Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The Elephant in the Room: One-Day Democrats: A bad idea

  1. #1

    The Elephant in the Room: One-Day Democrats: A bad idea

    Starting thread after thread about Obama shows how scared the GOP really is and how desperate they are for a win. Even Santorum thiks the GOP is going overboard.

    [QUOTE]The Elephant in the Room: One-Day Democrats: A bad idea
    By Rick Santorum

    The results are in. Democratic registration numbers have surged to a record four million, and an equally impressive record of an 800,000-vote advantage over Republicans in the state. Have things gotten so bad for the GOP in Pennsylvania that a stampede has begun?
    Admittedly, most of these party switchers are part of the normal ebb and flow of the political waves. Republican voters have become either disenchanted with their party or find themselves more aligned with the Democrats. That's fair.

    I suspect, however, that something bigger is at work here. Last week, when I was on the Dennis Prager radio show, a call came in from a Philadelphia-area Republican. At least he had been a Republican. He called in to announce proudly that he had switched parties to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. He was going to vote for the candidate who opinion polls say would be the weakest Democrat in the November election. That's a foul!

    After the interview, I wanted to find this man and yell: "Don't vote!"

    Having devoted almost all of my adult life to encouraging people to vote, it truly pains me to write that phrase. Every fiber of my political being recoils at the idea of discouraging any American, any Pennsylvanian, from voting. I've always believed that when it comes to civic participation, the higher the voter turnout the better on Election Day. It doesn't matter if it's higher Republican turnout, Democratic turnout, or Green Cheese Party turnout. It didn't even matter to me if increased turnout hurt my own election prospects. Representative democracy isn't a spectator sport, and participating means voting.

    However, Republicans and independents voting in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary is a terrible idea. Republicans and Democrats, people who actually believe what their party stands for, should have the right to choose their own nominees.

    At its best, politics should be about competing ideas for the common good and choosing between the candidates each party believes to be its best. Monkeying around in the other party's nominating process corrupts all of this. It robs voters of a clear choice between the best candidate each party wants to offer. It is manipulative and will breed cynicism if it catches on.

    Simply look at what already has happened among Republicans. Many are disenchanted that John McCain was forced upon us principally by independents in New Hampshire, although it is hard to summon up a great deal of political animus against folks who can't decide what party they want to belong to in the first place. But I suspect that part of the motivation for Pennsylvania conservatives is "what is good for the goose is good for the gander."

    [B]But there's a more compelling axiom in this case: "Two wrongs don't make a right." [/B]

    This is particularly the case in Pennsylvania. Our primary has become crucial to the Democrats' nominating process. Because of the six-week hiatus, we have become almost a second Iowa or New Hampshire, with potentially bigger consequences.

    What if the One-Day Democrats here next month help what looks now like the "weaker" candidate - Obama - stop what could be a momentum-shifting Keystone State landslide for Clinton, thus guaranteeing Obama the nomination. Or, what if Pennsylvania's One-Day Democrats contribute to a more likely outcome - a continuation of the Operation Chaos campaign that Rush Limbaugh launched to help Clinton win Texas. Our One-Day Democrats might help her roll up a huge win that would result in chaos all the way to the Denver convention.

    Imagine the Democrats' outrage if the GOP-backed Democratic nominee wins the nomination - and then goes on to lose to McCain in November.

    This tactic may help McCain win the election, but there will be other elections. If this strategy proves successful, it is likely we will see the next president's party - or, more likely, his or her special-interest supporters - deploying the tactic full-bore to disrupt the challenging party's primary in 2012. We could see presidential politics sink to another new low, with the resultant dissipation of people's faith in the system.

    "Politics are usually the expression of human immaturity," British writer and feminist Vera Brittain once observed. I've never believed that. On the contrary, I've always believed that politics must ultimately be an expression of human wisdom, maturity and high purpose. Trying to prolong the other side's nominating process or to pick its weaker opponent may not saddle you with a couple of Hail Marys after confession, but it is neither wise conduct nor lofty in its purpose.

    One Day-Democrats are a loaded gun aimed not just at causing chaos in the Democratic Party, but also at undermining our whole election process. Don't shoot! Go to [url]www.votegoppa.com[/url] and change back before we all get hurt.[/QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E-mail Rick Santorum at [email]rsantorum@phillynews.com[/email].
    [url]http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20080327_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__One-Day_Democrats__A_bad_idea.html[/url]

  2. #2
    Funny, I didn't see complaints like this when Dems did this early on, and helped give us....Mr. McCain as our nominee.

