Pop quiz, hotshot: If you win more states and more delegates than your competitor on Super Tuesday, is this a tie?
It is if media say so.
Consider if you will Barack Obama winning thirteen of the 22 states up for grabs Tuesday (New Mexico being still too close to call), and, according to multiple sources, taking home the most delegates. Isn't that a win?
Not according to CBS News.com which offered readers the following headline:
Dems Fight To A Draw On Super TuesdayYet, inside the body of the article - buried deeply in the tenth paragraph - was the following tidbit (emphasis added):Obama Wins Majority Of States, But Clinton Holds Slim Lead In Delegate Race
As the breakdown of states suggests, the race for delegates was close. CBS News estimates Clinton has won 641 of the night's available delegates compared to Obama's 643. Since the race kicked off with the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3, Clinton has won 900 delegates and Obama 824.Actually, as will be discussed later, these statements appear false. But before we get there, ABC News.com was just as evasive in calling a winner offering the following headline:
Clinton Wins Delegate-Rich States; Obama Takes Most StatesDemocratic White House Contenders Battle for Votes, Delegates in 22 StatesInside was the following:
Neither Democratic candidate was able to declare a Super Tuesday victory.Well, that's actually not true, as Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe did indeed declare this a victory for the junior senator from Illinois:
By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary.According to Politico's Mike Allen, one network seems to agree with the Obama camp (emphasis added):
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night's big winner, but Obama's campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts - the delegates who will choose the party's nominee at this summer's Democratic convention.
With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday's contests, while Clinton earned about 830 - "give or take a few," Tim Russert, the network's Washington bureau chief, said on the "Today" show.
As NewsBusters reported on January 19, media did the same three card Monty after the Nevada caucuses.
In fairness, this race is indeed darned close. However, if Hillary ends up winning New Mexico, Obama would have beaten her in the state count Super Tuesday by a margin of 13-9, whilst apparently taking the most delegates, albeit by a scant few.
And, according to Allen, Obama might actually now lead in the delegate count (emphasis added):
The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing “state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”
As such, shouldn't Super Tuesday be reported as an Obama victory, or did the Giants actually tie the Patriots in Sunday's Super Bowl?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Well, Noel, that's a tough
February 6, 2008 - 14:20 ET by fitzfongWell, Noel, that's a tough one. Karl Rove made a very interesting point during the FNC election coverage last night. The big Democrat strongholds like New York, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey went "pragmatic" by selecting a candidate they thought could win in November...Hillary. Obama won in a lot of states where Democrats virtually have no chance in the general election...so the Democrats in that state had license to go "ideologically pure". No doubt Hillary will use that "electability" argument to her advantage as we go on. That and the fact that Zogby can't seem to find his a** with both hands these days seems to make Hillary the front runner. I hope Rove is wrong, but the point made a good deal of sense to me. That said, I enjoyed the fact that Obama clobbered Hillary in her home state.
Fitz
February 6, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Noel SheppardFitz,
Well, I don't think anyone believes the GOP can win in NY, CA, NJ, or MA. The bigger question for me is whether Obama's great performance in MN, CT, DE, and IL could put any of these states in play for the GOP. A win in just one of these could change things a tad, don't you think? ns
IL isn't in play - we have no Republican party
February 6, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Dee BunkWe had a weak one that has always been liberal to begin with and now that the Dems have had control of the legislature and Governor they have rigged the districts and every institution to keep it that way.
Gov Blogo is very unpopular even among Dems but he'll be our Governor for many years because no Republican will ever win. Dems would rather have the most corrupt Dem than the most honest Rep.
CT will not be "in play" either, Dee
February 6, 2008 - 15:51 ET by RJThis is the bluest of blue states. We're so blue, we have a veto-proof Democrat legislature. Even our so-called "Republican" governor is liberal.
And fitz, Lieberman's popularity is a personality (not political) cult. Short of being named McCain's VP, he will have no effect or coat-tails of any kind.
RJ - it's really depressing. My vote never counts for anything
February 6, 2008 - 15:57 ET by Dee Bunkhere except this primary - I could actually help Romney get a couple of Delegates but that is it.
