Democrats on the march

[Guest Twizzler]

My overall point is that voting for somebody simply for the sake of unity is stupid.

Here's one more policy position from Obama's Web site. Enjoy:

Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

“But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”

—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Is that a brilliant plan or what? The man's a genius!

To do anything in national policy solely for unity's sake is stupid. So why do Republicans call everyone who questions their president unpatriotic? That's all about unity, but not for anything that lifts us up and makes us better. It's just a longing for conformity based on fear. "Please, please! Everyone be the same so I don't get confused! Everyone get behind what the president says is true, so I won't have to think about whether it actually is true!" Or the biggest lie ever told to the American people, which is what it is.

Sometimes I think the left pays you to write stupid things. What you're quoting from Obama - he was absolutely right. Lincoln Chafee, the only Republican senator to oppose the war authorization, insisted that the administration show him the hard evidence of WMDs. When they did, he saw they didn't have anything. So he voted not to authorize. What Obama is describing is exactly what happened. You and tens of millions of other Americans were sold a false bill of goods and you bought it, without questioning. Because after all, we need unity in the post-9/11 world, right?!

As usual, you were wrong. So now it's time for someone who got it right to take over. The only serious presidential candidate who fits that description is Barack Obama.

Now he's being criticized for giving speeches - by opponents giving speeches. They're just not as good at it as he is. If they were, they would do it. Maybe they don't have his vision. That's what it looks like.

So pick away all you want. Your blind, authoritarian view of the world has seen its best days. A new star is on the horizon.

[Guest Twizzler]

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.[/b]

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_...k-obama-on.html

Escape hatch.

Stupid,

Anyone running for president who doesn't admit that is either as ignorant as you are (highly unlikely) or lying. Let's say, for example, that Al Qaeda suddenly decides to come charging into Iraq with all its forces and engage the US military head-on. That would change things. Or let's say Iran invades, or Pakistan. A president always has to keep his options open because in world military affairs, things happen that no one could have predicted a year or five or ten years earlier. It doesn't matter how far-fetched any particular scenario may seem today. Crazy things happen in world affairs, and more to the point, no one can predict everything that may happen. Every president reserves the right as commander-in-chief to assess the situation at the time.

Unfortunately, we've learned not to trust our politicians. As a group, they've given us plenty of reasons for that. Still, like it or not, the presidency is a position of trust. There are no iron-clad guarantees, no matter what anyone says, and anyone who gives them to you is lying.

That's the problem right now. We're demanding that our political leaders to lie to us.

[Bryan]

To do anything in national policy solely for unity's sake is stupid.

About time you admitted it.

So why do Republicans call everyone who questions their president unpatriotic?

They didn't. Republicans regularly questioned Bush, if you'll recall. Some conservatives called some of the attacks on Bush unpatriotic, probably sometimes when they shouldn't have.

Sometimes I think the left pays you to write stupid things. What you're quoting from Obama - he was absolutely right.

Regardless of whether he was right or not (he wasn't), it isn't a plan to end the war. You can't have failed to see that was my point, can you?

Lincoln Chafee, the only Republican senator to oppose the war authorization, insisted that the administration show him the hard evidence of WMDs. When they did, he saw they didn't have anything. So he voted not to authorize. What Obama is describing is exactly what happened. You and tens of millions of other Americans were sold a false bill of goods and you bought it, without questioning. Because after all, we need unity in the post-9/11 world, right?!

As usual, you were wrong.

About what was I wrong?

So now it's time for someone who got it right to take over. The only serious presidential candidate who fits that description is Barack Obama.

We don't have any other first-term Senators with something approaching his qualifications?

By "serious" I guess you mean popular.

Now he's being criticized for giving speeches - by opponents giving speeches. They're just not as good at it as he is. If they were, they would do it. Maybe they don't have his vision. That's what it looks like.

So pick away all you want. Your blind, authoritarian view of the world has seen its best days. A new star is on the horizon.

Amazing. You're still in denial of the fact that Obama is running on platitudes at present. And you spin it as though I'm attacking him on that basis--as if you're not even reading my posts. One more time: Obama is smart to campaign this way. And you'll see why whenever he has to debate policy.

