violations of the Constitution and federal laws. Violating citizens’ rights. Lying and stealing. Massive corruption and incompetence. This whole fucking Republican administration is disruptive from top to bottom, and the wingnut idiots who support them are disrupting our entire society.
Show me a Republican, and I’ll show you disruption.
@38 You’re confusing “peace activists” with Republicans.
We need to increase the fines and jail sentences for civil rights violations.
@4 Take the kids with you to the caucus.
Zeus:
First, posts with links to sources are not routinely deleted, but are sometimes delayed to ensure that they are not blog spam for some porn site.
Next, as a Democrat, the only folks that have encouraged me to cross party lines and vote in the Republican primary are Republicans (sort of). Actually, they were Ron Paul supporters.
While there may not be any penalty for cross-voting, we had to sign a pledge not to do so, and most of us take such things seriously.
Oh, and as for
from the editorial, I’ve heard this before. I wonder if anyone has bothered to actually tell them what this “oath” consists of?
The oaths are as follows:
Not some strange oath of eternal loyalty to the party, just a statement that you consider yourself to be a member of the party, and that you won’t mess with another party’s nomination process.
@42,
They didn’t have a chance to be disruptive. And you don’t have their FBI file now do you ? You don’t know what is in it. All you know is your hate and nothing else. Every fiber of your being is driven by it, you are consumed by it.
By your logic, if Lee Harvey Oswald hadn’t gotten the shot off, he would be innocent.
The Social Security “town halls” were a genuine attempt to deal with the ponzi scheme that has been foisted on the American people over the past 70 years. If you are under 50 years old, you will most likely not see much of the money the government has confiscated. If you are under 30 you won’t see a dime. All you will see is a bill.
What upsets people like you so much is that you have no ideas to reform this scheme. You are happy to criticize those trying to fix the scheme before it blows up completely.
@4 This is actually a silly argument because only a small percentage of the population attends the caucus, at least in my neighborhood, so it shouldn’t be that hard to find a neighbor or friend willing to watch the kids for an hour or two.
If you can’t think of anything else, then do this. Take the kids with you. Leave them in the car. One parent stays with the kids in the car while the other parent goes inside, signs in, writes her presidential preference, then walks out. Then she stays with the kids in the car while the other parent goes inside, signs in, writes his presidential preference, and walks out. Should take 10 minutes or less.
I was sick on the day of the caucus, so I simply signed in, wrote down my preference, and left. I was there for only 5 minutes, because I needed to get back to my burrow and crawl into bed. Nevertheless, I attended my caucus long enoguh to vote. It wouldn’t have been any easier to vote at a polling place, in fact, it would have taken longer if there had been a line of people waiting to vote, as there sometimes is at polling places. (Especially polling places run by Republicans who don’t want American citizens to vote in their own country.)
@6 I don’t think he’s a closet GOPer. I don’t think he tries to hide what he is. It’s said to think this idiot probably is the future publisher of Seattle’s largest newspaper. Let’s hope to P-I is around for a long time.
sad to think
@22 “I doubt it will be here long though as any links that proove liberals wrong is immediately removed.”
Bullshit.
@21 “Democrats have a history of cross voting to undermine their political enemies.”
So what? Republicans have a history of keeping American citizens from voting in their own country to undermine their political enemies and steal power.
@44,
@15 “There are only three reasons you can vote in the Caucuses without being there. If you serve in the military, have a medical condition that prevents your attendance, or for religious reasons cannot attend your Caucus, download our Caucus Surrogate Affidavit Form. You must return this form by 5:00 pm on February 1st. No one else can vote without being there. You can become a delegate without attending your Caucus by submitting a Declaration of Candidacy Form.”
Does the GOP have a similar rule? Or, if you’re in the military serving in a combat zone and want to vote at a GOP caucus, are you just screwed?
@54 You’re so full of shit you don’t even deserve a reply, and will get none from me.
