…
My theory is that Pelosi is full of herself, because she’s the first female House Speaker, and she is all about legacy (I think she’s very egotistical personally) and doesn’t want to be known throughout time as an “impeacher” or a biatch. …

I hadn’t considered that legacy idea before. Strange, it really should be an obvious one. I guess I wasn’t looking at it from her personal viewpoint.

So, does that mean if Hillary becomes president that she’ll also be put into some awful situation where she has to behave in a pre-scripted manner which pleases the Rich and Republicans?

I don’t think either of those is what America needs these days.

The problem with the Dems is that they actually take a strong positiion, and then they consistently cave. They don’t cave because of votes…they just cave. All anyone can remember is the caving. I don’t think they are very smart. D’oh….

Grrrr!

You sayin’ we should change the Democratic Party to the Spelunkers Party?

Publicity-Shy Giuliani Backer Is Thrust Into Spotlight Giuliani’s California Schemin’ Money Man

This tactic is interesting and deadly in a national election that a state petition could change the way each state counts their electoral votes. I’m surprised that the Republicans aren’t trying to do this in every state where there are significant splits.

Well then they would lose. What they want to do is use this only in those “winner take all” states where there is a firm Democratic majority. If they did it those other States they might lose THEIR advantage in the Winner Take ALL votes. If States like Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia…and even Texas…had these systems Bush would have lost. TWICE!

It only works where the State has about 55-60% Democratic support and heavily Republican districts. That way the go from having Zero electors to getting about 40% of the electors in those States.

And ironically, if you are in either a traditionally Democratic or Republican district it actually reduces the power of your individual vote. A Democratic vote in a strong gerrymandered Republican District has no influence, and vice versa. It really doesn’t mean that “everybody’s vote will count”. In addition it makes the value of California’s votes the equivalent of a State like South Carolinas.
It’s really odd that the California Republican Party basically admit that none of their candidates, especially Giuliani (who is behind this) admits that they won’t appeal to the vast majority of Californians. This despite he fact they have a popular Governor? Instead they have to change the rules of play in one particular state!

egregious @ 43

The question is who is going to certify these signatures if challenged, your new Dem. Secretary of State?

eg – I’m not sure – the Sec of State I think issues the certification, but the counties’ registrars have something to do with it…

It’s a two-step process with the Counties involved in assessing the legitimacy of the original set of signatures, either through sampling or (if less than 50 signatures actually submitted) an actual count. Then the Sec’y of State receives these and examines the proportions of confirmed vs. falsified. If it falls above 110% of a specified number the Initiative qualifies. If it’s below 90% it fails. If it’s between those two numbers it requires detailed signature/id checks of additional samples.

BTW The reports of what has been going on with this particular situation is clearly criminal. The false transmission of infornation about the initiatives and the failure of the individual to allow their names to be obtained is against the code. In addition obstruction the summaries and titles of the initiatives is also against the law.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_guide.htm

Steve-AR @ 167

Anyone who says both parties are the same..just read those two names..The next
President will set the SCOTUS for a generation.

no one is saying they are the same. that is just a strawman.

I would respectfully differ and say that this President has already set the Supreme Court into an embedded Federalist Society right wing skew for a generation and a half whatever else happens and whoever else is involved in the selection process. And if this happens, you can kiss any hope of not having 9 Thomases and Scalias goodbye:

Petition to Steal the Election and Electoral Votes in California

It puts them tenuously close to losing an election that should be a slam dunk based on cascade after cascade of lies about Iraq, Plame, the mafia-esque DOJ that are now trickling out (but you won’t see them on TV–media for the Aruba/Britney/OJ crowd).

And most people have now seen the print media and blog/website but not TV stories about a very real threat to the 2008 Presidential election–the attempt by the Republicans to reconfigure the electoral votes from Caleyforney so that instead of winner take all, they become broken down by percentage which would give 20 important, election winning votes to the Republicans.

See:

Publicity-Shy Giuliani Backer Is Thrust Into Spotlight Giuliani’s California Schemin’ Money Man

This tactic is interesting and deadly in a national election that a state petition could change the way each state counts their electoral votes. I’m surprised that the Republicans aren’t trying to do this in every state where there are significant splits.

selise @ 158

damn. you’re right.

Anyone who says both parties are the same..just read those two names..The next
President will set the SCOTUS for a generation.

no one is saying they are the same. that is just a strawman.

Selise:

1) Pro Labor- I was speaking about support for organized labor. I tend to be pro organized labor and also a free trader- so I don’t necessarily see NAFTA as ant-labor.

2) Gap may have increased- but at the policy level- Clinton RAISED taxes on the wealthy- which is the reason they impeached his ass.

3) No child left behind was a bad law- but not in the sense of bad ideologically- it was just poorly thought out.

4)What about the energy bill?

1) labor saw nafta (and wto and china trade) as anti-labor.

2) iirc taxes were increased from 35% to 39% (i tired to look it up, but that is my memory) – a good thing, but not enough to share the benefits of increasing productivity (hence my comments and the widening gap).

3) i think nclb was a bad idea all around – students are now (even more) being taught to the test, which means they are memorizing more and learning how to think less. i don’t know as much about the other subjects – but this is really a problem for science teaching, where learning how to do science is much more important than memorizing a bunch of “facts”.

4) energy bill – start here, and then add lame cafe standards and stupid ethanol subsidies.

Eli @ 150

Roberts. Alito.

Hillary has one of the best records of voting against Bush judicial nominees.

link

I’m not afraid of HRC at all, and I will vote for her if she is the nominee. I was never, ever frightened during Bill’s tenure.

The Busheviks, Bushevistas, whatever….they scare me…They must go. I’m worried, however, that Jeb is appearing with Rove…

Don’t forget that the voter irregularities occurred in Florida, under his governorship, and that he did this:

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm

Jane Harman, (Changed by primary scare? Yea right.) Is back to her old ways with this Bill which passed 404-6
(snip)
While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill doesn’t criminalize any specific conduct or contain penalties. But the commission’s findings will be cited by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who will demand enactment of criminal penalties that further restrict free speech and other civil liberties. Action contrary to the commission’s findings will be interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of patriotism at the least.

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.
(snip)

link

Steve…I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that groups who actually are planning or threatening attacks on the government or people are not terrorist? That they actually have to succeed in making an attack?

There’s a difference between an individual saying something absurd and a group actually discussing and developing plans for some sort of attack…whether they pull it off successfully or not.

But it clearly does open the door to some pretty contentious areas. When the NRA says that they believe their members should be armed in order to resist the government if they attempt to register or restrict their use of their guns…THAT could be construed as a threat involving violence to influence a political agenda.

If a group plans and places nooses on the doors of college faculty members because the advocated civil rights for minorities, immigrants, or GLBT individuals THAT could be studied by the Harman committee.

But by your definition neither could be assessed as “homegrown terrorism” (or a precursor to it).

IMO it is simply bizarre that we can get injunctions against an individual who make personal violent threats against someone…yet when it’s a group, who are actually far more threatening to a particular victim since they face large numbers of, often anonymous, harassers…this can be construed as “free speech” and any effort to study or stop it is called “thought crime.