What about Howard Dean?

[flagreen]

It's on MSNBC.

Thanks! It's almost over though - shoot.

 

[Howell]

="George Will"In 1952 Eisenhower began the Republican rise in the South, winning 65 electoral votes from Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Notice, this was before the Supreme Court's 1954 school desegregation ruling. In 1956, long before the civil rights revolution reached a boil, Eisenhower added 20 more votes, from Kentucky and Louisiana.

Much academic and journalistic energy has been expended attempting to prove that Republicans became competitive in the South not because of positive change there but because of a negative change in the GOP -- pandering to racists. But Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia notes that Eisenhower, like Richard Nixon in 1960, polled badly among whites in the Deep South. Eisenhower ran strongest in the "peripheral South," the least-polarized part.

States representing more than half the Southern electoral votes have been, Alexander notes, "consistently in play" since 1952. That was before the Goldwater candidacy, before school busing and at a time when congressional Republicans were stronger supporters than Democrats were of civil rights bills. A higher proportion of Republican than Democratic senators voted for the 1964 and 1965 civil rights bills, and in 1968 whites in the Deep South preferred George Wallace to Nixon.

Beginning in the 1950s, millions of Midwesterners and Northeasterners moved to the South. But, Alexander says, instead of voting Democratic, they voted Republican "at higher rates than native whites." Even today, "identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters." Republican strength has been highest among persons young, suburban, middle class, educated, non-Southern in origin and concentrated in the least "Southern" high-growth areas.

As Democrats embrace Kerry because of his "electability," and as he ponders a strategy -- including a running mate -- for assembling 270 electoral votes, they and he should understand this: Their Southern problem is rooted not in regnant racism but in the region's increasingly individualistic, optimistic, entrepreneurial and religious culture. As Democrats build from the easiest to the most challenging electoral votes, should they gamble on finding the 270th in the South?

 

[sechs]

So Alabama is becoming more like Kansas?

 

[flagreen]

It should be an interesting summer & fall this year if John Forbes Kerry wins the Democratic nomination.

The only thing Kerry has going for him imho is his war record which is admirable. Everything else that he's done since coming home from Nam is a negative campaign commercial just waiting to happen.

 

[time]

May I ask you Bill, as a staunch Republican, which Democrat candidate do you perceive as the biggest threat?

 

[flagreen]

May I ask you Bill, as a staunch Republican, which Democrat candidate do you perceive as the biggest threat?

Based on the reaction of the media and public opinion I would say that right now it appears that Kerry poses the biggest threat. But all of the hoopla over him may only be a honey-moon period he's going through - too soon to tell.

Kerry has a long history of supporting issues from left of center in the Senate. I think he is just too "progressive" to stand much of a chance once the campaigns swing into full gear later this year.

Bush's biggest threat right now is that of taking the election too lightly as his father did in 1992.

 

[Howell]

Hope nobody minds if I also answer the question also but slightly rephrased?

If I were to choose a D candidate on the basis of ease of running against them and winning, the choice would be either Dean or Clark. They are so far out in left field that the race would not be a race. However, that kind of national exposure for such crazy ideas is not in the long-term best interests of the country and the best interest of the country is foremost on my mind.

If I were to pick a D on the basis of the continuing health of the country should he win I'd pick Kerry or Edwards.

 

[time]

Clark is far out in left field?!!!

Boy, do I have a lot to learn about US politics!

Since you wrote this, I tried to read up on him, and all I could find was that he was of that unusual breed: the intelligent soldier.

I'm not trying to be facetious. There was a guy called Alexander like that, and someone called Caesar, and in particular, an American named Billy Mitchell. The parallels seem obvious to me, but hey, I'm just a web surfer.

Kerry just sounds like a cynical career politician - is this an unfair comment?

 

[Mercutio]

No.

I don't like him. There's just nothing compelling about him, other than the fact that he isn't Bush, and I see that as an enormous weakness (the "nothing compelling" part).

The problem with Clarke is that he hasn't convinced anyone of his bona-fides as a Democrat. Dems tend to be mistrustful of military types, because most of them seem to be republicans. Clarke just might be, uh, closeted.

Clarke could beat Bush, though.

 

[CougTek]

If I were to pick a D on the basis of the continuing health of the country should he win I'd pick Kerry or Edwards.

Ah! this got to be the joke of the month. 500 billion deficit considered "continuing health". Hilarious. Thanks.