@54 That is the most offensive post I’ve ever seen on this blog.
@53,
“So what? Republicans have a history of keeping American citizens from voting in their own country to undermine their political enemies and steal power.”
It is always a sign of how deep the corruption runs when the criminals brazenly admit to their crime. So now that that issue is settled, let’s address your own unsupported off the cuff charge.
#1) So one criminal act justifies another? The end justifies the means?
And you wonder why people say the two parties are the same. tsk.
@54 And thanks for fucking up the font, idiot.
@57,
That is probably because IT IS TRUE! And that IS the most ofensive thing to you.
Go ahead people and check it out. Even CNN reports that Stephen Kazmierczak was a peace activist.
@29 Republicans and Democrats absolutely are not the same. Trust me on this.
His political views had nothing to do with what he did. He was a person with a history of mental illness who was off his medications. This tragedy has nothing to do with politics. Your shameless exploitation of it for partisan propaganda is what’s offensive. Go fuck yourself, cretin.
Source cited article to follow. It will not be posted because it disprove liberal orthodoxy.
Once again, thanks for fucking up the font, idiot.
Airman Airman Jonathan Schrieken, 22, was shot on July 4, 2007 by anti-war activist Matthew J. Marren.
More to follow. Confounding censors.
Start here for more on the story:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....viole.html
Marren’s aunt, Terina Henderson of Trion, Ga., said she spoke to Marren’s mother yesterday who told her Marren left two notes, one in his home and one in his car, indicating he was upset with the government.
She said she did not know the exact wording in the notes, but said Marren was “mad at the government and wanted to make a statement … that’s why he did what he did on the Fourth of July.”
@61,
When it comes to being crooked they are. Democrat William Jefferson anyone?
I got rid of all guns a few years back. People like Zeus make me question that decision. I really do fear what they might do if their folks loose the White House.
Well apparently so-called “peace activists” want nothing of the sort now do they?
They just grab a gun like everyone else. We call that hypocrisy.
“ACLU Sues White House Staffers for Ejecting Denver Residents from Bush Event
“(3/15/2007)
“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“CONTACT: media@aclu.org
“DENVER, CO – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a complaint against three White House staffers for illegally ejecting Denver residents from a taxpayer-funded town hall with President Bush, even though they had done nothing to disrupt the event. The residents, who have been dubbed the “Denver 3” by the media, were singled out because of an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.
“‘The president does not have the authority to ignore the First Amendment simply because he disagrees with someone’s views,’ said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, who is lead counsel in this case. ‘There has been a consistent pattern from the White House of handpicking which Americans are allowed entry to public events. That is unacceptable when taxpayers of all political stripes are footing the bill.’
“Today’s complaint was filed in an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of Leslie Weise and Alex Young, two of the three people who were thrown out of the Denver event on March 21, 2005. For nearly two years, the White House has refused to admit its role in the incident. But Michael Casper, a Republican volunteer at the event who is also named in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a deposition that two White House employees directed him to throw out Weise and Young.
“Casper identified the staffers as Steven Atkiss, then-Deputy Director of White House Advance, and James O’Keefe, lead advance staffer for the Denver event. Atkiss now serves as chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection. The ACLU also filed a complaint against Greg Jenkins, then-Director of White House Advance, whom the ACLU said is responsible for establishing the policy to eject anyone from presidential events whose views are perceived to be different from the president’s.
“‘The White House should not be in the business of censoring Americans,’ said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. ‘Our clients were removed not because they were disruptive, but because they could “potentially” engage in critical speech.
“Weise and Young had tickets to attend the Denver town hall on Social Security, but they were singled out after a staffer noticed a bumper sticker on Weise’s car that read, ‘No More Blood for Oil.’ Weise was stopped upon entering the event, and warned by Casper that she had been ‘ID’d,’ and that she would be arrested if she had any ill intentions. She was then allowed to enter, but Casper came back and forcibly removed Weise and Young after receiving official orders from O’Keefe and Atkiss.
