Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Election Day
#1
For many places, important selections are made today.

In Detroit, it is an amusement park ride. Hollywood writers could never put together such an unbelievable story. Freeman Hendrix is a Democrat, former number two man behind former Mayor Dennis Archer. The current Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is also a Democrat - and the political machine is fighting itself.

Kilpatrick is the party boy who was put on notice by the FBI as too out-of-control to get official security. On top of all the scandals - we have an old, old elections officer, Jackie Currie, who is either losing it or already lost. She supposedly sent out prefilled-out absentee ballots, so the voters don't have to fill them out. The FBI just issued a court order forcing all absentee ballots to be held out of reach of Currie. The MSM here all mention numbers of deceased voters casting absentee ballots.

There is strong suspicion that Kilpatrick will pull it out because he promised not to wear his giant diamond stud earring anymore.

The official vote count has Hendrix at 59% to 41% for Kilpatrick - but Kilpatrick is picked to win when the absentee ballots are counted.
Reply
#2
That's too funny. Our biggest election issue (Texas) is Prop 2 - a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. It passed by about 75%. Other than that, a couple of relatively unexciting mayoral contests and the usual city councel stuff.

Statewide they figured about a 16-17% turnout. In my precinct it hit closer to 60%. S1
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#3
...And California has rejected all the Schwarzengger proposals to help the State. The Unions triumph. More emigration to Nevada and Arizona. Will workers start being paid in pesos?
Reply
#4
WmLambert Wrote:...And California has rejected all the Schwarzengger proposals to help the State. The Unions triumph. More emigration to Nevada and Arizona. Will workers start being paid in pesos?

Heh... Anyone else see the irony in this? Immigrant workers are the final nail in the coffin for skilled labor unions. S2
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#5
Y'know, Seabird, I live in Michigan: Union Valhalla. I've grown up with the idiosyncrasies of Unionism.

My earliest memories are of Assembly-line workers for the Big Three wishing for a strike, so they could take time off at full pay for an extended vacation. Then, as the strike funds dried up and Union bosses somehow became wealthy, more and more union strikes ended up with no strike pay and no contract victories to offset the time off during the strike. The Union bosses, however, do get paid a salary from the Unions and management as they negotiate - so a long strike only impacts the workers - not the bosses.

Over here, the Unions buy candidates from Union contributions - but only support Democrats, even if they back CAFTA, NAFTA, or other issues the Unions oppose. In other words, There is a separation between Union leaders and Union members. In California, it is completely in character for Union bosses to support issues which hurt their Union members but allow Democrats to grab political power.
Reply
#6
I just made the point over in a thread at IAP that poor representation is more the fault of the represented than of the leadership.

I take the notion that leadership (governmental, union, corporate, or whatever...) is inherently evil. Its up to those being represented to keep that leadership in check.

*shrug* The union members get what they deserve.
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#7
Unfortunately,California is so much a part of our overall wealth and future wealth,this is not good news at all.

Because California will be harmed economically by the rigid union rules,so the rest of us will as well.

Asia is the future,not Europe and California is where Asia and America meet,where the rubber meets the road.
Reply
#8
I give Governor Schwarzeneggar credit for trying.

The outcome of the Detroit mayoral election is surprising, since the challenger, Freman Hendrix, had been enjoying a two-digit lead in all the polls since the primaries. The drastic surge in the polls for the incumbent mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick (who some regard as a partying thug), began about a week ago, right about when a particularly effective attack ad against Hendrix began airing. It showed an elderly lady who is simply described as "concerned for her grandchildren" who "just wanted to ask questions" about the state takeover of the Detroit Board of Education a couple of years ago, and then they show the lady being carried out of a meeting Hendrix was conducting, and they focus on his demand that the disruption be removed "Now!" The ad zooms in on Hendrix and repeatedly re-runs him saying "Now!" The effect of the ad is to make it look like Hnedrix is being unforgiveably disrespectful to an elderly grandmother. Of course the ad did not show her shouting and screaming, disrupting the meeting, and refusing to be quiet or leave voluntarily. I really believe that one ad is what did it.

