Why you should hate Republicans, if you don't
As if the nation needed more evidence that Republicans, perhaps not top to bottom but certainly at some levels, are unprincipled, degenerate scum:
A neighbor of mine is a Democrat married to a Republican of the non-scum variety. This morning he went with her to a Republican caucus where she lined up for John McCain. She's not certain she'll vote with the party in November, but she retains hope that it will come to its senses and become the fiscally conservative, forward-thinking body she joined 30 years ago.
While the couple were there, they saw something they described to me at a Demo caucus around noon: A group of "about 100" gathered in the parking lot, got their instructions (part of which my friends overheard) and then went away...to various Democratic caucuses.
This came up because we saw four of them at our neighborhood caucus. They showed up late, claiming to have seen the light and the truth, re-registered as Democrats, and all four lined up with the Obama camp. Obama came out on top by a comfortable margin in our caucus, as he did in three others I checked with just before I started writing this (official results aren't in yet).
"That's what the guy (apparently leading the Repub group) told them to do," my neighbor said in disgust. "They think they can beat Obama because he's black."
Let me interject here that it's possible these were true conversions, brought about by understandable disgust with the incumbent and his party.
But I don't believe it was. I happen to know one of the switch-hitters, and while that's a small sample, the fact that he still says "nigras" and used to call Hillary Clinton "the first dyke" makes it a convincing one.
Is this legal? I'm assured that it is. I'm sure that would be the Rat Bastard Defense: "There's nothing illegal about it. We're working within the system."
Is it a crappy, Bush-era, dishonorable, slime-eating, underhanded, cynical and altogether typically neo-conservative perversion of Democracy?
You tell me. The Rat Bastards.
A neighbor of mine is a Democrat married to a Republican of the non-scum variety. This morning he went with her to a Republican caucus where she lined up for John McCain. She's not certain she'll vote with the party in November, but she retains hope that it will come to its senses and become the fiscally conservative, forward-thinking body she joined 30 years ago.
While the couple were there, they saw something they described to me at a Demo caucus around noon: A group of "about 100" gathered in the parking lot, got their instructions (part of which my friends overheard) and then went away...to various Democratic caucuses.
This came up because we saw four of them at our neighborhood caucus. They showed up late, claiming to have seen the light and the truth, re-registered as Democrats, and all four lined up with the Obama camp. Obama came out on top by a comfortable margin in our caucus, as he did in three others I checked with just before I started writing this (official results aren't in yet).
"That's what the guy (apparently leading the Repub group) told them to do," my neighbor said in disgust. "They think they can beat Obama because he's black."
Let me interject here that it's possible these were true conversions, brought about by understandable disgust with the incumbent and his party.
But I don't believe it was. I happen to know one of the switch-hitters, and while that's a small sample, the fact that he still says "nigras" and used to call Hillary Clinton "the first dyke" makes it a convincing one.
Is this legal? I'm assured that it is. I'm sure that would be the Rat Bastard Defense: "There's nothing illegal about it. We're working within the system."
Is it a crappy, Bush-era, dishonorable, slime-eating, underhanded, cynical and altogether typically neo-conservative perversion of Democracy?
You tell me. The Rat Bastards.
posted by Cory | 12:53 PM
15 Comments:
Your Repub buds approach casts doubts on my wisdom while caucusing. I supported Obama over Hillary because it seems that more of the general public reflexively reject Hillary. Both indviduals seem quite capable and would make good presidents. I hope your local Repubs are wrong and either Obama or Hillary wins in November.
Our precinct had a guy who claimed to be a Kucinich supporter and then told the Clinton group he'd join them if they chose him as a delegate to the county convention. The Clintonites went for it.
When a preference group isn't viable, is in the case of Kucinich pretty much everywhere, those supporters have to realign, or go to a viable preference group. Actually, the Clinton camp SHOULD have wooed him. There is nothing wrong with sending him as a delegate, except he's not as strong a delegate as a true Clinton supporter. There was nothing wrong or underhanded about what happened, Ann.
yeah, i have neighbors who did the same.
but, the democrats chose a process knowing it would exclude certain voters, like those who work on saturdays and can't take hours off to participate. not the most privileged among us. poetic that in so doing they would open the doors to the enemy camp.
the party leaders, at least in washoe county and at the state level, seem to be far more closely aligned with those they let in than those they kept out. the desperate republicans seem to realize that their only hope is in "helping" them carry out their agenda. unfortunately, with such leadership, they may have more than a hope and we may have less than a prayer.
There was a Republican caucus today, too, (and apparently this system was chosen many, many years ago). However, the Republicans didn't allow people to register at the tables. The Democratic party chose not to turn anyone away, including the immoral individuals who would choose to play this game. In the long run, of course, they didn't make much of a difference.