“‘No one should be punished for peaceful expression of a viewpoint at a public event,’ Weise said. ‘Our lawsuit seeks to ensure that this conduct will not happen again in America.’
“The ACLU said that the Denver incident is not isolated. Other Americans have been forced to leave open-to-the-public presidential visits around the country. Individuals considered to have critical viewpoints were removed or excluded from Social Security town hall meetings in Arizona, North Dakota and New Hampshire.”
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech.....70315.html
Welcome to Nazi America GOP.
Thanks again for fucking up the font, idiot. If you don’t know how to turn it off, get a kid to show you — some 10 year old with more brains than you.
Michael, I’ve been saying for a long time that liberals had better arm. There are plenty of irresponsible wingnuts running around with guns, and the wingnuts frequently say they want to kill liberals, so we’d better have the means to defend ourselves.
@71,
It must be nice that you get to post complete articles without being censored. Apparatchiks like yourself have all the advantages.
@73,
You make this stuff up don’t you? Obvisously so, since you have yet to point to one instance, with evidence to back up your statment. I have already cited two cases, Stephen Kazmierczak and Mathew Marren, where liberals have gone berserk and gunned people down.
Great. Zeus is going to link us to a rightwing propaganda blog for “information” about the case.
I don’t own a gun. But if I am ever in the company of a “peace activist” I may reconsider the decision.
BTW, thanks for fucking up the font, idiot.
It seems peace activists just go berserk and start shooting everyone.
Rabbit, you ARE still taking your meds aren’t you? Like poeple at the Univ. of Illinoi, we see what happens when you liberals fail to take your meds.
What is this preoccupation with fonts you have? A side effect of mixing your meds with booze?
You are still taking them aren’t you? I don’t want to end up like the victims of Kazmierczak, and have you start shooting us all.
Hey Zeus,
Ever heard of a place called Oklahoma City?
I think there has been a case of a right winger going crazy. I just cannot find one.
Hey Zeus,
It isn’t liberal peace activists doing this shit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....d_violence
Michael @81,
Why yes I have. Were those people peace activists? Apparently you must be slow or you don’t grasp the irony of a “peace activist” gunning down people.
Citing people who are not peace activist only demonstrates your inability to grasp irony.
We don’t know why Kazmierczak did what he did. It’s pointing towards mental illness, but the fact of the matter is that we don’t know.
We do know that thanks to wing-nuts and the NRA we don’t have adequate guns laws. Laws that might, you know, stop the mentally ill from getting guns.
@83,
Show me a case of an anti-abortion activist getting and abortion and you may have an argument.
Peace activists are phonies who will grab a gun when it suits them. Even you, at post 69 repudiate what you pretend to believe when it suits you:
“I got rid of all guns a few years back. People like Zeus make me question that decision. I really do fear what they might do if their folks loose the White House.” – Michal @69
@84
Just showing you an example of right wing terrorism.
@86
No, what I’m showing you are acts of right wing political terrorism.
Members of the left have very real reasons to fear terrorist actions from those on the right.
Until I attended my first caucus last week, I think I somewhat agreed with the ‘not fair’ crowd, but why? Basically the argument gets stuck in first gear. If we really wanted everyone’s opinion, we would require voting. The fact is that most strategists hope and pray that the other guy’s supporters are lazy or unmotivated, sick, disabled, on vacation or unaware that an election is occurring, or even if the month is February or November.
Usually what everyone wants is for their vote to count more than that of their neighbor, who the know supports someone else. You could say this is fair. Everyone has a fair chance at following the rules, being generally aware of what is going on, etc. Essentially everyone has a fair shot at being motivated to participate. But there are some reservations here. The vast majority of voters want the barrier to participate moderated to their situation, but not beyond it.
If you are rich, why not a poll tax? If you can drive, why not require photo id to vote? If you are always around your neighborhood on Tuesdays, who cares about absentee voting?