Perhaps, Noel. However,
February 6, 2008 - 14:59 ET by fitzfongPerhaps, Noel. However, I'd say the only one of those swing states you mention that might be in play for the Republicans come November would be Connecticut...but that all depends on how much pull Joe Lieberman has there. After all, New York is right next door. As for Illinois...it will be portrayed as the home state of either Democrat nominee...plus the unions and the "machine" should take care of those electoral votes. Minnesota probably depends on how vulnerable Norm Coleman is to Democrat opposition (is Franken definitely going to be the Democrat challenger?). I don't see too much hope for Delaware...they keep electing that serial windbag Joe Biden. I believe the larger point of Rove's comment was the fact that the big state Democrats are choosing the candidate they think has the best chance of winning (Clinton) rather than the candidate they like most (Obama). After all, she overcame the Kennedys and John Kerry to win Massachusetts. Will that mentality solidify Clinton's front runner status and push her towards the nomination? Maybe she is the candidate of inevitability?
Fitz
February 6, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Noel SheppardFitz,
Maybe. But is it also possible that Rove is "touting his positions?"
What this means in investor terms is when an analyst, trader, or fund manager goes on CNBC or the equivalent pushing a stock that he owns. The same could possibly said of Rove who, like most conservatives, might believe Hillary to be easier for the GOP to defeat than Obama.
As such, whatever happens can be spun as good for Hillary if you want her to win. Or, do you think only liberals allow bias to impact their opinions? :-) ns
Noel, I have considered
February 6, 2008 - 15:41 ET by fitzfongNoel,
I have considered that possibility. But if that's the case, I believe Rove is being too clever by half. When you consider that the Democrat turnout in the primaries has been much higher than has the Republican turnout, it suggests to me that the Democrats are so motivated for the general that they'll settle for whomever comes out of the convention. Meaning: the Democrats will come out in large numbers in November no matter who their party serves up...the Republicans would have to count on the collective distaste for the Clintons to stimulate turnout (because a McCain nomination on its own surely won't). That seems a very risky strategy. Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Rove.
Fitz
February 6, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Noel SheppardFitz,
The Party out of power is always more energized due to its desire to regain it. So, it's not surprising how voter turnout looks right now.
However, if our eventual nominee runs a good campaign, and can effectively demonstrate that this is a battle between capitalism and socialism, as well as a struggle between a strong national defense and appeasement, Republicans will come out in droves in November...I guarantee! ns
Noel - Who is going to demostrate that it's a battle
February 6, 2008 - 16:30 ET by Dee Bunkbetween capitalism and socialism? It won't be McCain. Especially if it's Obama - he's not running ads against him at all.
This election is over. McCain is not a good speaker and he won't differentiate himself from the libs except in Foreign policy. The libs are going to move to the right in the general on Iraq and Afghanistan and they'll speak more eloquently on every other foreign situation. He won't even come close to winning.
Dee
February 6, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
I think McCain WILL do that. And, as soon as the nomination process is done, the RNC will be hearing from a lot of people, including myself, about how this campaign should be waged.
In the end, this really is simple, and easily won. This is about what vision you have for our nation on two fronts: the economy and defense.
If you believe in socialism, check D. If you believe in capitalism and the free market, check R.
If you believe in appeasement and giving our enemies want they want in exchange for peace, check D. If you believe in a strong military, and the right of America to defend itself by force without the approval of the UN and the international community, check R.
Can it be any simpler?
And, regardless of my differences with McCain, I believe he would be vociferously checking R just like most NBers. ns
Who among Obama/Hillary can run as Pro Military ?
February 6, 2008 - 19:45 ET by JayTeePetraeus will appear in the middle of the fray, and lots of talk will proceed about the War..We will hear from McCain and company, and who on the Dem side can even claim victory ? They can claim they tried to stop victory, they can claim they didn't want victory or the war, but they can't stand toe to toe with McCain.
Hopefully, after Texas and Ohio have their say, Romney will be making a move.
You can say McCain won in a lot of States that we do not expect to Go Republican in the Election.
The unfairness of the Republican primary is that McCain lost to Romney in Mass., but picked up 18 delegates anyway, to 22 for Romney. Romney lost in Arizona, but picked up Zero delegates due to winner take all. At least Romeny carried his home state by a 50%+ margin, McCain had 47% in Arizona.
It wasn't a good showing by McCain, and he is still 500+ short on delegates. The party is still going on.
Can it be any
February 6, 2008 - 21:09 ET by lotrCan it be any simpler?
Nope. Pretty straightfoward if you ask me.
I hope you are right Noel
February 6, 2008 - 21:13 ET by Dee BunkI hope you are right Noel, but I'm very skeptical.