[Bryan]

Stupid,

Anyone running for president who doesn't admit that is either as ignorant as you are (highly unlikely) or lying.

Well, you got the insults out of the way. When do you address the point?

Let's say, for example, that Al Qaeda suddenly decides to come charging into Iraq with all its forces and engage the US military head-on. That would change things. Or let's say Iran invades, or Pakistan. A president always has to keep his options open because in world military affairs, things happen that no one could have predicted a year or five or ten years earlier. It doesn't matter how far-fetched any particular scenario may seem today. Crazy things happen in world affairs, and more to the point, no one can predict everything that may happen. Every president reserves the right as commander-in-chief to assess the situation at the time.

So obviously he cannot use his statement as an escape hatch?

Unfortunately, we've learned not to trust our politicians. As a group, they've given us plenty of reasons for that. Still, like it or not, the presidency is a position of trust. There are no iron-clad guarantees, no matter what anyone says, and anyone who gives them to you is lying.

That's the problem right now. We're demanding that our political leaders to lie to us.

It's an unfortunate demand of the electoral structure. The American president provides a figurehead of authority to the American people beyond his constitutional role--presidential power isn't all that great in our system. To get elected, candidates have to make their promises based on what they will try to do, not what they have the power to deliver.

It's funny how you insult me and don't even address the point, by the way.

[Guest Guest]

Republicans regularly questioned Bush, if you'll recall.

We don't have any other first-term Senators with something approaching his qualifications?

By "serious" I guess you mean popular.

Obama is popular. He is also serious in his own right: smart, knowledgeable and responsible. So you may have guessed wrong.

We don't have anyone else, in or out of politics, who can draw the country together and lead it as president. Not Clinton, not McCain, or anyone else except Obama. He is the one person who has a chance of pulling together the American people sufficiently to bring about real change over the kicking and screaming opposition of entrenched power. That alone is not enough to qualify him for the presidency, but it is very important, and it gives him a natural advantage over every other candidate.

The only other questions are whether he is qualified and suitable to the presidency. Let's not use Bush as a standard because if we do that, my dog is qualified and suitable. Obama's policy statements are sufficiently specific. Don't just listen to his speeches. Read his website and look at his votes, along with his history as a community organizer and lawyer. It's clear enough where he stands on important issues. You would like to impose another standard because he is ahead, and you don't want him to be ahead. It should be the same standard for him as for anyone else. You want to talk about McCain, let's talk about the flip-flops, including the flip-flop on torture, the most important issue of his personal life - if he'll sell his soul on that, how can we trust him? One hundred years in Iraq - what a stupid thing to say, never mind how irresponsible it is. Clinton - everyone knows she bends to the wind. We've had many presidents who did that. Some of us just think it would be nice to have one come into the job without a long history of that.

Hardly any Republicans questioned Bush. They rubber-stamped his entire disastrous presidency.

[Guest Guest]

Well, you got the insults out of the way. When do you address the point?

The point was addressed. You tried criticizing Obama for stating the obvious, and you were called on it. You ridiculed him for pointing out that the president always retains the power as commander-in-chief to respond to the situation at the time. That's why a responsible president does not make iron-clad promises about military involvements. That was the point, it was addressed, and once again you got spanked.

When a docile Congress does whatever the president wants, including a complete remaking of the federal judiciary in his image, he is no mere figurehead. Under Bush and the Republican Congresses of the first six years of his tenure, we have seen the dismantling of the Constitution on many levels, including the loss of our system of checks and balances. We're upset with the Democrats not because we like the Republicans, but because they haven't done enough to restore an appropriate balance. When are you going to stop playinig with words?

[Guest Truth Squad]

Fair?

Who's paying for it?

You are pathetic. It makes no sense to hold primaries and caucasuss all over the country, only to have the fairness of the process called into question by no-contests in two large states. What about the money spent on all the other contests all over the country - why go to the trouble if Florida and Michigan are just going to select delegates Katherine Harris style?

