Political Punch

The prior comments are interesting but seem to miss the red flag that leaps out to me: ONE wealthy hedge-fund manager, by founding an idealistically-named but suspect organization, is bankrolling efforts to change California's electoral vote influence. And this man is doing this out of the kindness of his heart? Please!

Certainly, any citizen should be able to petition the government to do something, but that citizen must be honest enough to disclose his funding. Inept political attempts to tie this mess to Mayor Giuliani's campaign with no proof is, once again, the politics of playing the outrage game. Do remember this, though: our government is indeed the best money can buy, and it often has!

First of all this talk started because the Libs are upset in 2000, so they want to start theories on how the process is broken, but is it not funny that it worked for over 200 years? How come things that work they want to break and things that are broken they think are fine.

wilder5121 - wher do you get your info Moveon or mediamatters? It sounds more like your talking about the Democrat leadership in the 90's.

joey - What women?? You libs say push that President Bush is bad, but what is bad?? I know almost zero unemployment, yes that bad because then the libs cant control people. Oh maybe its the strong Stock market? a True Low Defecit? Not a pocket change like Clinton did? What is so bad, Oh I know the 50 million people that are being given a chance at freedom? No terror attacks on america soild? Please let me know what is so bad??

Sure hope this initiative passes. Why not have each district have a say in the election. Why is it all or nothing. Who cares if the votes get split, it's the fair thing to do. I'm sure if TX or FL does it then the DEMs will benefit. So why can't the GOP benefit? Let each State Legislature decide. Sounds fair to me.

I am of two minds about winner take all verses proportional voting. The problem with winner takes all is that states like California and New York almost always vote Democratic in national elections so Bush never spent any time or money trying to get votes there. Same thing for places like Texas and Georgia, the Democrats ignore them because they almost always vote Republican in national elections.

The result is places like Florida and other swing states get more time and money from the candidates. They get promises of pork and really get more attention than they deserve.

What good would it have done for Bush to go to California and change the results from 65-35 to maybe 62-38? Same thing for Texas, he was going to win there for sure so he ignored Texas and spent time in Florida and other swing states where he had a chance.

So from a theoretical standpoint it seems like a good idea. The result would be that candidates would have to pay attention to all states, not just the swing states.

But this would only be true if all states did it. If just a few did and they were predominately supporters of one party it might not really be fair. If California did it the Republicans would be favored, if Texas did it the Democrats would be favored.

Not an easy call to make for me.

I would support Thompson first, Paul second and Beebe third. If the race ended up with a Clinton/Edwards ticket vs a Giuliani/McCain ticket I would have to move back to Texas and vote for secession. They are 4 of a kind but not a winning hand. ... The only reason Texas has stayed in the Union is as a defense against Mexican invasion. It seems now that the only way to stop it is to leave the union. The Republic of Texas, this time for good.

its about time a woman ran the country, can`t be worse than bush

After seven years of republican leadership, comprised of nothing but failure, incompetence, lying, corruption, hypocrisy and running America's National Debt into a NINE TRILLION DOLLAR ditch...if a republican EVER gets elected again in this country it only proves that some Americans just plain hate their country.

OH HIllary even voted for amnesty BILL OR did you people already forget ?

I rather have Giuliani then that corrupt hillary. 5,000 for every baby born and where is this money going to come from? Even she said in democratic debate that by 2013 she dosen't know if she will pull out the troops.Flip-flops all the time first she voted for war then she said take troops out as soon as can and now she says don't knwo if will pull troops out.Clinton has far more skeletons in her closet then RUDY.
And that health care she was suppose to give to you she was suppose to have fixed it back in the 90's thier was NO WAR then!! Where did all the money go ?
Billy boy gave 140 pardons to terrorists criminals tax evasions even his own brother roger!!!!
Gave secrets to china!!
He was too busy with monika in the oval office!!
BESIDES SHE DOSENT EVEN HAVE A PLAN FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!!!
THey rather drill in arab countires then in alaska and give money to terrorists!!

Giullani has one thing going for him like the rest of the Repubs - 9/11. But time marches on and there will be other problems to solve, other issues to contend with and so far the Repubs have proved useless in that regard. All they can do is keep people frightened of another possible 9/11. They would do no better in another disastor as they have in the past. Any leader would have gone into Afghanistan after Bin Laden after 9/11 no matter what party affiiation. However, no other leader would have dragged us into Irag. Please note that Giulianni is another Repub who will keep us in Iraq or drag us into another war. We've had enough. Tell them so in 2008 - we've had enough of your war-mongering.