Noel, I said it
February 6, 2008 - 22:09 ET by fitzfongNoel,
I said it yesterday, and I'm sure some will find my description over-the-top, but I believe that McCain has essentially won the nomination through a sort of non-violent coup. He exploited the "open" nature of the early primaries and used that unnatural push to generate the current momentum. After the Beltway types jumped on board, it began to snowball. Meanwhile McCain has been using his toady Huckabee as a hitman to run interference for his main Republican competitors. Now, the Beltway types are insisting that we conservatives, who have had an unacceptable candidate foisted upon us before we even had an opportunity to vote (I'm in California, by the way), "grow up" and consolidate behind this highly flawed candidate. Suffice it to say, the arrogant attitudes of people like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and the Last Action Zero (not to mention McCain's mother with her "they have no choice" comment) has made the prospect of falling into line much less appealing. It's going to take a lot more than the threat of Hillary Clinton being President to motivate me to support John McCain in the general. And picking Mike Huckabee as a running mate would not be a good start. I believe that there are a lot of conservatives out there like me, and John McCain has some serious bridge repair to attend to before he becomes acceptable.
Fitz
February 6, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Noel SheppardFitz,
I very much understand your position, up until this:
Why? You want universal healthcare? You want higher taxes? You want a Commander-in-Chief more concerned with how the UN and the international community view our foreign policy than we do? You want someone in the White House more closely resembling the political beliefs of Stalin than Reagan?
If your answer to these questions is "No," your choice is clear. If any of your answers are "Yes," you shouldn't be questioning McCain's conservatism; you should instead be questioning your own. With respect. ns
speculation
February 6, 2008 - 23:11 ET by SemperrightI posted this earlier
I'll polish my chrystal orb and do some prognostication...
Ron Paul goes third party...
Hillary gets the nod and then picks Edwards to VP causing the KOS/anti-war one issue wack jobs to vote for Ron Paul. He picks up about 15% of Dem votes.
McPain wins and picks Huckleberry for VP and tells the Conservative base to pack sand and learn spanish. Conservatives can't find it in their heart to vote for the LibRINO ticket or Hillary/Stalin ticket vote. Some Republicans stay home some Conservatives vote for the closest thing.....Ron Paul.
Final Tally
Hillery......27% pop vote
McCain....34%
Ron Paul ..39%
Just a guess
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
You want someone in the
February 6, 2008 - 23:14 ET by balboaYou want someone in the White House more closely resembling the political beliefs of Stalin than Reagan?
That's a bit much, don't you think? What are the odds that HRC would suddenly impose a Stalinist form of government? I understand your other concerns, even framing "universal healthcare" as a bad thing.
You want someone in the
February 6, 2008 - 23:34 ET by SemperrightYou want someone in the White House more closely resembling the political beliefs of Stalin than Reagan?
No, but we're not given much choice are we. I don't see much difference in McCain, HRC, or Obama. They all are libs. You add 1 to 2 Supreme court appt.s and the madamn soviet speaker to the mix and what do you have? Nothing the founding Fathers would be happy with.
It is a great concern of mine. Call it an over reaction
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Balboa
February 6, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Noel SheppardB,
No, I don't think that's a bit much at all. Frankly, HRC is INDEED closer to Stalin in her politics than Reagan. She views government as the answer, and wants to tax all the productive in the nation to provide for the unproductive.
Want to debate me on this? Trust me, I'm prepared!
Never in my life has there been a clearer choice between socialism and capitalism. And, if you are one of the productive class, you should be JUST as concerned as I am!
Want to be taxed to death because you are part of the majority in this nation that actually produces? Be my guest. However, I have folks closer to me -- they're called my children -- who need and DESERVE my assistance more than people I DON'T KNOW!!!
If more in this country felt this way, we'd be much better off. Sadly, Hillary and Barack feel that I should be supporting people I DON'T KNOW BEFORE I provide for my family.
Explain that logic to me, B! ns
Noel
February 6, 2008 - 23:41 ET by balboaI have no doubt that you can prove Hillary is closer to Stalin than
Reagan. But phrasing it that way implies that if she were elected,
we're headed to communism as well as the attempted elimination of
millions of people. Kind of a scare tactic that's overdone, no?
B
February 6, 2008 - 23:46 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Well, I think that we are headed towards communism if Hillary wins, and that millions nay billions will suffer as a result. If that scares you, it should, because she doesn't believe in democracy or capitalism, and all those in our nation who aren't living off of the government will suffer.