Grow up, Bryan. The cost of special elections or caucuses in Florida and Michigan, on the Democratic side, is far better than casting doubt on the entire nominating process.

[Bryan]

The point was addressed. You tried criticizing Obama for stating the obvious, and you were called on it. You ridiculed him for pointing out that the president always retains the power as commander-in-chief to respond to the situation at the time. That's why a responsible president does not make iron-clad promises about military involvements. That was the point, it was addressed, and once again you got spanked.

The point was that the statement operates as an escape hatch. Nobody has dealt with it other than to acknowledge it (sometimes combining the acknowledgment with claims implying some sort of defeat for me).

When a docile Congress does whatever the president wants, including a complete remaking of the federal judiciary in his image, he is no mere figurehead. Under Bush and the Republican Congresses of the first six years of his tenure, we have seen the dismantling of the Constitution on many levels, including the loss of our system of checks and balances. We're upset with the Democrats not because we like the Republicans, but because they haven't done enough to restore an appropriate balance.

There are still too many responsible people in your party. You need to do something about that.

Get rid of Rockefeller and Feinstein. They sometimes make sense. Replace them with Kucinich clones. Get that Department of Peace added to the executive branch.

When are you going to stop playinig with words?

Fallacy of the complex question.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

[Guest Keith-Marshall,MO]

The point was that the statement operates as an escape hatch. Nobody has dealt with it other than to acknowledge it (sometimes combining the acknowledgment with claims implying some sort of defeat for me).

There are still too many responsible people in your party. You need to do something about that.

Get rid of Rockefeller and Feinstein. They sometimes make sense. Replace them with Kucinich clones. Get that Department of Peace added to the executive branch.

Fallacy of the complex question.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

Department of Peace? Not a bad idea actually.

[Bryan]

You are pathetic.

Do tell.

It makes no sense to hold primaries and caucasuss all over the country, only to have the fairness of the process called into question by no-contests in two large states.

Maybe the Democratic Party should have thought of that sooner? No problem. They can correct their mistake at the expense of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and non-voters in Michigan and Florida. What could be fairer than that?

What about the money spent on all the other contests all over the country - why go to the trouble if Florida and Michigan are just going to select delegates Katherine Harris style?

You're an idiot. You need to educate yourself. This problem is the fault of the Democratic Party and nobody else's. They made the rule that the delegates wouldn't count and insisted on enforcing it on Michigan and Florida. Now that it looks controversial they want somebody else to pay for their mistake?

Grow up, Bryan. The cost of special elections or caucuses in Florida and Michigan, on the Democratic side, is far better than casting doubt on the entire nominating process.

And what do you care if Republicans and Independents pay for the mistake of your party leaders? To be really fair, I suppose, all U.S. citizens who are not Democrats should give all they possess to the Democrats.

Michigan and Florida held valid primaries paid for by those states. It's the Democratic Party's problem if they don't accept the results. The states shouldn't have to pay for two primaries just because Democrats are stupid.

[WilliamK]

When are you going to stop playinig with words?

Fallacy of the complex question.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

From your own link:

The classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would not be a fallacy unless explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming without evidence that you beat your wife, and this is the very point he wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this example in such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs.

Notice that part about "assuming without evidence"? This was no more a "fallacy of the complex question" than asking someone with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth when he's going to stop smoking.

The point was that the statement operates as an escape hatch.

Nice wordplay, Bryan. That was not your primary point at all, but was merely something you offered as supporting evidence. Your point was, and this is in your own words: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way."

You presented the "escape hatch" as though it supports your contention that Obama is making promises that he doesn't really intend to follow through with. Twizzler did not propose that the "escape hatch" doesn't exist. His point was that it indicates only that the man is sane, not that his stated intent is untrue.

Twizzler did address your point, Bryan. Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words".

[Bryan]

Fallacy of the complex question.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

From your own link:

Notice that part about "assuming without evidence"? This was no more a "fallacy of the complex question" than asking someone with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth when he's going to stop smoking.

So where' the evidence, o player with words?