You read my two posts and found screaming, huh?? If you can do that, you can find something where there's nothing. That, of course, is what Dems like Dean do all the time. Your two posts here are almost nothing but disproved Dem talking points, and poorly-crafted attempts at humor. You know, Dean was given the DNC chairmanship to appease his on-line supporters four years ago. His time is running out, and he knows it. These days, the real leaders in his party treat him like the wierd Uncle you have to invite to the family reunion, but don't want to. That's funny to me. It's funny when he uses a non-issue like this one to scream some more and attempt to be relevant. I could argue some of the points you made, but you really didn't make any points, JL. Enjoy your coffee this morning, --I hope it's decaf.

....And no, I don't mindless repeat Democrat talking points. I think rather you repeat CON lack-a-thought-process and think you are being original. Your dislike of Howard Dean, etc (I bet you hate Hillary too)...is all just dead-horse Republican talking points as well...quit accusing others of what you are guilty of yourself.

No, SteveW, just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're no good. You can't even see through Rudy Giuliani and can't see why monkeying with the electoral college by using crooked tactics isn't a problem, then you are the one where the 'meat smells funny.' I never cease to be amazed at you republiCONS: you scream all the time about supposed unfairness of the democrats, but you yourselves think being crooked is just fine. That is why this country is in the mess it is in. Your ilk has led us to the edge of bankruptcy, military exhaustion and worldwide withdrawal of foreigners from their alliances with America. My grandmother used to say 'the fox is the finder and left the stink behind her.' Meaning that if you smell funny meat, you might want to examine your own selective smeller.

So, JL--you don't think Howard Dean's antics are funny? I do. Alot of Dems think he's funny too. But not funny like a joke--funny like, uh, 'this meat smells funny'. That's why so many top Dems treat him politely, from a safe distance. Tying Rudy to that California initiative is a non-issue. That is the point I clearly made. Dean screaming about it is predictable, and funny to me. When one like Dean rants about a non-issue like this one, it is puffing one's self up. As Shakespeare wrote, it is 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Most of your post consists of false Dem talking points that you repeat, as most Dems do, without any backing. Then you have the nerve to say I'm a shill, and Rudy looks like a grill. You need to take a chill pill. Meanwhile, I'm still chuckling, waiting for the next strange thing that your leader Mr. Dean does or says.

The Republicans can't seem to win the Presidency fairly, can they?

Guliani does not have a chance in the national elections. Remember Reagan? He was perceived by many as having a charm about himself. Reagan was said to have charisma. Guliana does not have the personality and charm to capture America's imagination like Reagan did. Some will say a President needs more than that. Not totally true in the American electorate.

The only candidate that can win it all is Barack Obama. He has all the qualities and aptitude that most of electorate want and needs in our next President. He's the chosen one -- the next leader for all the people of America. Join us in our mission to restore America's image around the world and bringing integrity back to the oval office -- vote Barack Obama!

Guiliani's policies make Dick Cheney's policies seem eminently reasonable. Why doesn't the media pay any attention to his actual positions? Guiliani is a disaster to all people who want to return the United States to a peace-loving, well-respected major force in the world.

J-Bones, you wrote: "The Republicans are scared, so they want to change the California system." Your statement might describe three or four Republicans. There are about a dozen or so Republicans in the California state legislature who actually believe the change would be for the better. However, the vast majority of Republicans (including myself)are NOT scared and believe in the current system. I am NOT scared that a Democrat might win California. In fact, I am NOT scared that a Democrat might win the White House in 2008. And I would NOT be scared if a Democratic White House and Congress raised taxes and implemented universal womb-to-tomb health care. I would certainly be very disappointed! But I know that the American people would eventually wake up and wise up and reverse that in a subsequent election.

Now what DOES scare me is if we pullout of Iraq prematurely and as a consequence the battle resumes here at home.

I'll make one statement that is fact and go from there.

The Republicans are scared, so they want to change the California system.

Actually, the manner in which a state determines the apportionment of their Electoral College delegates IS up to the states. If a state wants to change to a per Congressional District election, that is well within their rights. And, for that matter, so would selecting the nationwide winner's slate of delegates for that state. They just can't FORCE the Electoral College delegates to vote any particular way.

Now then it is interesting that you claim Republican voter fraud in the 2000 Florida election. You are rewriting history or you just believe the Liberal spew. First of all, there was no voter fraud in Florida...unless you call the media's early call for Gore being the winner of Florida when the panhandle of Florida still had one more hour of voting as voter fraud? Al Gore decided to cherry pick a handful of counties where Democrats had the vast majority for recounting. Then when these counties, all run by Democratic officials, had different rules for counting the chads, THAT is where the U. S. Supreme Court stepped in with their decision.

