Thursday, April 03, 2008

Too Close to Call?

Thanks to all that have contributed to this very lively and insightful discussion of our Presidential rivals. It is obvious that this is going to be a very close race... which begs these questions:

If the election can not be determined by a majority electorate vote, what are your feelings about letting "Super-delegates" determine the outcome? Who are these people and how are they chosen? Several have already proclaimed their vote, so doesn't this bias the election?

I am a bit concerned that the next President could be chosen by a handful of wealthy, influential politicians who may or may not have the best interests of our country at heart. The potential for corruption and pay-offs seems quite likely in such a situation.

Trusting this election to "super-delegates" will be like auctioning the job on E-Bay! Let's hear your thoughts.

Forthright

21 comments:

Amazed said...

I would rather talk about what happened at the last week's City Council meeting. If you missed it, you missed a lot!

That meeting made for a great
"reality TV Schow" episode.

The friction between Mayor Hudson and Judge Michael Prewitt was intense.

It made for some interesting viewing for the local citizens. Rude, Childish and Disrepectful behavior was abundant that day on both sides.

Anonymous said...

Anything going on at DRMC????

DRMC Proud said...

Anonymous 543AM

Yes, plenty is going on at DRMC. We are all busy taking care of people and saving lives!!!! Stop trying to stir the pot. It has gotten old.

Southern Girl said...

amazed. tell us more about the city meeting.

Anonymous said...

I am so happy that DRMC is busy saving lives really, and that everyone is very happy working there.....

Anonymous said...

trying to stir the pot??? About DRMC??? Why would anyone want to do that??????

Anonymous said...

Actually, I'm kinda interested in what you guys think about super delegates deciding the Democratic race?

DRMC Proud (still) said...

To anonymous 232 and 234, some of us are proud to have a steady job. Show me a person that absolutely loves everything about their job, and I will show you their address in Wonderland or Disneyworld. We live in the real world, and take the good with the bad. DRMC has been a source of support for me and my family, with good benefits, and I am proud to work there. SHow me a place in Greenville that is better???

Anonymous said...

I could not show you somewhere better in Greenville- but I could show you somewhere else that is better- away from Greenville...

Anonymous said...

We have met the enemy....and he is US. Greenville's own worst enemy is its residents. I've heard this from people who have moved here and wondered why we were so down on ourselves, but it's true. Every community has problems, but why are we acting like Armageddon is tomorrow? Greenville has a lot to be proud of, some areas where improvement is needed, and some things that are already in the works to be "fixed." Give it time, and be part of the SOLUTION, not part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Okay Amazed... tell us what happened at the last city council meeting! The stupidity of that group should far exceed anything that Obama and Clinton could do.

Anonymous said...

Who cares about all that- Memphis is in the Final !!!!!!!

Semi-Regular Reader said...

The super-delegates, by Democrat party rules, can legally vote for either Clinton or Obama. It technically isn't stealing a primary if Hillary gets it through super-delegate votes, the party set it up!

It shows that proportional delegate seating, as opposed to "winner take all" primaries, isn't what it's cracked to be. Close primary races will yield full party nominating power to those elite Democrat voters.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Pennsylvania towards solving this issue. Otherwise, it gets nasty.

Anonymous said...

WHERE is the wound center moving to? i believe Dr. Gober will be moving into their spot.

Anonymous said...

LMAOOOOOOOO....DRMC proud?!?!? Please...you are one of the VERY few folks there who have that attitude. You must be one of Allyson's main men. LOL What a joke. Everyone knows its a joke there.

A view point to listen to said...

What a Black Columnist Has To Say About Obama.

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. < /I>

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Hussein Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Anonymous said...

I hear McCain is looking at Condi Rice for VP. Now there's a ticket... one heartbeat away from having the first black, female President. Obama is looking better every time the Republican's make a move!

Not a bad choice said...

Given a choice, I will take her over Hilary any day! When asked why being a black woman, she is Republican, her answer: "The first Republican that I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican that I admire most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did." She went on to say that the Democrats are no friends to blacks, their policies keep the blacks dependent and down, while the Republicans show them how to stand on their own and climb up. That says it all.

rd said...

I have been watching Obama's campaign with some interest. I found one recent item a bit odd though. He called for Bush to boycott the opening of the Chinese olympics today. Is this the same guy that said he would meet with controversial world leaders instead of boycotts and sanctions? Am I the only one who finds this odd? I'm not trying to tear him down or say that the two notions are totally incompatible. But it makes you poder just how hard campaign promises vs. pratical tactics are hard to resolve ... and the guy hasn't even been elected yet.

As for the matter itself,I have mixed feelings. China has a new generation of politicians on the rise that ARE making changes for the better. Problem is that when China gets taken to task for their actions ( and embarrassed ) it actually weakens this group and gives power to the older generation of "China sticks itself, does as it pleases, and doesn't play accountable to anybody" sayers. In some ways it is very important for China to have a very successful Olympics and put the power in the hands of the new generation.

On the other hand you can't play forever like everything is rosy and it isn't. The US bears plenty of brunt for its actions as a world power and China should expect the same when it pulls a dumb stunt.

Any thoughts?

Semi-Regular Reader said...

Good Points, RD!

Back to the presidential race, Obama addressed a crowd in San Francisco regarding "small town America."

Forthright, he was talking to the Delta, Northeast and Midwestern states even if inadvertently. These comments should be topic for Delta Scoop discussion.

Another good article said...

HUMAN EVENTS

Article: A Brief for Whitey

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted: 03/21/2008



How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!"

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."

Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.