 

[its.fubar]

Is it me or does every person outside the united states realize or are thinking that something is wrong there, I do not believe that any one would have complained about getting rid of Saddam Hussein if the bush administration did not lie or at the very least exaggerate to the public about weapons of mass destruction WMD, it is for this reason he will lose the next election "people do not like to be lie to"furthermore I do not think he is a good politician because he is to reckless the place that would be perfect for him is Hollywood where reality is not a factor, I also do not think the average American agrees with his policies about employment and health care and not forgetting the ever increasing deficit which somebody eventually will have to payfor.am I correct in assuming that the democrat`s seem to be able to hold on to the white house more than one term whereas the republicans seem to lose it and not get reelected for the second four year period.

 

[CityK]

am I correct in assuming that the democrat`s seem to be able to hold on to the white house more than one term whereas the republicans seem to lose it and not get reelected for the second four year period.

No, you are incorrect.

 

[its.fubar]

Has anyone though about how fast and decisive the democrats in the USA are deciding on their candidate "John Kerry" it looks like a runaway victory does this mean the democrats have decided having a republican president is not good for your health, I believe also that guy who has the temporary residency in Pennsylvania avenue 1600 will soon be looking for a new place to hang his hat.

I will say it hear and now Congratulation to you American`s that have decided enough is enough of this stupidity.

I also wish to Congratulate The soon to be New President John Kerry.

 

[CityK]

November is a long way off. I wouldn't be counting the chickens before they hatch. Nor would I write George off yet either .... not by a long shot.

 

[Mercutio]

Maybe he'll save us the trouble and just give up now.

 

[timwhit]

Interesting movie about Howard Dean. It is quicktime and ~32MB, but it is still worth watching.

 

[its.fubar]

Now he has got the south this man will be very hard to stop almost impossible, the only way the opposition can stop him is if he make`s a mistake himself.

So my only advice to that guy sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 is start looking for new employment and that will take some doing because he is unemployable with his Record.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be new president of the USA.

 

[sechs]

I believe that declaring the South "won" is a bit premature.

 

[its.fubar]

premature or not this guy Will be very hard to stop, let`s face it you all,we're looking at the next president of the USA and the other guy as I have said before better start looking for a new house to live in.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be new president of the USA.

 

[its.fubar]

update update

it seems now even his economic adviser do not degree with him on the policies of employment and think it is a good idea for outsourcing. is their no end to this man's stupidity.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be new president of the USA.

 

[its.fubar]

Correction to the above post, it should read.


update update

it seems now even his economic adviser do not "agree" with him on the policies of employment and they think it is a good idea for outsourcing. is their no end to this man's stupidity on his judgment of who he employees.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be new president of the USA.

 

[jtr1962]

Kerry will be the Democratic nominee for sure, but it's too early to predict the election results. If the economy tanks, he'll be the next President. If not, my money is on Bush. Sure, Kerry will carry my home state of New York easily, and probably California as well. That still doesn't guarantee him a victory. He's too liberal to carry most of the southern states. Even if he wins, it'll be close.

 

[sechs]

Maybe this time, the Supreme court will side with the Democrats... err, person who gets the most votes.

 

[flagreen]

Maybe this time, the Supreme court will side with the Democrats... err, person who gets the most votes.

How about they just interpret the Consitution as they did in 2000?

 

[Pradeep]

Amazing that 4 years on, people still bitch cause Bush won by the rules. Electoral college isn't a new thing ....

 

[its.fubar]

Was that the same rules that the democrats lost in California by when the guy with the muscles got in, wasn't there some discrepancy in the way he won.

 

[Pradeep]

If people are too dim to be able to read English (and Spanish I'm sure) instructions and only punch one hole then they don't deserve the right to vote.

 

[sechs]

Amazing that 4 years on, people still bitch cause Bush won by the rules. Electoral college isn't a new thing ....

The problem is that he won because there weren't appropriate rules. A situation came up which left what to do open to interpretation.

 

[flagreen]

Amazing that 4 years on, people still bitch cause Bush won by the rules. Electoral college isn't a new thing ....

The problem is that he won because there weren't appropriate rules. A situation came up which left what to do open to interpretation.

Actually there were appropriate rules. The problem was that the Florida Supreme court refused to followed them.

 

[its.fubar]

I suppose one could say there is one Rule for the republicans and another for the democrats, as usual the republican criminals are extremely good at complaining and suggesting that everyone else is doing wrong and what they are doing is for the good of the people but hiding the fact everything they do is to make more money for themselves.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be new president of the USA.

 

[sechs]

Actually there were appropriate rules. The problem was that the Florida Supreme court refused to followed them.

Could you point out those rules?

 

[flagreen]

Actually there were appropriate rules. The problem was that the Florida Supreme court refused to followed them.

Could you point out those rules?

