Democratic Primary Exhaustion Thread

[guido911]

John Stewart's take on the dem. primary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6mP6l6nBI

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Conan, I honestly do not know how aox can keep coming back here and expect anyone to take him seriously. But you have to give him credit, he will not take "you are banned" for an answer.

Ever have a cardinal (bird) that keeps repeatedly running into a plate-glass window.  I had one outside of my office last year.  Just kept flying into the window all day long until it had no feathers on its head.  That's a familiar analogy.  I think of the little red bird with the self-inflicted retardation every time I see a FOTD post.

Here he comes again!

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by shadows

One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment.  Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.    

No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.

That's just racist and sexist.  You should be ashamed.

More examples of how far removed from tolerance you seem to be. No racism in that comment what so ever. I would not want to have a 50+year old virgin as president. That's not sexist. It could apply to a man too.

CF, to say that old devilish poster AOX is a drive by and failure in logic is unfair. FOTD keeps this board fair and balanced. AOX retired. We devils operate in the Fourth Estate....

Don't try to shame me either. That and when Iplaw get his whips and chains out does not work.

You are a sad little man.  Now you refer to yourself in the third person and call the most visibly successful black woman in America (next to Oprah) a failure.  Graduated high school at 15, professor and provost at Stanford, foreign policy advisor to Gary Hart in his run for President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, on the board of numerous corporations...

Yeah, that's smokin' failure Aox.  I'm sure your life has been far more of a blooming success than hers.

Anyone know if OTASCO is still open anywhere....

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?

After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all?  Closed party primaries?  Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?

Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span.  I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.  

I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats.  Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.

I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out.  However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.

Most of these rules in the primary process are just party rules.  They are not law, they are bylaws of the parties themselves.  The only way to change the process for the next election cycle is to be a delegate during this cycle.  When the delegates meet at the conventions, they vote on all the party bylaws.  So, if there were to be a major overhaul in how the party chooses to select it's nominee, actual people who hold this view would need to be making their way up the delegate process right now to do so.

In a nutshell, the nomination process is whatever the hell the party wants it to be.  The primary votes cast really have nothing to do it, the actual party members and active participants in the Republican/Democrat partys decide everything.  The delegates could pass a new rule saying that the nominee is decided with a dartboard with different names on it.

As far as coordination (getting them to hold the primaries in a more compact timeframe), this is difficult, because each state has its own Republican/Democrat party.  They all decide on their own what to do.  The National Committee can try to make decrees, or punish state parties to get them to submit, but we all saw how well that worked this year with Florida and Michigan.  Each of these states are vying for a better position, because most of them want to be first and get all of the attention.  I'm not sure what the ones with the super late primaries are thinking

I'm more interested in figuring out what laws and schemes make it so impossible for there to be more than two big parties to have an easy time to get ballot access.  I understand the media aspect is totally seperated from the law, but I keep hearing it is impossible to get fair ballot access anywhere unless you have Ross Perot's money.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by shadows

FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.

I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political

He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before.  I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.

FOTARD would.

Your pronouncing it incorrectly, it's FOTURD, the "s" is silent...

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by shadows

FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.

I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political

He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before.  I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.

FOTARD would.

Your pronouncing it incorrectly, it's FOTURD, the "s" is silent...

lol. Is that from Family Guy?

[iplaw]

Nooooocuuulaaar.  Why yes it is.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?

After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all?  Closed party primaries?  Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?

Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span.  I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.  

I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats.  Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.

I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out.  However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.

I'd like to see the primary season shrunk by a couple of months.  There's just no reason for us to have drawn this out as long as it has.  Other than to allow time for more money to be raised.  

I'd like to see the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for cable and network TV channels and for radio channels as well (essentially, over all the spectrum that the government owns).  This might help encourage news outlets to back away a bit from inflammatory, entertainment style reporting, and at least reconsider more balanced journalism.

But unfortunately, I think most reform efforts are doomed to failure, mostly because, at core, spending money has been ruled free speech by the SCOTUS, and that informs everything about our modern political system.  And if political speech = money, then money will define the system.

Note:  I'm not against "political speech = money" on its face, but I think we're seeing the unintended consequences of that ruling in our increasingly warped election process.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?

After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all?  Closed party primaries?  Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?

Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span.  I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.  

I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats.  Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.

I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out.  However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.

I'd like to see the primary season shrunk by a couple of months.  There's just no reason for us to have drawn this out as long as it has.  Other than to allow time for more money to be raised.  

I'd like to see the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for cable and network TV channels and for radio channels as well (essentially, over all the spectrum that the government owns).  This might help encourage news outlets to back away a bit from inflammatory, entertainment style reporting, and at least reconsider more balanced journalism.

But unfortunately, I think most reform efforts are doomed to failure, mostly because, at core, spending money has been ruled free speech by the SCOTUS, and that informs everything about our modern political system.  And if political speech = money, then money will define the system.

Note:  I'm not against "political speech = money" on its face, but I think we're seeing the unintended consequences of that ruling in our increasingly warped election process.

Just because somthin has a nice name, "fairness" doesn't make it a good thing.  If you examine the Fairness Doctrine it goes beyond simple election law and limits first amendment rights.  

For instance, If I call into a radio or TV show and in my commentary I mention that I support/do not support  Hillary Clinton, they would be required by law to give equal time to the opposite opinion.  Sounds fair enough, right?