You do the math. I think it's millions! ns
N
February 6, 2008 - 23:50 ET by balboaC'mon. Really? HRC wins, then we can expect communism soon after?
Your
statement doesn't scare me, it makes me think you're exaggerating a lot
for effect, to try and scare people into voting for McCain.
Bal
February 6, 2008 - 23:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Noel can't scare me into voting for McCain, but Hilary and Obama just might. Still hoping it doesn't come to that, but in the end, I must admit that I am doubtful that I will be able to let the dems win without a fight. If McCain is the nominee, I may just have to pull the R lever.
Bal, HRC or McCain,
February 7, 2008 - 00:00 ET by SemperrightBal,
HRC or McCain, what's the difference? McCain will give Pelosi what she wants without hesitation. He will only head left after the primaries and the you will have to look hard to find the differences between the candidates. A lot of people feel this way and it is why voter turn out will be at an all time low. Book it
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
B
February 7, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Noel SheppardB,
What's universal healthcare if not a form of communism? What's taking from the rich to give to the poor if not a form of communism?
I'm sorry to call a spade a spade, but it's been decades - many decades, frankly!!! -- since Democrats were so freely and openly talking about taking from those who have to give to those who don't.
What do you call this? ns
N
February 7, 2008 - 00:06 ET by balboaWhat do I call universal healthcare? "Good"?
Invoking Stalin is just too much, that's all.
How abour Che or maybe Mao
February 7, 2008 - 00:11 ET by SemperrightHow abour Che or maybe Mao is this better?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Only if I can refer to
February 7, 2008 - 00:21 ET by balboaOnly if I can refer to McCain as That Crazy Old Coot and insinuate
that he'll start bombing Moscow as soon as he gets into office.
B
February 7, 2008 - 00:24 ET by SemperrightDeal,
Pinky swear?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
B
February 7, 2008 - 00:20 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Universal healthcare is good? Really? How many Canadians do you know or have spoken to concerning this issue?
I have spoken to many, including on my recent trip across our country. Once again, I sat with Canadians that admitted that those in their country that have money travel to America to avoid long waiting periods.
Think that's good?
Furthermore, my point was that this is communism/socialism. It's taking money from those that have and can afford their own insurance or care to give to those that can't.
Where does this end, B? Should I also have to pay for other people's houses? Or food? Or gas? Or pay for their electric bills? Where does it end? Once I have to pay for other people's healthcare, what else should I be responsible for due to my success and others' lack thereof?
This is indeed communism/socialism, and if you're an American, you should find it just as repulsive as I do regardless of your Party because YOU'RE AMERICAN, and, supposedly NOT A COMMUNIST DARN IT!!! ns
Don't you want people to
February 7, 2008 - 00:28 ET by balboaDon't you want people to get medical care? Or would you rather those
that can't afford it simply die from infections and the common cold?
Shouldn't we want people to have that?
Taking from the rich and
giving to the poor. Socialism, strictly speaking, but don't we have
SOME kind of responsibility to provide for the common good of our own
people? Don't we want to help each other out?
Where does it end? Good question. I don't know. I imagine, like porn, I'd know it if I saw it.
Otherwise,
let's abolish all charities. Screw those without. Tough noogies. Let's
not pay any taxes. You can't afford to pave the street in front of your
own house? Tough. Dirt road, fella.
Doesn't that sound a bit overdone? That's what I think when I hear "Stalin" proposed with any kind of straight face.
Bal, We don't
February 7, 2008 - 00:33 ET by SemperrightBal,
We don't have commie medicine now. Where are they guys with the cart, "bring out your dead". The libs like to invent problems and solve them with, wait for it...........socialism.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Hey, I don't have a problem
February 7, 2008 - 00:35 ET by balboaHey, I don't have a problem with MY healthcare right now.
But there are those who can't afford healthcare. Should they be screwed?
Under the universal plan
February 7, 2008 - 00:39 ET by SemperrightUnder the universal plan you won't have your plan, you'll have theirs, or else. and i'll make a guess it will suck.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Balboa
February 7, 2008 - 00:39 ET by Noel SheppardB,
There are people who can't afford Mercedes Benz's. Should they be screwed? ns
A Mercedes is a nicety. A
February 7, 2008 - 00:41 ET by balboaA Mercedes is a nicety. A perk. An extra.
