Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Looks like the GOP is up to their usual dirty tricks:

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:46 AM

EXCLUSIVE, DEVELOPING-- GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in more than half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status. A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening. It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process. Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years. Those on site as describing it as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos. Some of the precincts where Republicans have been removed are: the 44th Ward, 12th and 13th divisions; 6th Ward, 12th division; 32nd Ward, Division 28. “Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process,” said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall. The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by KODAD

Our country is basically split 50/50 on the issues, as indicated by the last two elections. How can half of us be so sure we are right, and the other half be so sure we are wrong?

I have said many times that I believe this split is rural vs. urban.

What do urban people want ? The urban economy is top down, it is essentially large companies, large institutions, etc, and people in the city walk around in the shadows of large everything, including large government. Whether you get money in the city is mostly a matter of your education level, who's ass you kiss, which big organization you belong to, your ability to politic your way to the top, and all of the rest. Socially you are concerned about the drug dealer on the corner who is trying to tempt the school kids, you're worried about getting mugged by some guy with a pistol walking around downtown, you're worried about corrupt government and corrupt cops, racial divides, and you're concerned about the tension between downtown and the suburbs. There's your Democratic party.

What do rural people want ? To be left alone, to stop sending tax money to build stuff that they'll probably never see, to stop having urban decision makers decide things for them, to stop having urban people tell them what to do concerning the environment (farmers know more about the environment than any urban politician ever will), etc. Rural people tend to go to church and value the church as a social construct. Rural people don't depend on big government or big companies for their well being, instead rural people are most entrepreneurs from the biggest construction companies down to the guy who cuts and sells firewood. Rural people value independence, being left alone, not being told what to do, making decisions locally instead of at the federal or even state level, etc. Rural politics is bottom up, and the rural economy is bottom up as well. There's your Republican party.

Rural and urban people simply don't "get" the other's point of view. Urban people can't figure out why rural people won't vote their own interest, because urban people actually believe that rural people want and need help from government. Rural people can't figure out why urban people don't like their religion when the church is a valued institution in the country, a place to go and celebrate important events, to see your neighbors on Sunday, etc, and they can't understand the urban hatred for their church. Urban people don't get why rural people want smaller government because they really don't understand at a fundamental level just how screwed rural people are by high taxes and government mandates. Rural people know that they pay a third of their salary in taxes yet they still don't have cable television, don't have cell phone reception, don't have high speed internet, don't have reliable electricity, don't even have paved roads ... rural people KNOW that the money they are paying in taxes is building a big hospital in the suburbs of big cities, or that it is paying somebody to sit around in an office in a skyscraper somewhere, and they don't like it. Rural people know that when it comes to taxes they are getting SCREWED. Urban people don't get the rural obsession with guns when guns kill so many people in the inner cities, and rural people don't understand the urban fascination with gun control when farmers have to have a gun on them to shoot the occasional rattlesnake or rabid possum. Urban people just don't get that ... a rural person can walk out on their front porch and see a fox acting weird, and without a gun what is a rural person supposed to do, grab a spoon and try to saw the damn thing's head off ?

Until urban people stop trying to control what happens in rural people's lives, and until rural people can stop thinking of every city as Sodom and Gomorrah, we will continue to have these close elections. Think about that the next time you're watching "Weeds" on cable television, try to see a show like that from the perspective of somebody who lives in a small house in rural Ohio, try to imagine what they are thinking when they see stuff like that. And rural people, try to think about some urban person feels when they see a rifle, it may actually be the first time in their lives they've ever actually seen a rifle in real life, all most of them know about guns is what they've seen in Hollywood movies.

[chucklesR]

It's all nuts, thank god for the up coming soup lines, that'll make it soup to nuts.

[chucklesR]

Mitch,
nice try -
look up the budget presented to congress by the president for this year, 2008.

look up the budget as passed by congress.

note the 300 billion in add ons.

then note the extra 200 or so billion added on even later, not even counting the 'emergency bailout fiasco'.

then tell me who spent the money (a little better than 500 billion extra).

You been studying with Rick in the library of one sided research and accountability again?

[SteveInMD]

Obama has delivered a thumping victory in Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. He got 15 votes to McCain's 6.

[PBzeer]

Yes Steve, it was amazing, since there's only 19 registered voters.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Sorry Mitch...you might have a grip on current practice but the constitution does not say anything about budgets or legislative agendas originating in the White House. Congress looks at the President's budget as no more than a courtesy due a co-equal branch of government. The President can veto the legislation and Congress can override the veto. I'd say, as would most political scientists, that that makes the Congress the more powerful body.

Fiscal prudence should be the hallmark of Congress.

Sorry Sway, but I hardly think that "most political scientists" would say that Congress is the more powerful body. Many books have been written on presidential power because that concept is key to how the separation of powers in our government works. You need to read article II section 3 of the Constitution more closely. You are correct in saying the Constitution is silent about budgets and legialative agendas starting in the White HOuse, but it does say, right after the state of the union address to Congress, that
"he shall...recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The President also can convene and adjourn Congress in extraordinary cases as he deems proper. So who's the boss there?

And overriding vetoes is a tough go for Congress. You should at least read the link I provided earlier. Other than Franklin Pierce and Andrew Jackson, most other presidents made the vast majority of their vetoes stick. Bush had a relatively high 33 % overridden, but he only issued 12 vetoes in his 7 3/4 years in office.

Bush also took advantage of a relatively new "Presidential power" of issuing signing statements for many bills he did sign. These statements can be used to gut the legislation, or certainly to weaken it. that is a fairly recent tactic also used by Bush 41 and CLinton. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of such statements but surely will be called upon to rule one day.

also the President, and not Congress, is viewed as leader of the free world.

[SteveInMD]

Yes I'm sure it will be corrected to 15 / 4.

[PBzeer]

Mitch - the power of Congress is inherent in the body, and not as dependent upon the individuals. The power of the Presidency is in direct relation to the occupant of it. With an Obama win today, I think that will become readily apparent as Congressional Dems push forward with their agenda, which in many ways goes beyond Obama's stated one (however much we can trust in that).

[PBzeer]

Though I put very little value in the voting of one small town, for those who do, there is something they didn't add about Dixville Notch. Seems every 16 years, they get it in reverse.

Election results:
1960 Nixon 9 Kennedy 0 - winner Kennedy

1976 Ford 13 Carter 11 - winner Carter

1992 Bush 15 Perot 8 Marrou 5 Clinton 3 - winner Clinton

2008 Obama 15 McCain 6 - winner McCain?


One can make of it what one will, just as McCain pulling ahead in Missouri, which has picked the winner all but once in 100 years.