Nice wordplay, Bryan. That was not your primary point at all, but was merely something you offered as supporting evidence. Your point was, and this is in your own words: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way."

You presented the "escape hatch" as though it supports your contention that Obama is making promises that he doesn't really intend to follow through with.

It does support it. Obviously so.

Twizzler did not propose that the "escape hatch" doesn't exist. His point was that it indicates only that the man is sane, not that his stated intent is untrue.

That doesn't follow. It indicates clearly that Obama has an escape hatch regardless of what he ends up doing. Denying that he has provided himself an escape hatch is a fantasy, albeit apparently one that you believe.

Twizzler did address your point, Bryan.

Through the magic of your illogical reasoning? Whatever.

Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words".

The ancillary point is the one at issue, WilliamK. As you noted, Twizzler's attempt to make it seem that his intent to end the war is unequivocal consisted of denying the ancillary point. As I pointed out above for your benefit, his attempt is illogical.

Since Twizzler failed to undermine the ancillary point, it continues to stand in support of my statement indicating my skepticism that Obama and Clinton are actually as stupid as their policy statements portray them.

[Bryan]

Department of Peace? Not a bad idea actually.

Yeah, it's quite in keeping with the Democratic commitment to fiscal responsibility.

[WilliamK]

So where' the evidence, o player with words?

The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied. Is your question meant to imply that I did not provide any? If you contend that this deceit was not your purpose, then I challenge you to explain why else you would make a demand for evidence that has already been submitted.

And before you respond, I'd like to point out that whether you agree with the conclusion drawn from said evidence, and whether you think the volume of evidence provided is sufficient, are separate questions from whether any evidence exists or whether I've provided any.

[WilliamK]

It does support it. Obviously so.

Interesting assertion. But where's the supporting argument? You'll need something better than "Obviously so.", or merely rewording the assertion.

That doesn't follow. It indicates clearly that Obama has an escape hatch regardless of what he ends up doing.

Hmm.. So, the existence of an escape hatch clearly indicates the existence of an escape hatch? Are you really, truly, trying to convince us that this is what you were arguing, and that this is what Twizzler was arguing against? I thought you were presenting the existence of the escape hatch as evidence of insincerity in Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq. I still think that, so, I will proceed on that basis and write off the above nonsense as just another bungled attempt to steer the debate back to something that you merely wish that Twizzler and I were attacking because it would be easier to defend than your actual claim.

Now, back to the real point of contention. Unless you're prepared to argue that any plan other than a completely inflexible one is inherently insincere, you're all wet. For anyone who is not completely unwilling to adapt to changes or correct errors, there's always an "escape hatch", whether stated or not. And because it's always there independent of one's sincerity, it indicates nothing at all about one's sincerity.

If you want to back up your claim that Obama is making promises he doesn't intend to keep, you'll need to cite something that is different between those who do that vs. those who don't. Just as if you were to accuse him of kicking puppies, you'd need something better than the fact that he has legs.

[WilliamK]

Denying that he has provided himself an escape hatch is a fantasy, ...

Indeed it is.

...albeit apparently one that you believe.

Liar. I challenge you to either prove that or retract it.

Through the magic of your illogical reasoning? Whatever.

The ancillary point is the one at issue, WilliamK.

Only in your fantasy, Bryan. No one has challenged that point outside of your own imagination. Only its relevance to your primary claim.

As you noted, Twizzler's attempt to make it seem that his intent to end the war is unequivocal consisted of denying the ancillary point.

Wow, Bryan. Three lies in one sentence. I'll address them separately.

1) Twizzler did not attempt to make Obama's intent seem unequivocal. He merely challenged the validity of your claim.

2) Twizzler's method did not consist of denying the ancillary point, but of explaining why it doesn't support your claim.

3) I never "noted" that Twizzler did what you claim. On the contrary, I contend that he did not.

As I pointed out above for your benefit, his attempt is illogical.

He made no such attempt. You're just flat out lying, Bryan.

Since Twizzler failed to undermine the ancillary point, it continues to stand in support of my statement indicating my skepticism that Obama and Clinton are actually as stupid as their policy statements portray them.