My hard earned money is a
February 7, 2008 - 00:42 ET by SemperrightMy hard earned money is a perk too?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
No, but the government
February 7, 2008 - 00:46 ET by balboaNo, but the government takes taxes from you right now.
I'm sure the government
February 7, 2008 - 00:55 ET by SemperrightI'm sure the government won't take any more to fund UHC. Hell it's free. I'll be so glad when I can get back the 350 bucks I kick in every month for my own health care and I'm sure my company will so happy they don't have to pony up about 650 bucks for my policy. They will proably just give me the money. Come on free health care I get an extra grand a month. Yipee
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
So in going to the emergency
February 7, 2008 - 00:49 ET by RESTLESS 1So is going to the emergency room for a cold, but many people do. That is part of the reason health care is so high. And hospitals are required to treat life threatening emergencies regardless of ability to pay. People are not dying in droves now, even without UHC. As they say, nothing is as expensive as when it is free.
B
February 7, 2008 - 00:55 ET by Noel SheppardB,
And so is health insurance. This isn't a right bestowed upon us. It's a perk. And, if you can't afford it, it certainly shouldn't be something that government provides to you.
Let me clue you in, B -- if I wasn't married, I wouldn't have it, for it's a waste of my money. Now, understand that I didn't say, "If I didn't have kids."
I said, "If I wasn't married," for if my wife didn't insist, I would self-insure, for it would be MUCH more financially sound. I'm healthy and fit. My kids are healthy and fit. But, to insure them, I have to pay for everybody else's lack of fitness.
I've been paying for health insurance for more than 30 years, and if I would have taken all those premiums and invested them yearly in the stock market, I'd be WAY ahead AFTER all my medical expenses.
As such, health insurance is JUST as much a FOOLISH LUXURY as a Mercedes. And, making me pay for others' insurance is EXACTLY the same as asking me to buy them a Mercedes. That you don't understand this is not my fault, but, unfortunately, soon to be my financial responsibility due to the lack of clarity of folks like yourself.
If you want to buy others a Mercedes with your money, that should be your choice. However, I have kids depending on my ability to recognize what's in their best interest. That you don't shouldn't be to their detriment. With respect. ns
Noel...when I can do so in
February 7, 2008 - 01:13 ET by JerNoel...when I can do so in a thread where the post won't be a column of single words, I'll tell you why I have differing views on universal health care.
Jer
Jer and i got the same problem. Time 4 choice: Math over English
February 7, 2008 - 01:30 ET by upcountrywaterPixels/ unit area WAISTED?
or
scroll whell revolutions/ word
HINT less rev the better.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob.
Balboa, some thoughts...
February 7, 2008 - 10:12 ET by lotrWe have a moral obligation to help the poor, yes. But a government-imposed obligation? Hell no. Charities are based upon volunteer donations, motivated by interior love-of-neighbor, not government-imposed taxes, motivated by elitist-controlled power structures.
Socialism is a flawed, false ideology. It begins with the premise that there is no God. Society and the State thus take precedence over individuals, for a Society may last centuries, whereas individuals last only ~70 years. Individual persons thus become mere economic entities that serve at the pleasure of the State. In the end, Socialism devalues the human person, and the consequences are ever more apparent -- persons are disposable -- their "right to life" is not endowed to them by the Authority of a Loving Creator, but rather the whims of others endowed by the State to have power over them. Altogether a pretty terrifying concept, if you ask me. While it may appear abstract to us here in the comfort of our free United States, there have been millions elsewhere in the world over the past 100 years who have experienced what it means to be "devalued by the State" up close and personal.
That's what I was going to
February 7, 2008 - 16:23 ET by fitzfongThat's what I was going to say. Only I wasn't going to say it as well as you did.
Thanks -- very glad to hear
February 7, 2008 - 17:41 ET by lotrThanks -- very glad to hear you are of like mind.
Noel...how do your liberal
February 7, 2008 - 01:42 ET by JerNoel...how do your liberal parents react to your Stalinist/communism claims regarding Democrats?
Jer
Jer
February 7, 2008 - 01:52 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Why bring my parents into this? As they're not part of this forum, and not here to speak for themselves, is that fair? Doesn't that make this a tad too personal? After all, I'm not asking you about how your family members feel about your views?