    In truth, I despise this primary system. Open primaries, or primaries where you can still register as a party voter mere days before the primary, are all but asking for fraud.

    It's very simple.

    --Get rid of "Super-Delegates".

    --Make every State's Delegates Awarded on a Percentage basis.

    --Only voters regiastered in that party for one year or more get to vote in the primary. No johnny come latelys.

    The role of the primary is to have the PARTY select it's choice, not the other party or the (lol) independants, who for some reason think being independant gives them some inherant right to choose BOTH parties as they see fit, rather than neither.

    But you cannot ***** and moan about a system the parties themsleves set up. Don't like this kind of manipulation, great, fix the system or shut up.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2453653]and helped give [B]us[/B]....Mr. McCain as [B]our[/B] nominee.
    [/QUOTE]

    I thought you were an independent.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2453785]

    I thought you were an independent.[/QUOTE]I don't want to speak for warfish and he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but from my observation warfish is indeed an independent in terms of party affiliation, I don't think he belongs to either political party and I know he has his issues with the Republicans {the social and cultural conservative wing} as much as he takes issue with the dems

    So how would he explain the "US" and "OUR"

    Again, I'm just guessing based on my own observation, just to see if I'm right, and he'll weigh in on that to be sure, but I get the feeling warfish is such a staunch anti-leftist whom like many of us has determined the democrat party is pretty much controlled by its left wing, it is basically America's official leftist/socialist party, and therefore wars use of terms like "US" and "OUR" applies more to the anti-leftists {like the one time anti-communists} than his aligence or alliance with the Republican party

    In short, I think warfish is what used to be called a Reagan democrat, someone who would have been a democrat under the old paradigm, the classical liberal model, before the party was hijacked by radical leftists .. and he views them, the radical left, as the "THEMS" in the poltical contest of "US" Verses "THEM"

    I'll be curious to see how warm I am when warfish decides to weigh in

    I could be dead wrong .. I'm just sharing my own observation


    PS. I agree with Santorum, I think its a bad idea to manipulate the political process as Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging, I think it shows a level of disdain for the democratic process and I don't like it, but then I've never cared very much for Limbaugh anyway so that's nothing new
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 03-28-2008 at 07:59 AM.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,027
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2453789]I'll be curious to see how warm I am when warfish decides to weigh in

    I could be dead wrong .. I'm just sharing my own observation
    [/QUOTE]

    I pretty sure you're right. I was just mainly busting his balls. :D

    Interesting bit on the "Reagan Democrats" however. I'm curious as to how many people we label here as "radical leftists" who would fall into that category, but don't appear to from the outside due to such a high level of anti-Bushism(can't say I blame them since those people seem to screw up everything they touch)...resulting in people appearing radical even though they may be more middle of the road than anything else.

    The tit-for-tat can go on all day. For every ideologue party hijacking leftist we have a righty bookend to go along with them...just look at Jets5 posts over the past few days. Here's a dude who I think is probably the most true republican on the board...moralistic with a strong sense of fiscal conservatism...but you really don't see many people with his same political views running the Republican Party. Even he seems to be annoyed at the perceived face of his party...the people who misrepresent by tacking so far to the right they just look like a polarized negative of the KosKiddiesKlan.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2453785]I thought you were an independent.[/QUOTE]

    I leave that for others to judge, honestly.

    If I had to quantify myself, I would say that I am a [U]Fiscal Conservative[/U] (Small Govt., Small Taxes, Personal Responsabillity, National Defense, Enforced Immigration Laws, etc). and a [U]Social Libertarian[/U] (Freedom, above all else, as long as you do not infringe upon the freedom of others, with minimal involvement/control by faith-based limitations or illogical stifling PC groupthought).

    With that said, I have never, in all my life, voted for a Republican or a Democrat. I would tend to vote Libertarian, if available.

    Sadly, there is no FiscalConSocialLib Party for me to affiliate with officially.

    With all that said, I don't think it's a suprise to hear that I generally fall (On this board) on the "right" side of most debates. Of course, should the board have a resurgence of threads on Faith, Freedoms (Pot Smoking, Prostitution, Gambling as well as more general freedoms) or (usually) Science vs. Faith, I would obviously be found much deeper oin the traditionally "left" side of things. Even Abortion I am more left than the vast majority of righties here, preferring a moderate/compromise type of deal.

