Republican Ranting

In a Surprise Move, John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama

inkslwc — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:51 +0000

Well, I figured that Edwards was going to stay out of this so that he didn’t influence the delegates (so that his delegates wouldn’t go over to Clinton or Obama just because he endorsed one or the other), but apparently Obama is far ahead enough that Edwards figures that Obama is 100% guaranteed to get it. And Obama essentially is. At this point, he could kill kittens on live TV and still pull off a win.

Anyway, while in Grand Rapids, Michigan, John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

The following is the video of the speech, followed by a transcript courtesy of The Centrist Voice (I’d have transcribed it myself like I normally do, but I still haven’t recovered my audio device functionality):

Thank you, thank you. So, the question is — thank you. Thank you. So the question is what am I doing here? You know, I was promised a jet ski. And I hadn’t gotten it yet. I am proud to be here with all of you, proud to be in Michigan, proud to be in Grand Rapids. During the course of this presidential campaign, I’ve gotten to know the candidates and the top candidates very, very well. We have all been out speaking about the causes that are so near and dear to our heart as Democrats. And now we’re here down to two amazing candidates. And before I get too far, I want to take just a minute and say a word about my friend and your friend, Senator Hillary Clinton.

She won’t be your friend much longer.

In the past few weeks, I’ve got — past few months and past few weeks — I’ve gotten to know Senator Clinton very well. We’ve talked. We’ve met in North Carolina. We’ve talked about the things that she cares about, that every single one of you care about: about the men and women in this country who don’t have health care; about the children who don’t have health care; about the men and women in America who just want to have a decent job and go to work. We’ve talked about our own children, our own families.

And what I’ve learned during that time, and I’ve gotten to know her very well, is that she believes with every fiber of our being that America can be a better place, and that we need change to make America what it’s capable of being. And I want to tell you — and I know this is hard to understand sometimes — but it is very, very hard to get up everyday and do what she’s done. It is hard to go out there and fight and speak up when the odds turn against you.

Um, the odds weren’t just against her. It was as if she had placed a bet on rolling a pair of dice a total of 1.

And what she has shown, what she has shown, is strength and character. And what drives her is something that every single one of us can and should appreciate. She cares deeply about the working people in this country. She cares about the families who are losing everything because somebody got sick. She cares about our men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. This tenacity has shown her strength and her determination. She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel. And she’s a leader in this country, not because of her husband, but because of what she has done — because of speaking out, because of standing up.

And we, when this nomination battle is over — and it will be over soon — brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats and, in the fall, stand up for what matters for the future of America and make America what it needs to be. And we are a stronger party, because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. We are a stronger country because of her years of public service. And we’re going to have a stronger presidential nominee in the fall because of her work.

No, you’re really not - you’re going to lose utterly.

Now, what brought all of us here is the profound –

(CHEERS)

What brought all of us together is the profound belief that we can change this country, that there are servicemen and women in Iraq who can come home starting today; that our kids deserve to go to better schools than we went to; that we can run our cars on something other than oil; that we have good jobs that can fill these empty factories; and that the anxiety that all of our people face every day can change when we finally make two Americas one America for every single one of us.

This is why you’re here. You’re here because of the hope that you carry in your heart to make this country better. And we have so much work to do in America, because all across America, there are walls. There are walls dividing the way things are and the one America that all of us want to see. And, in fact, there’s a wall around Washington, D.C. The American people are, today, on the outside of that wall. And on the inside are the big corporations and the lobbyists who are working to protect a system that takes care of them.

And guess who struggles every single day? Working men and women in this country see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles — one pay now, one pay later; when they get bullied at work, because they want to join a union; when they see disappointment on the face of their son or daughter, because they can no longer pay for that child to go to college; when their CEO gets a golden parachute, and their job gets shipped overseas. And you know something about that here in Michigan — when their wages drop and their kids go hungry. And guess who’s doing just fine? The insiders, the lobbyists, the special interests.

Um, unions have lobbyists too, so you can’t argue for unions but against lobbyists. That’s contradictory.