Please don't take my questions as vitriolic or hostile. They're not. I'm just wondering if you think my parents, and the fact that they're liberals, should be fair game, especially as I have expressed a tremendous love and adoration for them here regardless of my differences with their politics. ns
Noel...I didn't mean to be
February 7, 2008 - 17:36 ET by JerNoel...I didn't mean to be too personal. It was supposed to be a [mostly] light-hearted question spawned, in part, by your recent revelation that your parents are both "liberals" while you are, of course, otherwise. [In fact, I replied to that post and noted mine were both "conservatives".]
I also recall being touched by your expression of love and and admiration for your mom and dad despite the political differences, and I am sure they are incredibly proud--and are certainly justified in being so--of their son.
So, please forgive me for any misunderstanding I may have caused regarding my intent, and for any hard feelings resulting from my injecting your parents into the debate.
One final point [and the reason I said "mostly" at the beginning of this post]: I do think linking Democrats with Stalin and communism is inappropriate...just as you [and I] would strenuously object to linking Republicans with Hitler and fascism.
Jer
Jer
February 7, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
No offense taken. Just wanted to clarify my assumption, because you know what happens when we assume. :-)
That said, when I've called my parents communists, they've both corrected me, and admitted that they're closer to being socialists. I'm not kidding.
The reality is that, like me, they are often willing to call a spade a spade. They're both for higher taxes with the intent of redistributing wealth. Actually, my father thinks there should be a cap on income and wealth whereby once you earn or amass a certain amount, 100 percent above that mark goes to the government. They also believe that capital gains on everything but real estate should be taxed as regular income, and that estate taxes should begin at dollar one.
I kid you not.
So, when I call them communists nay socialists, not only am I largely right, but they don't really disagree...at least not vigorously. They would like to see America have a universal health care system, and think that there is nowhere near enough federal money being spent on social programs.
With that in mind, they really are a rare breed of liberal willing to admit that they are advocating socialism. I wish more Democrats were as honest, for they'd be MUCH easier to defeat at the polls if they didn't hide their socialist beliefs. ns
Wow, Noel...your folks
February 8, 2008 - 00:26 ET by JerWow, Noel...your folks really are socialists. I feel like a right-wing, Calvin Coolidge laissez faire capitalist by comparison. [They're right about universal health care however]. Anyway, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall around dinner time at the Sheppard household...."Dad, here's five bucks. Now get a haircut by Friday."
Speaking of San Francisco radicals [or do they reside elsewhere?], my sister arrived this evening from Mill Valley, and we then met my brother and his wife for dinner. The latter are an endangered species in the South: Country Club Democrats. [I've waited years in vain for an invitation just to tell the membership committee where to stick it.] Once seated, the thought crossed my mind that there probably hadn't been this many liberals gathered at one table here since Ted Turner rented the banquet room for a Carter fundraiser back in 1980. The real fun came with my shocking disclosure that I would be voting Republican for the first time in my life if Hillary were nominated. For a moment I feared an en masse administration of the Heimlich maneuver would be necessary.
But, it was nice to be in the company of some (relatively) like-minded people for a change. That's a rarity for me in this state.
Jer
BTW, somewhere along the way you learned to think for yourself. If your parents had something to do with instilling that quality...then good for them and you. If they didn't...well, good for you anyway.
I'm beginning to think that
February 8, 2008 - 00:28 ET by balboaI'm beginning to think that Noel's childhood formed the basis of the
show "Family Ties". Noel, do you have a sister named Mallory? :-)
Balboa
February 8, 2008 - 01:19 ET by Noel SheppardB,
No, but I always loved Alex's sister. And, when that show was originally on television, I agreed more with his parents' point of view. MUCH more. :-) ns
Jer
February 8, 2008 - 01:17 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Actually, though I live in the Bay Area now, I was never a San Francisco liberal, nor were my parents. I'm originally from Long Island, where I was born and raised until I left for college.
And yes, they taught me to always think for myself, although I think they're still shocked that they ended up with three conservative sons, and only one as socialist as they are. Actually, my only liberal brother is even to the left of them. :-)
Sounds like a great dinner you had this evening. Nothing like family dinners. That's where I learned just about everything. ;-) ns
Nothing like family
February 8, 2008 - 01:33 ET by JerNothing like family dinners. That's where I learned just about everything.
Couldn't agree more, Noel. But, for a variety of reasons, I think it occurs much less frequently these days. And I'm ashamed to admit that we are among those most guilty. Maybe I just came up with a belated, but worthwhile New Year's resolution.