But as soon as the requirements to vote exceed what they are willing to do, these voters suddenly find themselves disenfranchised. The real question of disenfranchisement is not whether a certain number of voters can’t overcome the barriers to vote, the question is if the barriers disproportionately affect a particular class of voters. If the process does affect a class of voters, what provision is there for overcoming this problem?
In the Democratic caucus, there were a number of classes which were identified. Disabled, military, religious observance. In my precinct we had 12 voters show up and one disabled ballot. Regardless of any of these classes of voters who didn’t have to show up, anyone, _anyone_ could be considered as a delegate, or alternate to represent the precinct. Imagine that, you can’t show up, but you could still be elected as a delegate for your precinct. Where exactly is the disenfranchisement in this? If you want to participate, try the Democratic party.
We do know they guy was a “peace activist”. Then he went an bought himself a gun and killed people. It shows the hypocrisy of the mental disorder known as liberalism.
If the other students had a gun as did the liberal peace activist nut, he wouldn’t have gotten very far. Add 6 more dead to the “gun free zone” body count.
One last link and I’ll sign off for the day.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
As opposed to the long historical left wing terrorism…
http : //en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Weatherman_(organization)
Gonna go get a gun and extract some “justice” Michael? You already hinted at it.
Can’t Will spell SECRET BALLOT??
The caucus is inherently undemocratic (though fun) because it opens the door to surveilce of your vote. Voting should be a private affair!
Personally, I would go one step further. My party membership should be between me and those I want to know. If we can not have cross over voring (sighh) then at the least we should provide a ballot that allows the voter to selct party in confidence.
@89,
Hardly. I’d say it is the other way around. The peace activists gun down Airmen and University Students.
Zeus (at 3:09 PM)
Ok, where does the “peace activist” label for Stephen Kazmierczak come in?
He volunteered for the Army, but they tossed him out as unsuitable, and he worked for a while as a prison guard, but that didn’t work out either.
He did write an essay in favor of peace and social justice. That hardly qualifies him as a peace activist. Even most Republicans claim to be in favor of both peace and social justice.
Here’s an actual news story in the actual news media
about the incident and it doesn’t say anything about the guy being an “antiwar protester.”
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/st.....id=5451694
The Burlington County Prosecutor and Willingboro Township police issued a press release on July 5, 2007, containing the following statement:
““Both agencies are jointly investigating the motive for this shooting along with whether the victim and Mr. Marren knew each other prior to this incident. The investigation is ongoing and further details will be released as the investigation continues.”
http://www.co.burlington.nj.us.....7-5-07.pdf
It’s hard to find any further information because the internet search engines are clogged up with rightwing blogger commentary about this crime.
Now, I don’t know whether the shooter was or wasn’t an anti-war protester, except to say the only place you find anything to that effect is on rightwing political blogs. Undoubtedly the reason is because this claim is (a) false, (b) irrelevant, or (c) both.
It seems obvious these individuals knew each other. After all, the shooter drove from his home in one town to the victim’s home in another town, and so the shooter knew where the victim lived, and so he must have known the victim. This wasn’t a random crime.
Nor was it a crime that occurred at a military installation. The victim was shot in the driveway of his home. We may surmise he was not in uniform at the time. Thus, the only way the shooter could know the victim was in the Air Force is if he knew the victim.
Almost certainly, the motive behind this shooting was revenge for a personal grudge of some sort that had nothing to do with the victim’s military status or the shooter’s political beliefs.
Another piece of nonsense brought to you by a gullible wingnut troll.
Zeus is getting his rocks off by stirring the pot. Thanks again for fucking up the font, idiot.
@ 95
I would love to get spelling lessons from you , of all people. You type like you are wearing boxing gloves.
Voting is a private affair, but caucusing is not. Voting and caucusing are not the same thing.
Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. They have ruled that political parties are well within their rights to take steps to exclude people who are not members (if even for one day) of that party.