Our job, come January of next year, is to tear that wall down and give this government back to the American people. There is another wall that divides us. It’s the moral shame of 37 million of our own people who wake up in poverty every single day. In a nation of our wealth, to have millions of Americans who work every single day and still can’t pay their electric bill and pay for their food at the same time. There are mothers out there working two jobs every day to try to keep their kids from going to bed hungry. There are men and women who have worked hard all their lives, so that they can try to buy a home. And they’re living in a tent city, because they got nowhere to go.

This is not OK. And for eight long, long years, this wall has gotten taller. Yesterday, I was in Philadelphia. And I was announcing an initiative to cut poverty in American in half in the next ten years. And I am proud to say, today, that Barack Obama stands with me in this cause. We also have a wall that divides our two public school systems in America. It is not OK that a child born into a wealthy family gets the best education in the world. And a child born in a small town or the inner city barely gets by. Their education is our education. We’re going to fix that system for them and make these schools work for everybody.

I’ll agree with him here - not his methods, but the principle.

How about health care, right? The big drugs companies, insurance companies, HMOs, the politicians who take their money, they’re getting their way. And they love that wall just the way it is today. Well, it’s going to be gone as soon as we create real and meaningful universal health care for every man, woman and child in America.

Yeah, that wall will be gone, and so will the possibility of a decent health care system. McCain’s plan of encouraging competition is MUCH better.

And there’s also a wall that’s divided our image in the world. The America as the beacon of hope is behind that wall. And all the world sees now is a bully. They see Iraq, Guantanamo, secret prison and government that argues that water boarding is not torture.

I’ll give him Iraq. And McCain is against water boarding and other means of torture.

This is not OK. That wall has to come down for the sake of our ideals and our security. We can change this. We can change it. Yes we can. If we stand together, we can change it.

“Yes we can” - that gets so freaking annoying.

(CHEERS)

And the reason I am here tonight is because the Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I. There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up. There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.

SO LONG CLINTON!

(CHEERS)

This is not going to be easy. It’s going to be the fight of our lives. But we’re ready, because we know that this election is about something bigger than the tired old hateful politics of the past. This election is about taking down these walls that divide us, so that we can see what’s possible — what’s possible, that one America that we can build together. Barack Obama understands that to his core.

Oh, it’s going to be REALLY easy … for us!

You know, as I’ve traveled this country, as I’ve learned from traveling this country, from talking to students like those that we took to New Orleans, who volunteered their spring break to go to New Orleans to work to help rebuild the city; a former Army captain that I met who served two tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, even after he was badly injured at a grenade attack. And I’ll never forget a man I met named James Lowe who was born with a cleft palate that kept him from being able to speak. And he had no health care coverage and lived for 50 years in America not able to speak, because he had no health care.

It’s sad, but that’s not the government’s job. Did you pay for Mr. Lowe’s health care? No. So then why do you expect me to pay for it? You’re MUCH richer than me, and you argue against rich people keeping lots of money for themselves.

What I’ve learned, and what Barack Obama has learned, this campaign is about them. It is about you. It is about the people. It is not about us. And that is what we are fighting for.

If it’s all about them, you’d set a campaign spending limit and give some of the money back to them.

(APPLAUSE)

And it’s about the one America we’re going to build for them. One America, where Main Street is strong; one America, where struggling towns come back to life, because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil; one America, where the men and women who work the late shift, who get up at dawn to drive a two- hour commute, and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will actually be honored for that work. One America, where no child, no child, goes to bed hungry; when we finally end the moral shame of 37 million Americans who wake up every day in poverty.

(APPLAUSE)

One America, where we finally start tackling the real health care crisis in America; one America, with one public school system, where a boy in the city and a girl in the suburbs will wake up every day with an equal chance to a quality education. One America, that rebuilds our moral authority in the world, not just with our strength, but with our soul. One America, where the walls will fall, when the war in Iraq ends in 2009, and our servicemen and women –

(APPLAUSE)

And our servicemen and women will come home to the heroes’ welcome that they deserve. And we will take care of our veterans. We’re going to get this part of the war right. We will never again stand by while men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States of America stand in line and have to wait for health care. We will never stand by while 150,000 men and women who wore our uniform, veterans, go to sleep every night on grates and under bridges — not in our America, not in our America, and not in our America when Barack Obama is president of the United States of America.