Jer
Jer and Noel
February 8, 2008 - 01:42 ET by shawn228Do you guys live right in the Liberal lions den of San Francisco? I am in Dublin Ca, which is close to San Ramon and Danville. The majority of these cities vote Republican.
Can't we all get along?
Shawn...I live in
February 8, 2008 - 02:02 ET by JerShawn...I live in Georgia...a state which has been steadily consumed by the Republican "jaws of death" in recent years. <wink>
My sister and her family have lived just outside of San Francisco for almost 30 years.
Jer
Shawn
February 8, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
You're in Dublin? I'm in Danville. Small world. ns
Noel
February 8, 2008 - 11:28 ET by shawn228Wow Danville is beautiful city, especially Blackhawk. Just a hop and skip from San Francisco, but night and day politically huh?
Can't we all get along?
Shawn
February 8, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
Love it here. And, my office is now in Blackhawk Plaza! Very cool. ns
Bal, You're right about
February 6, 2008 - 23:48 ET by SemperrightBal,
You're right about the millions dead. I don't think that it would get that bad but who knows what shape we will be in with socialized meds.
I mean she and here cohorts wouldn't change any laws that would make current law abiding citizens into criminals.
I'm sure the gun laws would be the same and she wouldn't mind at all if you didn't show up for your state require physical. Libs are flexable. right?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Gee, bal, I don't know.
February 7, 2008 - 00:25 ET by R D HelmWhat do you suppose Broom "We're gonna take those profits" Hilda plans to do with those of us who will be seriously resisting the federal government's garnishment of our wages should this hideous woman manage to become POTUS and cram Hillary-Care II down all of our throats?
Do you think we millions who will resist are just going to get a pass of some sort? This is Hillary Clinton we are talking about, currently the second most dangerous woman in America.
Remember, under Hillary-Care I, had it passed, if I went outside of her plan and paid my doc out of my own pocket, she was going to have both me and my doctor arrested, prosecuted and fined all kinds of money.
Don't forget what Bill Clinton did to those kooks over in Waco, who, as far as I know, had violated no laws whatsoever.
The Clinton's have an established track record in this area.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Over 48,000,000 abortions
February 7, 2008 - 09:46 ET by lotrOver 48,000,000 abortions since 1973.
Senate vote on a bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion:
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Sounds rather Stalinesque, if you ask me.
Noel, I'll answer your
February 6, 2008 - 23:50 ET by fitzfongNoel,
I'll answer your questions one-by-one...
Do I want universal healthcare? No. And despite the Clinton rhetoric, I don't believe Hillary will have the ability to impose it even if she wants to. The Democrats were the majority party in both Houses the last time they tried to pull that stunt. Conservative resistance beat it down.
Do I want higher taxes? Absolutely not. But I don't sense making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is high on McCain's list of priorities. He certainly hasn't shown a propensity to support tax cuts while a Senator. And, in my opinion, he lacks the commitment to make the tax issue much more than an empty campaign promise. Chalk this one up to the "bridge repair" I alluded to in my last post. He has a few months to get straight on this.
Regarding the Commander-in-Chief question, I feel the need to go back to his nauseating grandstanding over "torture" in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and his shameful treatment of Donald Rumsfeld. McCain did nothing while Clinton and Bill Cohen stripped the military in the '90s, but got on his high horse with Rumsfeld over the handling of the war...when his indifference in the '90s was one of the direct causes of the "mishandling". Meanwhile McCain reportedly approached John "Respected in the World" Kerry about the possibility of becoming his running mate. Do you think that McCain has any less concern than do the Democrats for some empty perception the Europeans have for our military?
As for the Stalin/Reagan question: I would appreciate it if McCain became more like Reagan and less like Stalin himself. He can be a right little tyrant when the opportunity arises, and he certainly has embraced a lot of liberal and even socialist ideas. His enthusiastic attachment to the Global Warming Mafia is frankly scary.
Look, Noel. I appreciate what you're saying, and I imagine that I will be stocking up on clothespins so I can vote for McCain this November. Hey, I'll admit it...I'm snake bitten...having experienced the aftermath of the Davis Recall/Schwarzenegger Election first hand, I can tell you how unpleasant the thought of electing a RINO President is. Schwarzenegger lacked the will to beat them, so he joined them. And I can see McCain doing the same thing. At that point, the difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain doesn't look so pronounced.
Cheers.