On the first post, I've supported Hillary from the start. She is certainly electable. I get soooo irritated when someone says "anyone but Hillary" or "I can't stand her" and if I ask why, the only thing they have to say is "She's a Clinton." What kind of argument is THAT?
The Nevada Democrats didn't "choose" a caucus system. They were assigned the caucus instead of a primary because the Democratic National Committee added one of each to the pre-February voting schedule in order to give early voting a more representative cross section of voters... South Carolina got the primary, Nevada got the caucus. The caucus is not necessarily bad, although it has its weaknesses: disenfrachising people who work on Saturday and costing a lot in volunteer hours and money are problems. It was an experiment with some glitches.
The Republicans didn't have a caucus. They had a secret ballot style primary, kind of like a straw poll. In and out....
So the Republicans who went to both, who re-registered as Democrats at the caucuses, were probably looking for a little fun in the process and in the choice of candidates since they didn't find any of either in their own event.
Being the Staunch Independent that i am i have decided to sit this one out. Call, me crazy but i still believe in the Convention system to Elect the Candidates..
My Wife did go to see Former President Clinton at the Sparks YMCA ,and she represented us in the Caucus yesterday, so now We have Hillary stickers and signs everywhere, I just asked Her not to put one in the Yard...
Great Article in the "News and Review" i will be E-Mailing the Editor...
My question is this , How Can John McCain be fooling so many People ? He portrays Himself as an outsider when just the opposite is true... My Dad is such a front runner [ if you are not a sports fan , you don't know what i am talking about ] He has lived in Phoenix for most of the last 20 years , lately about 5 miles from McCain., and He has nothing good to Say about the guy... IF THERE WAS ANY SUBSTANCE TOO HIM [MCCAIN], HE WOULD BE MY DAD'S BEST FRIEND...
Personally I don't think McCain could beat Dennis Kucinech in the General , but We still need to remember what happened in 2000...
Never underestimate the power of rich people too get what they want!
These Republicans seem to have borrowed from the paybook of my third grade class -- that is, "boys" nominating "girls" for class president to split their vote.
Anyway, when it comes to "innovative" and "effective" the Democrats have much to teach. To wit:
MILWAUKEE — After nearly two weeks of testimony about tire-slashing, political sabotage and campaign shenanigans, the son of a U.S. congresswoman, the son of a former mayor of Milwaukee and two other men reached a plea deal with the state Friday afternoon.
The four pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for slashing the tires of vans rented by the Republican Party to shuttle voters to the polls during the 2004 presidential election.
As I recall the vans were to take senior citizens to the polls. My take, the "perps" were simply concerned about global warming in the Milwaukee area and were trying to reduce the CO2 footprint.
At the caucus location where I served as "Greeter", directing those that needed to register Democrat in order to caucus, there were an insignificant number of admitted repubs wishing to become a Democrat, at least for the day. In the caucus in which I participated Clinton, Obama and Edwards each received one delegate. It would have taken at least 20 more democracy-hating repubs to have altered the outcome; I suspect that this was typical statewide. Their unethical effort to effect the outcome was a miserable failure. Some of these repubs may actually have been interested in casting a vote for whom, they must concede, will be the next President of the United States.
If we feel it is necessary to counter this sort of despicable behavior, next time we should caucus on Sunday, when this particular ilk of repubs are in church, on their knees, praying for whatever hypocrits pray.
Did you see Siobhan McAndrew's column in the Sunday RGJ? SHe voted at both causcuses with the approval of the RGJ.
Unbelievable.
I'd love to read your take on Siobhan McAndrew's article in yesterday's RGJ.
Yes, it's dirty and underhanded, but Democrats are doing it, too.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206
Let's see now, who authorized the system that allowed voters to register at the Democratic caucus on the very day of the caucus? Was it the Republicans that came up with the dastardly plan to subvert the Democratic caucuses? What Dirty Rat Bastards came up with the plan anyway? What did they expect, clean, honest, above board politics?
The naivety of that is akin to that of believing Hillary Clinton will change anything.
If you put the plan into place why is it unbelieveable that anyone would take advantage of it? If you back your car out of the garage in the morning, start the engine and go back inside to finish breakfast, should expect your car to be stolen?
As it was explained to me, Honkytonk, "The Democratic party will not be the party to turn away people who want to participate."
Yes, the system allowed the problem. But I have to agree we should not be the party to disenfranchise voters. Any voters. Even Republicans.
Ellen Hopkins, I fully agree that everyone should be able to vote. But, if you create a system to not disenfranchise anywone, don't complain when a few try to subvert the system.
Anyway, both Dems and Reps disenfranchised all military personnel assigned out of state, all elderly unable to get out of doors and anyone traveling out of state. The caucus system is dumb and easily corrupted.
Post a Comment
<< Home