There is no need to undermine the ancillary point. That it does not support your claim is independent of whether it is true. And the only stupidity you've managed to indicate is your own.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe the Democratic Party should have thought of that sooner? No problem. They can correct their mistake at the expense of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and non-voters in Michigan and Florida. What could be fairer than that?

You're an idiot. You need to educate yourself. This problem is the fault of the Democratic Party and nobody else's. They made the rule that the delegates wouldn't count and insisted on enforcing it on Michigan and Florida. Now that it looks controversial they want somebody else to pay for their mistake?

And what do you care if Republicans and Independents pay for the mistake of your party leaders? To be really fair, I suppose, all U.S. citizens who are not Democrats should give all they possess to the Democrats.

Michigan and Florida held valid primaries paid for by those states. It's the Democratic Party's problem if they don't accept the results. The states shouldn't have to pay for two primaries just because Democrats are stupid.

Typical Bryan. Argue about everything. Split the last hair. Solve nothing.

What matters most is a fair presidential election, including the primaries. Let the voters call responsible parties to account at the next election.

However, since you want to cast blame, it was the Republican legislature and Republican governor in Florida who mandated an early primary.

[Bryan]

The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied.

Then cutting and pasting it into your reply should be child's play.

Except for the fact that it would be obvious that your evidence isn't what you think it is.

Is your question meant to imply that I did not provide any?

I don't believe that you provided any. I certainly couldn't see it. I figured you could help by specifically highlighting what you think is evidence in support of your claim. But maybe that's too difficult for you ...

If you contend that this deceit was not your purpose, then I challenge you to explain why else you would make a demand for evidence that has already been submitted.

I asked for the location of the evidence. If you think you've already submitted it, then you're free to draw on that source. So far, it looks like you've got nothing. I can give you a tutorial on how to use the cut-and-paste feature of your computer if that would help you, WilliamK.

And before you respond, I'd like to point out that whether you agree with the conclusion drawn from said evidence, and whether you think the volume of evidence provided is sufficient, are separate questions from whether any evidence exists or whether I've provided any.

Indeed. Those can wait until you have identified what you think is evidence. Will you ever get around to that, or will you keep dancing around like you are at present?

[Bryan]

Indeed it is.

Since you concede my observation, why are you arguing?

Liar. I challenge you to either prove that or retract it.

I need to prove that it appeared that you did not think it was an escape hatch? Can't you just take my word for it, since my perception is the thing asserted? I can explain my perception, if that will help you, WilliamK.

I can't imagine why you would argue with me over a point that has been conceded. Thus I concluded that you probably didn't think it was an escape hatch comment by Obama.

Shall I challenge you to prove your accusation that I am lying or else retract it?

The ancillary point is the one at issue, WilliamK.

Only in your fantasy, Bryan. No one has challenged that point outside of your own imagination. Only its relevance to your primary claim.

Way to play with words, there, buddy.

If the relevance of the ancillary point is at issue, then why isn't the ancillary point therefore at issue?

Wow, Bryan. Three lies in one sentence. I'll address them separately.

1) Twizzler did not attempt to make Obama's intent seem unequivocal. He merely challenged the validity of your claim.

A) The context of Twizzler's reply appears to indicate that he wanted to support the reliability of Obama's intent.

What claim do you think he was challenging?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82753

2) Twizzler's method did not consist of denying the ancillary point, but of explaining why it doesn't support your claim.

Why, if that's the case, didn't he say so? Read his post.

3) I never "noted" that Twizzler did what you claim. On the contrary, I contend that he did not.

"His point was that it indicates only that the man is sane, not that his stated intent is untrue."

Twizzler only emphasized the former clause, which does not address my point that Obama gave himself an escape hatch. The rest is your interpretation, WilliamK, and despite your fevered imagination the latter clause as it relates to the ancillary point doesn't have anything to do with my argument.

He made no such attempt. You're just flat out lying, Bryan.

You're flat-out lying about me lying, WilliamK.