I could but I don't think that we have enough storage space on the server for me to post the Florida State Consitution, the entire Florida Judicial code, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Judicial code.

Every step of the way there were rules and regulations dictating what should be done, when it should be done and how it should be done. Time and time again the Florida courts ignored these rules and regulations until finally the U.S. Supreme Court forced the Florida Supreme Court to comply with them.

 

[sechs]

So, the answer is, in fact, no, you cannot point out those rules. I suggest that's because they don't exist.

 

[flagreen]

So, the answer is, in fact, no, you cannot point out those rules. I suggest that's because they don't exist.

Are you talking about the lack of uniform rules for ascertaining a voters intent when the ballot cannot be clearly read? If so, to that extent your I agree that your original statement is valid, I concede the point - and I retract my objection to it.

On the other hand if you are suggesting that there was not adequate controlling law (which was my understanding of your statement) to be able to resolve the legal issues brought forth by the parties involved then I stand by my original statement as the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling was based upon the "Equal Protection clause" found within the U.S. Constitution.

Apparently I misunderstood what you meant by "rules"? The second sentence of your original statement - "A situation came up which left what to do open to interpretation." - sounded as if you were saying that the ruling was completely arbitrary and not based upon law. The word "interpretation" was not used in reference to any court decision as I thought you intended it to be but rather was in reference as to how to ascertain the voters intent uniformly?

As I recall (correct me if I am wrong) several news organizations counted all of the ballots in question anyway. And the majority who did so determined that Bush still won so the point is moot.

 

[sechs]

Perhaps you could point out what rules, derived from the equal protection clause of the Consititution, applied to the situation, and made it clear exactly what should have happened.

 

[flagreen]

Perhaps you could point out what rules, derived from the equal protection clause of the Consititution, applied to the situation, and made it clear exactly what should have happened.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Consitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have highlighted the applicable text as regards the Supreme Court's decision. Implicit in this text is the "rule" that - No State may deny any person within it's juristiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court in it's decision found that;

"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one per-son's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Vir¬ginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."

In other words not only must every citizen be provided the opportunity to vote on an equal basis, but the process of determining what is a legal vote, and what is not a legal vote (on a per ballot basis) must also be determined on an equal and uniform basis. To do less, the Court found, is to deny equal protection of the law to every voter.

The U. S. Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court in applying it's remedy to the problem of ballots which could not read by machine, had not provided an equal basis upon which the various counties in dispute could determine what is a legal vote, and what is not a legal vote. And therefore the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Court's decision.

What should have happened? The Florida Supreme Court should have provided equal protection under the law to every voter.

The Florida Supreme Court should have issued clear and comprehensive instructions as what should be counted as a vote and what should not. Additionally they should have addressed the issue of "over-votes" (that is ballots with two or more punches for the same office were also unreadable by the tabulating machines) which they neglected to do.

The fact that there was not enough time available for the Florida Supreme Court to develope such methods, or for the counties in question to implement them, was not found to be a valid excuse for violating the "equal protection clause".

 

[sechs]

So far, all you have proven is that there should have been appropriate rules (which I think we all agree upon), but that there wasn't.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the remedy which the Florida Supreme Court ordered could not comply with existing Florida election code. In the majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a proper and fair recount would take so much time that it would be inherently unconstitutional.

Federal law only provides a scaffold onto which states must build local electoral rules. Florida's rules were clearly lacking.

 

[flagreen]

So far, all you have proven is that there should have been appropriate rules (which I think we all agree upon), but that there wasn't.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the remedy which the Florida Supreme Court ordered could not comply with existing Florida election code. In the majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a proper and fair recount would take so much time that it would be inherently unconstitutional.

Hmm... I thought that the time constraint was one not a Constitutional one per se but rather a result of the six day rule which was established by Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 5 of the U.S.C.? No?


As for the Supreme Court's decision and my statement that the Court had found the Florida Supreme Court's remedy had violated the Egual Protection Clause I quote from their decision as follows;

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protec¬tion and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Have I read that wrong?

 

[flagreen]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the remedy which the Florida Supreme Court ordered could not comply with existing Florida election code. In the majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a proper and fair recount would take so much time that it would be inherently unconstitutional

Is the the following from their decision where you get the above from?

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are consti¬tutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dis¬senting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, JUSTICE BREYER’s proposed remedy remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18 contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

Doesn't the highlighted text refer to Justice Breyer's proposed remedy only and is not the grounds on which the Court based their decision?

 

[sechs]

t is obvious that the recount [ordered by the Florida Supreme Court] cannot be conducted... without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption... of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review.... In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by [Florida statute of the time].

This is to say that there weren't rules in place to do it right.....