There won’t be an America when he’s President, because he won’t BE President.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, we’ve been in this kind of place before. In times of war, great depression, deep divisions that tore at the soul of this nation, we came together. And we went to work to make sure that we passed on a stronger and better country to our children. We will meet this challenge again. This is who we are. This is our moment. This is our time to take down these walls, to close our divide, and build one America that we all believe in. If you want that, if you believe in that, then join me in helping send Barack Obama to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; because we believe that in our America –

(APPLAUSE)

Because what all of us believe, what all of us believe, is in this America that we love so much, no matter who you are, no matter who your family is, and no matter what the color of your skin, none of those things will control your destiny; and that that one America that I’ve talked about is not only possible, but it will be achieved under President Barack Obama starting in January of 2009. Thank you. God bless you. I’m honored to be here with you. Thank you, all.

So, there you go. All chances for Clinton are officially over. She’s done. But, she won’t drop out - she’ll keep fighting. I don’t think she’ll take it to the convention anymore, but she’ll at least take it to June 3^rd.

And that is why McCain will win.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Councilwoman JoAnn Watson Pleads With Kwame Kilpatrick to Resign: “Nobody wants a white woman in Lansing to decide the fate of a black man in Detroit”

inkslwc — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:32:30 +0000

Alright, so here’s what happened:

JoAnn Watson had been in talks with the Mayor since the weekend, trying to get him to resign. She had even called him as late as 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday, right before the city council met, where they voted on 2 ways of ousting him.

After the meeting, and the votes to oust Kilpatrick, Watson’s aides gave her a piece of paper, a message from Kilpatrick urging her to reconsider her vote. The council adjourned, and she went down to talk to Kilpatrick face to face. She went in to his office, and after 15 minutes, reporters saw Sharon McPhail, former councilwoman, turned wanna-be mayor, turned aide to the man he ran against.

Watson had asked the mayor, again, to resign.

She told reporters what she had been telling him all along, “I urged him to resign if the council voted. I even said, ‘If there are issues around vesting your pension, I’m happy to play a role in assisting with that.’ He called back while I was in session.”

She went back to her office, ate lunch, and hoped Kilpatrick would call. She told reporters, “If he calls, I’ll answer, but if he doesn’t put it in writing, I’m not going to reconsider [my vote].” She would wait until 2:30, when the council would reconvene, and hear what she thought.

She told reporters as she waited, “He’ll call,” and he did call. As she talked in her office with the door wide open for the reporters to hear, here’s what was heard:

“You’re a young man. You can come back.”

“It’s not for us! It’s not for us, Mr. Mayor. It’s for the city!”

“The City Council had nothing to do with it.”

“‘When yall gonna take care of that?’ That’s what people ask me.”

“Mr. Mayor, we don’t want to! We want you to help the city move on. Help the city move on!”

“Didn’t Marion Barry [the former Washington, D.C. mayor who was busted for using crack] come back? He resigned and came back! You can resign and come back.” Well, Barry didn’t lose the city millions of dollars.

“Nobody wants a white woman in Lansing to decide the fate of a black man in Detroit. That’s why I’m begging you to resign.” HOLY CRAP! Well, that’s racist. If I said, “Nobody wants a black man in Lansing to decide the fate of a white man in Ohio,” everybody would swarm me and I’d never be able to run for public office.

Then, Cockrel knocked on her door and told her that the council couldn’t wait any longer, and she hung up the phone.