Twizzler's reply to me drew out in particular my quotation of Obama along with my statement that the quotation represented an escape hatch, and he led off by calling me "Stupid." If he intent was not to undermine my assessment of Obama's words, then he's a poor communicator. It's true, as I pointed out earlier over your denials) that he didn't address my point, but regardless it's perfectly fair to say that his post was denying the "ancillary" point as you put it.

What it comes down to, I think, is your supposition that the quotation is supposed to prove that Obama doesn't intend to follow through on his promises. But that was never my argument at all. Providing an escape hatch as he did provides support for the notion that Obama is playing his audience because such language would be a prediction for a candidate with the intent of pleasing his audience while intending what may be a more sensible policy than his stated policy at a later time.

In making that assumption about my argument, WilliamK, you simply ignore the clarifying remarks I've made since as well as the logic of the original post. I guess you'll apologize now.

There is no need to undermine the ancillary point. That it does not support your claim is independent of whether it is true. And the only stupidity you've managed to indicate is your own.

Tell me how support=proof, o player-with-words. The support is obvious, and I've explained it for the slow of mind.

[Bryan]

Typical Bryan. Argue about everything. Split the last hair. Solve nothing.

Typical "Guest"--avoid the issue in favor of personal attacks.

What matters most is a fair presidential election, including the primaries. Let the voters call responsible parties to account at the next election.

We don't vote for the Democratic Party leadership. They are the ones who intend to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. The party leadership is a different entity from the Democratic leaders in the federal government. Democrats appoint their party leaders (such as the chairman, Howard Dean).

However, since you want to cast blame, it was the Republican legislature and Republican governor in Florida who mandated an early primary.

The Florida House voted unanimously to move it up on Thursday, a week after the Senate approved the measure. In the same legislation, it approved Gov. Charlie Crist’s plan to replace the touch-screen voting machines used in many of Florida’s counties with paper ballots counted by scanning machines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html

I notice you didn't mention Michigan.

"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats were the ones pushing to move to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...261008423_x.htm

The impetus for moving up primaries is bipartisan, coming from states that find they have little say in who obtains the nomination simply because of a process set up by the respective parties. It's ignorant or dishonest not to acknowledge the fact.

The Democratic Party has choices. It can insist on its arcane system of rules and disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan, or it can change its rules. The Republican Party had a similar choice to make, for the same reasons. Now the Democrats want taxpayers in Michigan and Florida pay for their bad judgment? Sorry, that's not fair no matter how you slice it.

[Guest Guest]

Typical "Guest"--avoid the issue in favor of personal attacks.

We don't vote for the Democratic Party leadership. They are the ones who intend to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. The party leadership is a different entity from the Democratic leaders in the federal government. Democrats appoint their party leaders (such as the chairman, Howard Dean).

The Florida House voted unanimously to move it up on Thursday, a week after the Senate approved the measure. In the same legislation, it approved Gov. Charlie Crist’s plan to replace the touch-screen voting machines used in many of Florida’s counties with paper ballots counted by scanning machines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html

I notice you didn't mention Michigan.

"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats were the ones pushing to move to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...261008423_x.htm

The impetus for moving up primaries is bipartisan, coming from states that find they have little say in who obtains the nomination simply because of a process set up by the respective parties. It's ignorant or dishonest not to acknowledge the fact.

The Democratic Party has choices. It can insist on its arcane system of rules and disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan, or it can change its rules. The Republican Party had a similar choice to make, for the same reasons. Now the Democrats want taxpayers in Michigan and Florida pay for their bad judgment? Sorry, that's not fair no matter how you slice it.

Bryan, you are perhaps the most obtuse ass I have ever encountered. It's the people who matter, and our democratic system and the validity of the election. All you want to do is cast blame, and take credit for being much smarter than you are.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you are perhaps the most obtuse ass I have ever encountered. It's the people who matter, and our democratic system and the validity of the election. All you want to do is cast blame, and take credit for being much smarter than you are.

There you have it. "Guest," apparently a Democrat, evidently sees nothing wrong with charging Michigan and Florida taxpayers a few million dollars so that the Democratic Party can stick to its stupid set of rules without looking like the hypocrites they are.