Of course, the FBI investigation will tell us how much of an effect there was from fraud involving absentee ballots, where it is alleged that dead people voted, and that already filled out absentee ballots were taken to nursing homes by "ambassadors" from the city clerk's office for senior citizens without the mental capacity to know what they were doing to sign.

Vox populi vex Dei.
Reply
#9
Populi vex Dei,been that way since the Garden's last day ain't it?
Reply
#10
Yep. You got it, Palladin.

The only reason that democracy sometimes works is that the obstructionist, selfish, ill-informed majority usually sits out elections due to apathy. The people who care enough to vote are usually the sensible and moral minority. Pray for bad weather on election day.
Reply
#11
Heinlein.
Reply
#12
The unions hammered him with all their money. Special interest runs California. I say if reform can't be passed in California the federal government should not bail California out with any aid at all in the event it goes bankrupt unless it enacts reform first. My money should not go to aid a nanny state. If Arnold can't get it done no one will.
Reply
#13
You don't know the half of it. The unions made it an Arnold thing and the republicans in the legislature also worked to undermine the propositions in order to hold on to their districts. It is one reason I will now give to the national party, but not to the state party.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply
#14
Ron: :lol:

But by that reasoning, it was possibly the ill-informed and apathetic majority that elected Schwarzenegger in the first place. Afterall, they only come out during exciting elections, right?
Reply
#15
Anon24, when Arnold was running, the MSM loved to portray him as a stealth Democrat... after all, he was married to a member of the Kennedy clan, and the Kennedy political machine bent over backwards to encourage his election. He spoke right but they winked at his social leftism.

His main agenda was to maintain the state congressional makeup as it was and still get his programs through - identical to the George W. Bush effort at bipartisanship, and blown up identically by the Democrats. In these days, without a coalescing of both the right and left, there is no way a Republican can do what Reagan did and drive the state to the right. The Left is entrenched and all efforts are to undermine the Right - not to do anything themselves.
Reply
#16
Your post has two implications:

The first:

1) The nation is actually Left. Therefore to get your agenda passed you must suckup to Left Congresses. As Reagan did, correct?

2) Most of the people who turned out for Schwarzenegger *were* the dumb majority, but they were Leftists who thought Schwarzenegger was a Leftist. Isn't that a little, I don't know, dishonest for a Rightist candidate to run as a Leftist? A little... Clintonian

I actually agreed with your brother's post.
Reply
#17
Afterall, wasn't the 2004 election exciting? Don't you think a lot of people voted in this election who otherwise wouldn't have?? It did have the highest particpants(numerically) of all time.
Reply
#18
No, the nation isn't Left, but the MSM is.

Fighting the people who communicate your message isn't always practical. Reagan swayed the people and the media. The media saw him as an interesting story that was too good to be true. He made news for them and made their jobs interesting and they earned good salaries covering him - never suspecting he would actually overcome the Left as he did.

Reagan had little honeymoon period with the MSM. They hated him over Starwars, refusing to concede to Gorbachev, and Iran-Contra was bliss. Reagan's solution to their antagonistic attacks was to ignore them. Mostly it worked.

Today's MSM is fighting an uphill battle with the Internet and Blogosphere rooting them to objective reality - but they've learned their ambush-style of journalism well - and still influence the public.
Reply
#19
Quote:In these days, without a coalescing of both the right and left, there is no way a Republican can do what Reagan did and drive the state to the right. The Left is entrenched and all efforts are to undermine the Right - not to do anything themselves.

I interpreted this as being that 'Rightists must pretend to be Left to win or pass anyting. But you explained yourself well enough in the last post. I think Reagan had the support of the MSM to a great extent.
Reply
#20
The 2004 Presidential election put to the lie what Ron posited,large turnout did NOT benefit the democrats. It's a bs theory.

Most Americans have visceral opposition to the statist views of the democratic party nowdays,this includes poor folks,middle and wealthy.

The only thing democrats can rely today are black and Jewish voters,the rest of us see government intrusions as generally BAD.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)