She left her office and told reporters that she would not be changing her vote. After the meeting, she sat in her office, when her aide told her, “You showed everybody how much of a chance you gave him,” but Watson replied, “It’s not about us. It’s for the city. The city deserves better, and who wants to be saddled with this drama for the next weeks and months? We have work to do. I’ve got to fight to get the incinerator closed. I’ve got to fight for summer job right now. All you have to do is look at the faces around the table. Nobody’s happy with it. There’s no dancing in the streets over this one. I said to him, ‘Resign.’ [He said] ‘I can’t. How will I fight?’ … If you’re thinking about using the mayor’s office to raise money for the defense fund, that’s not going to work anyway because the council will be watching every vendor you bring forth to see if they contributed.’ … This business is painful for me. It’s painful. My overwhelming concern is for the city, not one person. And as a city official, I must look at the big picture, and citizens don’t deserve to be submerged in this business any longer.”

She told reporters, “I perceived movement.”

She said that she doesn’t believe Kilpatrick’s lawyers when they say that there never was any movement, “He said it would look like he was giving up. I said no, it would look like he was stepping up. It acknowledges that the city is bigger than you.”

As of late Tuesday, the pair had not had any more conversations.

I honestly don’t even know why she tried. It’s obvious that Kilpatrick doesn’t have the city at heart.

I am somewhat (not completely - it’s the Detroit City Council, I’ll never be taken completely by surprise by anything they do) shocked that she admitted that one of the reasons he should resign is so that a white governor doesn’t step in and decide what happens to a black “man.” I can’t honestly call him a man - he acts like some gang animal. With all of his parties in Washington, D.C., and his attitude of being a mayor, he doesn’t deserve to share the tile of “man” with me and others.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Detroit City Council Votes to Boot Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick Out

inkslwc — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:41:05 +0000

On Tuesday, the Detroit City Council narrowly voted to oust Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, after investigations showed that he perjured in a whisteblower trial.

The council voted as follows on having the governor oust the mayor under her power, having the council itself remove the mayor and censure the mayor:

Council President Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. - Yes, Yes, Yes
Sheila Cockrel - Yes, Yes, Yes
Brenda Jones - Yes, Yes, Yes
Kwame Kenyatta - Yes, Yes, Yes
JoAnn Watson - Yes, Yes, Yes
Council President Pro-Tempore Monica Conyers - No, No, No (no surprise here - her husband is an idiot, why wouldn’t she be one too)
Barbara-Rose Collins - No, No, Yes
Martha Reeves - No, No, No
Alberta Tinsley-Talabi - No, No, Yes

And here’s some quotes from various council members:

“I think it places additional pressure on the mayor to consider making a move.” ~~Ken Cockrel, Jr.
“Part of what makes city government work is an element of trust.” ~~Sheila Cockrel
“My vote reflects my love for our city, not hatred for our mayor.” ~~Brenda Jones
“His removal is a necessary step towards excising the malignant tumor … within the city of Detroit.” ~~Kwame Kenyatta (Honestly the best analysis of the situation. All the others have been WAY too kind to Kilpatrick.)
“I have an absolute belief that the best scenario out of all of this is for the mayor to resign.” ~~JoAnn Watson (And you thought that you had convinced him to resign, but you didn’t.)
“This is going to cost the city a lot of money and it’s going to cost the city a lot of time.” ~~Monica Conyers (When did we decide to sacrifice justice for money? If we never tried any criminals, all of the governments would save money. This is the most ridiculous excuse out there, and it shows just how dumb Conyers is.)
Removing the mayor “sets a bad precedent.” ~~Barbara-Rose Collins
“The council’s no further ahead with that vote than we were before we took it.” ~~Alberta Tinsley-Talabi (Is that a reason to vote against it?)

So, what happens now?

The governor could remove the mayor.
- Within the next week, the council will send a sworn statement to Granholm’s office asking her to remove the mayor.
- The governor’s office will have a meeting with the state’s attorneys to look into the complaint.
- Assuming that the complaint has followed the proper protocol, Kilpatrickwill be served with a copy of the complaint and and notification of a hearing.
- If it is found that the mayor engaged in official misconduct, Granholm would have to open removal proceedings, but there is no set timetable that would accompany the process.
The council could remove the mayor.
- The council will hold a public hearing on June 13^th.
- A trial would take place sometime after the hearing. This would last about 2 weeks.
- The council would vote on removal.
- Kilpatrick’s attorneys could block the effort in court. He could also appeal his removal in court.
Kilpatrick could resign.
- I’ll wake up from a really weird dream, hit the snooze button, and hopefully dream about some fun vacation in San Antonio (it’s a GREAT city - you should go sometime).