The party rules from the primaries are in need of reform. The states have taken that into their own hands and shouldn't be blamed. Why should Iowa get the chance to pick the early front-runner and not Idaho? Why should New Hampshire have the first primary year after year, allowing that state a large share in determining primary momentum? The almighty parties declare it; it is the duty of the states to obey--for the good of all, of course.

Your party flubbed up and they'll have to live with it. So will you.

[Guest Twizzler]

There you have it. "Guest," apparently a Democrat, evidently sees nothing wrong with charging Michigan and Florida taxpayers a few million dollars so that the Democratic Party can stick to its stupid set of rules without looking like the hypocrites they are.

The party rules from the primaries are in need of reform. The states have taken that into their own hands and shouldn't be blamed. Why should Iowa get the chance to pick the early front-runner and not Idaho? Why should New Hampshire have the first primary year after year, allowing that state a large share in determining primary momentum? The almighty parties declare it; it is the duty of the states to obey--for the good of all, of course.

Your party flubbed up and they'll have to live with it. So will you.

Bryan, obviously a Republican, thinks that blaming the Democratic party is more important than the integrity of the election, in other words, electing the person the American people actually want to be their president. We get your position. I even agree with you that the Democratic party is culpable; so, however, are the Republicans, especially in Florida. We just disagree with your evaluation of what is most important. These days, the president has the whole country, and the world, in his hands and on his shoulders. It's worth far more than a few million dollars to have a fair election that leaves everyone satisfied that their candidate had a fair chance.

I agree with you, though, that the current system needs fixing. I would favor regional primaries, with dates pre-selected, and each region assigned a date according either to a random draw, or a rotating order.

[Bryan]

Bryan, obviously a Republican, thinks that blaming the Democratic party is more important than the integrity of the election, in other words, electing the person the American people actually want to be their president.

No surprise, Twizzler takes pains to avoid commenting on the aspects of the party-enforced primary system that undermine the integrity of the election. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire be first, coward?

I think the system of electors is a good idea, by the way. It doesn't matter to me if the winner of the electoral vote doesn't have the most popular votes.

The electoral system is a device of the government, however. The primary system is controlled by the parties (with various proceedings administered by the states). Big difference.

We get your position. I even agree with you that the Democratic party is culpable; so, however, are the Republicans, especially in Florida.

Be a good state, Florida, and just accept the role in the primaries assigned to you by the parties.

The system needs reform. I don't think the states solve the problem by racing to the front of the primary order (in a close primary the states at the end have the power), but at least it puts pressure on the parties to reform the process. As for the problem with the race between Clinton and Obama, the Democratic Party should have seen it coming. If they want another primary in Michigan or Florida then let them pay for it.

We just disagree with your evaluation of what is most important. These days, the president has the whole country, and the world, in his hands and on his shoulders. It's worth far more than a few million dollars to have a fair election that leaves everyone satisfied that their candidate had a fair chance.

Great. Let your party put up the money where your mouth is. See if they're hypocrites or not.

I agree with you, though, that the current system needs fixing. I would favor regional primaries, with dates pre-selected, and each region assigned a date according either to a random draw, or a rotating order.

Believe it or not, the system has been improving over the years.

Florida and other states gave the parties a boot to the rear with this one (both parties, not just the Democratic Party).

Seriously, shouldn't the Democratic Party have immediately noticed that they'd be disenfranchising voters by preventing state delegates from taking their seats? The party that whines about disenfranchisement does exactly what it deplores? Did they need it written on the wall of their corporate headquarters or what?

They knew what could happen. They rolled the dice that it wouldn't be close in favor of sticking to the traditional format. They lost the roll, and now some want to have taxpayers in Michigan and Florida pay for that error? It's outrageous, but on the other hand it's in keeping with "progressive" thinking. Taxpayers should foot the bill for more or less everything (on a progressive basis, pun intended).

[Guest Twizzler]

Obama is winning more votes alone than all the Republicans combined.