Well, the origional purpose of the Fareness Doctrine dates back to 1927 and was premised on the notion that electromagnetic frequencies, being "scarce," needed to be rationed through a government-granted license. (It took economist Ronald Coase to note, three decades later, that airwaves are no more scarce than pulp and printing presses.) Station owners were thus periodically licensed as "public trustees" and obligated to either air different points of view, or return their spectrum. Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.

This has nothing to do with Equal Time, which is still granted to candidates, but the reach of the fairness doctrine was limited and eventually dismantled by the Reagan administration because candidates were successful in arguing  outrageous claims to gain network time and politicize what would otherwise be simple news stories, editorials, and even documentaries and syndicated TV shows, claiming that they deserve the time because their opinion differed from what ever media was being produced.

The only thing the Doctrine was successful in producing was a fearful, litigious media, and as a result, an ill informed public.  It was a socialist measure that could not stand up to the constitution of our representative republic.

Additionally the fairness doctrine would now put an end to all forms of talk or opinion on the radio or TV.  Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise.

[waterboy]

Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.

[/quote]

I may agree with your conclusions but this part is not a good comparison. Airwaves are public property. One of my law professors assured us that the public owns not only their land but the air above it. Thus a newspaper or magazine is using their own capital and resources to influence your opinions which you pay to receive, while broadcasters use your airspace without personal permission. Even cable uses your land through an easement. Being accountable through a "trust" relationship seems reasonable, not Socialist.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.

quote:
I may agree with your conclusions but this part is not a good comparison. Airwaves are public property. One of my law professors assured us that the public owns not only their land but the air above it. Thus a newspaper or magazine is using their own capital and resources to influence your opinions which you pay to receive, while broadcasters use your airspace without personal permission. Even cable uses your land through an easement. Being accountable through a "trust" relationship seems reasonable, not Socialist.

You are correct, you choose to receive the newspaper.  However the analogy stands because you cannot see or be influenced by the airwaves above your property unless you make the conscious choice to turn on the radio or TV and tune to a specific channel of your choice.  The supreme court took this into great consideration.  

The Fairness Doctrine also creates a slippery slope in todays world that cannot be ignored.  Various religious organizations have attempted to revive it because it would be required to apply, in today's world, to the internet, thus destroying the free and sometimes anarchistic nature of that media.  Personal blogs, corporate web-pages, even MySpace would be subject to analysis and dismantlement.

Our information and communication systems would be crippled and subject to an ever-increasing amount of government regulation and review.  Huge amounts of resources and bureaucracy would have to be established to monitor and police speech.  If that's not fascism bordering on (and eventually disintegrating into) socialism, I don't know what is.

[waterboy]

Not arguing your conclusions, just the logic of some oversight of public interests/properties by government. Yes, I can change the channel or turn off the tube but with that argument access to free speech using my airwaves is limited as well. Eventually you just succumb to mediocrity and conformity of opinion.

I cannot buy into your slippery slope assertions. Every system seems to have elements of fascism, socialism, capitalism and a host of other ism's. They morph into each other when deemed acceptable to the majority such as the aftermath of 911. If you want purity in governmental systems I'm afraid you will always be dissatisfied. I don't mind the government spending some time to make sure that I am not unduly exploited by the likes of Fox, CNN, ABC et.al. and their insipid executives. I have watched over the last thirty years as editorial content dropped from 25 minutes per half hour to about 15minutes. And have become dizzy from a blurring of lines between opinion, fantasy and provable facts all to improve their bottom line. Even sports coverage is infected. I really don't think there is a socialist behind every decision to protect my public interests.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Not arguing your conclusions, just the logic of some oversight of public interests/properties by government. Yes, I can change the channel or turn off the tube but with that argument access to free speech using my airwaves is limited as well. Eventually you just succumb to mediocrity and conformity of opinion.

I cannot buy into your slippery slope assertions. Every system seems to have elements of fascism, socialism, capitalism and a host of other ism's. They morph into each other when deemed acceptable to the majority such as the aftermath of 911. If you want purity in governmental systems I'm afraid you will always be dissatisfied. I don't mind the government spending some time to make sure that I am not unduly exploited by the likes of Fox, CNN, ABC et.al. and their insipid executives. I have watched over the last thirty years as editorial content dropped from 25 minutes per half hour to about 15minutes. And have become dizzy from a blurring of lines between opinion, fantasy and provable facts all to improve their bottom line. Even sports coverage is infected. I really don't think there is a socialist behind every decision to protect my public interests.

Agreed!  I just view the Fairness Doctrine as senseless in todays world.  Liberals want to use it as a weapon against anyone that says anything negative about them, and Conservatives want to use it as a means for moral and religious regulation.  It has no place in our government.  Even the most liberal-socialist leaning supreme court judges see it as unconstitutional.  

I'm glad it existed, because in the 60s through the 80s it taught people how dangerous FCC regulation could get!  Once it was eliminated, the airwaves exploded with free thought, diversity, and exchange.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Additionally the fairness doctrine would now put an end to all forms of talk or opinion on the radio or TV.  Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise.

You say it like that would be a bad thing... []

You know, I keep hearing all this stuff in the media about dems playing the "race" card, the "gender" card, the "victim" card........ but somehow when republicans play the "socialist" card against the democrats, it's hard to find anyone from the Clear Channel dominated media to call them on it...

Hmmm.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.

Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?

If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time?  What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?

On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective.  Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?

Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million.  Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media?  YouTube videos?

As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate.  If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?

Who is entitled to equal time?  Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -

It just doesn't make sense.  The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair."  Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society.  Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.

If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented.  A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.