    But I won't lie, the older I get, the more Conservative I get. And since 9/11, I have also found myself more of a Conservative. But Conservative =/= Republican, especially today. Bush is, as I have often said, one of our worst Presidents, if for nothing else than his utter inabillity to speak (hence sell us on the rightiousness of the War, if it is) and his abject failure at handling the War on almost every level. A bored 6th grader playing on his computer could have provided better strategy, frankly. And the Republican Party, almost as a whole, seems to have forgotten what "Fiscal Conservative" means these days.

    It's a **** world for a guy like me. I believe the word is "disenfranchised", where one feels deeply they have no real choice worth making and their vote is meaningless and worthless. The two party system is, in my book, a failure that was destined to lead to today's horrible "us vs us" mentallity. The UnCivil War rages on, and America pays the price.
    Last edited by Warfish; 03-28-2008 at 08:22 AM.

  7. #7
    I agree 100% with the piece. CR I'm glad you think enough of Santorum to post his work. Keep it up. The guy he lost his seat to, Bob Casey, endorsed Obama today. Whether that's a big deal or not, I'm not sure, but I'll bet anything we'll never read anything written by Casey worth talking about.

  8. #8
    When I saw Santorum wrote this I was ready to assume the title was a hoax, but I agree with this article. I have never liked Santorum, but he is dead on. I work in PA and live in NJ, so I didn't vote for Casey or Santorum.
    Politics have gotten out of hand, you have people who believe only what is brought up by "their side". I am a registered Independent and my vote is still up in the air. I am looking forward to the GE, this Primary stuff is out of control, it is about money and not what is good for the people.

    [QUOTE=sackdance;2453838]I agree 100% with the piece. CR I'm glad you think enough of Santorum to post his work. Keep it up. The guy he lost his seat to, Bob Casey, endorsed Obama today. Whether that's a big deal or not, I'm not sure, but I'll bet anything we'll never read anything written by Casey worth talking about.[/QUOTE]

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=cr726;2453860]When I saw Santorum wrote this I was ready to assume the title was a hoax, but I agree with this article. I have never liked Santorum, but he is dead on. I work in PA and live in NJ, so I didn't vote for Casey or Santorum.
    Politics have gotten out of hand, you have people who believe only what is brought up by "their side". I am a registered Independent and my vote is still up in the air. I am looking forward to the GE, this Primary stuff is out of control, it is about money and not what is good for the people.[/QUOTE]

    so then why werent you disturbed enough to post an article when the democrats were voting for mccain in the primaries?

  10. #10
    Maybe you should read the article to understand why I am disturbed.

    [QUOTE=mallamalla;2453875]so then why werent you disturbed enough to post an article when the democrats were voting for mccain in the primaries?[/QUOTE]

  11. #11
    I have to admit, i changed my affliation for this primary. I was unaffiliated but went democratic. I feel dirty.

    But unlike the one day democrats I will offer up this deal. If the person I vote for wins the nomination I will stay democratic for the near future. If this person does not I will go back to being unaffiliated.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2453912]I have to admit, i changed my affliation for this primary. I was unaffiliated but went democratic. I feel dirty.

    But unlike the one day democrats I will offer up this deal. If the person I vote for wins the nomination I will stay democratic for the near future. If this person does not I will go back to being unaffiliated.[/QUOTE]

    Frontrunner. Are you going to be a Pats* fan next? :P

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant;2453915]Frontrunner. Are you going to be a Pats* fan next? :P[/QUOTE]

    i don't care if Dick Cheney was declared king for life if the Jets win. This is an off topic forum ya know.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=mallamalla;2453875]so then why werent you disturbed enough to post an article when the democrats were voting for mccain in the primaries?[/QUOTE]

    or making a concerted effort in Michigan to influence the voting...this is called be careful what you wish for because as usual, it will come around and bite you in the ass:

    [url]http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206[/url]

    [url]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/liberal_bloggers_forromney.html[/url]

    [QUOTE]In a blog post titled "Let's have some fun in Michigan," Moulitsas wrote: "If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How 'legitimate' will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point."[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 03-28-2008 at 10:02 AM.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2453919]i don't care if Dick Cheney was declared king for life if the Jets win. This is an off topic forum ya know.[/QUOTE]

    Now that would drive me over the edge, Cheney King G-d help us!

  16. #16
    Great find CBTNY. Two blogs!! Great investigating.
    No wonder DeanPats is your new best friend. No one cares about blogs or him.

    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2453922]or making a concerted effort in Michigan to influence the voting...this is called be careful what you wish for because as usual, it will come around and bite you in the ass:

    [url]http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206[/url]

    [url]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/liberal_bloggers_forromney.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us