One addendum: if indeed Dems are trying to make things so that state electors are required to vote for whomever wins the national popular vote...that isn't right either. Fair is fair. Either leave the current electoral college system alone or abolish it in favor of one person, one vote, but don't mix the two. I am a so-called lib, but I will agree with that.

That said, however, it has been the Repubs who have done the most to further voter manipulation and fraud (cf. Dirty-Tom-Delay in Texas, among others).

Rudi Giuliani, in spite of his undeserved reputation after 9/11 is largely a corrupt, self-serving machine politician with a penchant for hypocrisy.

Sometimes I wonder how people like SteveW can continue to be right-wing shills and get away with character assassinations on their favorite straw-bogey-man-imaginary-enemy: the so-called "lib" (that means whatever they want it to mean). Cons are the ones who get away with puffing themselves up and Karl-Rove-izing (smearing) everyone who isn't an unthinking reactionary.
Bastardizing California's electoral votes isn't a 'non-issue'. Look what Republican voter fraud did in order to get Florida's electoral votes in 2000...voter fraud like what is proposed in California (voter fraud seems to be a trademark of Republicans)...is NOT a non-issue. It strikes at the very integrity of the vote and takes a state that is heavily democratic and tries to skew the rules so that it can be distorted into having republican-leaning electors that comes along.

I would chuckle over Rudi Giuliani if he weren't such a fraudulent individual with a face that looks like an old Nash automobile grill.

What about this effort by state Democrats all across the country to pass state laws that would require their respective states' Electoral College delegates to vote for the Presidential candidate who won the nationwide popular vote -- irrespective of the outcome of their respective states? This would be blantantly unconstitutional since the Electoral College delegates ARE NOT CURRENTLY BOUND to vote for the candidate with whom them are pledged. Where was all this indignation by Howard Dean and Chris Lehane as their own party attempted to circumvent the U. S. Constitution?

Sometimes I wonder how Libs can continue to get away with puffing themselves up and Howard-Dean-izing (primal screaming) about every non-issue that comes along.
I tend to agree with Rudy about the reapportionment thing--if you give a state's electoral votes to their Congressional districts individually, you might just as well let Congress elect the President. And, uh, personally, I'm thinkin' the less Congress has to do, the better. It doesn't pass the laugh test that Rudy would have anything to do with this idea, no matter where its money comes from. One good thing though--it gives me another chance to chuckle over something Howard Dean does, or says, or screams.

Rudy Giuliani is no hero.
While he is often called the hero of 9/11, the truth is that Rudy was a terrible leader during his years as mayor of New York City.
He made bad decisions and took a girlfriend while being married.
In fact, he even wanted his lover to live in the same house with his wife.
Most people would call this perverted.
New Yorkers were so sick of his antics, that they wanted him out of office.
Then came 9/11.
The only reason people call Giuliani a hero today, is because he just happened to be NYC's mayor during that bad time.
Any mayor would be looked at as a hero if they showed their face under those circumstances.
If there was no 9/11, Rudy would have become a joke.
This is not the kind of leader we want in the White House.
In closing, the New York Post reported in their paper on April 23, that Giuliani spent more than $48,000 dollars of campaign money on posh hotels while claiming to have spent the least of all the Republican candidates.
Rudy is a good time leader, and does it with other people's money.

George Vreeland Hill

Giuliani and his crew are a bunch of hacks. They are bumbling their way through the campaign trail... how could they possibly lead the country? Pack it up and save yourself the heartbreak, Giuliani.

Someone should tell Chris Lehane maybe before he throws stone he should tell Hilary to come clean

Who cares what Paul Singer did he is not running nor what he did was illegal. If so then Edwards should be charged also.

I agree, but on one item California should not have as much power as it does.

Winner takes all should be as it was meant to.

Correction. I should have said 53 Congressional District elections and 1 statewide election.

First of all, Howard Dean saying that this proposed change in the apportionment of the delegates for the Electoral College in California would somehow disenfranchise voters is ridiculous. Disenfranchisement is the act of depriving someone of their right to vote. This change does not deprive anyone of their right to vote. Second of all, it was the Democrats who attempted (and failed) this same thing in Colorado in 2004. And two states already have this manner of apportionment (Nebraska and Maine).

Now as for the idea of changing the apportionment, I personally oppose the idea. I am a very strong believer in the winner take all method. The proposed change would turn California into 53 county elections and 1 statewide election (for the remaining 2 delegates represented by the two Senate seats). Thus diminishing the power that California current holds within the process of electing the President of the United States.