You do get cross-over voting. The GOP was stupid enough to use the primary to award delegates, so go vote in their primary. Caucus for Obama, vote for Huckabee. The GOP doesn’t like it, but if they didn’t like it they shouldn’t use the primary to award delegates.
What the frack does the NIU shooting have to do with the caucus? Take it to the open thread.
Any wingnut who has issues with the court ruling against blanket primary voting should take it up with the REPUBLICAN Supreme Court.
The REPUBLICAN Supreme Court is responsible for this situation.
Many thanks to the newest member of my Hari-Krishna like cult…Krishna Brian Baird. I encourage Brian to shave his head, wrap himself in a sheet and go sell flowers for me at the airport.
New beginning, Yes We Can, Change..blah, blah, blah just a jackin’ my jaws with one meaningless platitude after another.
White folks are mighty gullible.
Will,
Would that I could learn to type. I think I should qulaify as disabled in that regard.
In re voting in the Reprican primary, I did consider that. BUt there is a littler matter of an oath involved.
As for the SC, I agreee they rukes this way. I would like to see an amendment guaranteeing the right t a secret ballot.
I too enjoyed the caucus and the “game” is fun. But, I also felt badly for some of the Clintonite, blue haired ols ladies surrounded by the younger, more divers Obama crew. They showed a lot of courage by standing by their (wo)man.
Will
Back at secret ballots ..
Don’t you see the threat to democracy if public voting?
I’ll admit it. I did cross vote for the late Ellen Crasswell a few years back. I could not resist helping them out!
Zeus, still looking for the WA State evidence of Republican cross-voting?
Me too. I asked for it when the 16%ers first broached the subject.
If you check back into back threads Pelletizer and other 16%ers were threatening to cross-vote. Rules have no meaning to them.
But I DIDN’T cross-vote, puddinghead, because as soon as I read the oath and realized I couldn’t, I OBEYED THE LAW.
I have yet to meet any Republican who has any respect for any law. That’s the difference between me and you guys.
My vote is none of your business, but for the record, I voted for Clinton at the caucus and I voted for Clinton on my primary ballot. Shove that up your stupid ass.
And if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him in November.
Pelletizer: Reading problems again?
I wrote above “were threatening to”.
A simple “No Puddinghead I used conventional wisdom and I OBEYED THE LAW.”
But being the oxygen deprived moron you are…
Still waiting for the proof Zeus asked for. You commentary is a powerful as Memphis State was from the charity stripe today.
@107 Hmmm
I voted for Obama but do not ocnsoder myself a Democrat. Does tha make me a crossover voter?
Actually, can somoene tell me the logic that says one can not be amember of two or three parties? Why isn’t ti like credit cards?
Zeus @ 27:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....s-for.html
Eat shit and die, troll.
Zeus again @ 84:
How about the pastor of the church I once attended in Port Angeles? He breathed fire and brimstone about ‘babykillers’ ad nauseam, then took his angel-faced daughter (who was a complete and utter slut – she offered to sleep with my wife’s oldest son on several occasions, thankfully he had better taste than that) not once, but three times to Seattle on the quiet to get abortions? No one liked to talk about it openly, but the truth was all too easily known.
Poor stupid troll. DIIIIIS-missed!
I’m sure some will step up, but I think alot of this conflict is natives vs non-natives.
Really when we look at it, this whole thing isn’t about whats the better system, but rather about local tradition, the will of the people, and the desire on the parties part to control the system.
Caucuses are basicly fine in of themselves (I have a few problems with them, seattlejew hit on some of it). The problem is that the majority of the people in Washington didn’t want them, and the parties basicly said ‘fuck you, do it our way’.
And lets be honest: I challenge any of you to say with a straight face that the results would have changed at ALL…
…
Actually thats not quite right. It might have made a significant difference on the Republican side, but they’re crazy >
wish I could edit my posts, I hate multiples >