-Fitz
Fitz
February 6, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Noel SheppardFitz,
Understood. Points all well taken. This has been a hard primary for me as well. Didn't know who I was going to vote for yesterday, and had serious moments of remorse. Trust me.
In the end, regardless of my problems with McCain -- and they are numerous -- I think he's a much better option than Hillary or Barack. And, because of my position as a conservsative writer, I have more access to GOP legislators than most. This gives me input which will certainly be more valuable with a Republican in the White House than a Dem.
I understand everyone's problems with McCain. I just feel MUCH closer to him than Obama or Hillary. Fair enough? ns
Noel
February 7, 2008 - 00:16 ET by RESTLESS 1It wouldn't matter who the rep. nominee is, without our diligence, any could go astray. Bush has not been the most conservative of presidents, but when it comes to national security and tax cuts, he is where he should be. These are very important points to me and why I would probably vote McCain should he be the nominee. We will just have to keep a very close eye on him should he win the WH.
Fair enough, Noel. Here's
February 7, 2008 - 00:15 ET by fitzfongFair enough, Noel. Here's hoping Senator McCain joins us.
-fitz
My concern here is that I
February 7, 2008 - 01:08 ET by CortillaenMy concern here is that I don't think McCain can possibly win. Voter apathy is likely to hurt him on the Conservative side, and the "centrist" and independent support he's been enjoying, along with the fawning media, are going to disappear the instant he is the decided Rep candidate. It looks to me that the media side is already gearing up to tear down the candidate they've built. Frankly, I don't think he's got a prayer, and I'm not sure I even want him to win.
Maybe 4-8 years of Hillery/Obama in the White house would galvanize more solid support of real conservative candidates next round, while McCain as POTUS seems likely to demoralize Conservatives and further damage their faith in the Reps to be anything but Dem-lites. Either way, we're looking at the repeal of tax cuts, probable new tax-hikes (a carbon-tax seems likely under either), degradation of the efforts in Iraq (don't even try to tell me McCain won't start pulling troops out to claim he's "doing something" there), another run at McAmnesty, more backroom deals like the Mexican truckers one even if McAmnesty fails again, liberals appointed to the SCOTUS if availabilities occur, continued complicity with the UN, destruction of anti-terrorist intelligence-gathering efforts (closing Guantanamo would just be the start, I'm afraid), likely unchecked incursion by the Chinese in non-military manners, and the list can go on and on. Heck, I can even see McCain helping the gun-grabbers. This election looks to be shaping up into liberal vs slightly-less-liberal.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Cort
February 7, 2008 - 01:27 ET by Noel SheppardCort,
First, forget about whether or not McCain can win, for if this is what consumes other GOPers, and keeps them from the polls in November, he won't.
That said, it's time for folks in America to grow up. Our best and brightest are NOT going to run for office. Why should they? They can be significantly more successful without the strife and torment!
Ronald Reagans come along once in a generation. We won't see another in our lifetimes, and should stop setting the bar this high. Instead, we're destined to step into the voting booth once every two years clutching our noses. Get used to it. I have.
Once you recognize this inconvenient truth, you'll come to the conclusion that it's all a lesser of two evils. McCain isn't my man. However, he's MUCH better than Hillary or Obama.
Have you ever coached sports? I have. At the tryouts, there aren't any A-Rods or Beckhams. There are just kids trying their hardest, and in the draft, you pick the best you can find.
It's the same in politics right now. And, ceding the White House to Billary or Barack hoping that they'll screw things up so badly that we'll be able to take advantage of it four to eight years from now is like accepting your team's mediocrity for almost a decade because it will eventually help you draft better players ten years from now.
How pathetic.
As the Clintons or the Obamas run the country, they'll be stocking the SCOTUS and the entire judiciary with liberal appointees that will impact our nation for many decades.
Have you considered that? If two or three SCOTUS justices resign in the next eight years, would you prefer McCain making these appointments or Hillary? And how about judicial appointments around the country during that period?
Moreover, we are indeed at war with al Qaeda. Regardless of your disdain for McCain, would you rather have him in office during this war, or Hillary/Obama?
I'm sorry, Cort, but this is pretty black and white to me. I understand your disappointment that someone more conservative mightn't win the GOP nomination. However, even if it's McCain, it's MUCH better than the Dem alternative. MUCH!!!
And, much as me, you should become a walking billboard of such pragmatism, for if we don't, our nation will be much the worse.
Our children deserve better than our surrender at this crucial moment in history. ns