So, what’s likely to happen?

I DOUBT the governor will step in. She has said that she doesn’t want to, and Detroiters (especially African Americans) would NOT look kindly upon the “intrusion.” If you ask me, Detroit needs a good intrusion. L. Brooks Patterson should annex Detroit and whip it back into shape.
I REALLY DOUBT that the mayor will resign. JoAnn Watson pleaded with him to resign, and that got nowhere (I plan on doing a blog post specifically on her plea, sometime later today).
The council will probably vote to remove him after the hearing, but Kilpatrick will appeal it, showing that he really doesn’t give a rip about the city, making them pay more money, to oust him for a crime that he and his mistress committed during a trial where he cost the city $8 million.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym worthy will probably build a good case and he’ll be found guilty in a criminal court.

I’ll keep you updated as things happen.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Nebraska and West Virginia Primary Results: 10:00 P.M.: Clinton & McCain Win; Nebraska Too Close to Call

inkslwc — Wed, 14 May 2008 02:11:09 +0000

Here are the results of todays primaries as of 10:00 P.M.:

West Virginia with 45% reporting:

Democrats:

Clinton 107,566 65% 15 delegates
Obama 46,872 28% 3 delegates

Republicans:

McCain 41,418 76% 9 delegates
Huckabee 5,573 10%
Paul 2,778 5%

Nebraska, with 16% reporting (remember, this is simply and advisory primary):

Democrats:

Clinton 10,805 49%
Obama 10,536 48%
Gravel 682 3%

Republicans:

McCain 21,493 88%
Paul 2,880 12%

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Michigan’s Top House Race: Gary Peters vs. Joe Knollenberg (vs. Quacky Dr. Jack Kevorkian)

inkslwc — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:46:25 +0000

The following post is also being syndicated on Right Michigan, where I was offered a position to cover Michigan’s 9th District:

I would first like to thank Nick for allowing me the opportunity to cover stories on the race for Michigan’s 9th District for his site.

First, what exactly is Michigan’s 9th District?

It’s Oakland, Bloomfield, Southfield, and West Bloomfield townships; parts of Orion and Waterford townships; the cities of Farmington, Farmington Hills, Orchard Lake, Keego Harbor, Sylvan Lake, Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills, Rochester, Troy, Clawson, Royal Oak, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Lake Angelus; and the villages of Franklin, Bingham Farms and Beverly Hills (bold indicates where Representative Knollenberg won; italics indicate a close margin; villages were not categorized since they do not vote on their own). Or, for you visual people, it’s this:

What are the demographics?

83.1% White
8.1% Black
5.6% Asian
3.0% Hispanic
0.5% Native American
0.5% Other

So, how does the district vote?

The district has been given Cook Partisan Index of R+0, meaning that the district is more Republican than other average districts, but by less than 1%.
The district voted for George Bush in 2004.
The district voted for Al Gore in 2000 (although the make-up of the district was different from now).
The district has voted for Joe Knollenberg since 2002.

Why is this race so important?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) placed this district in the top 13 districts that they are targetting in their Red to Blue campaign.

What exactly is the Red to Blue campaign?

The DCCC put out this press release explaining the campaign:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today announced the first round of Red to Blue candidates challenging Republican incumbents. This is the second slate of Democratic congressional candidates that have qualified for the competitive DCCC Red to Blue program, the first slate was for candidates in open seats. These candidates earned a spot in the program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they stand for change and will represent new priorities when elected to Congress.

These candidates have come out of the gate strong and the Red to Blue Program will give them the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November,” said Chairman Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The candidates for change in our first round of challenger Red to Blue are strong examples of Democrats who represent a commitment to new priorities for the families in their districts.

The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country, and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support. The program will introduce Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for these campaigns.

Chairman Van Hollen joined Red to Blue co-chairs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Bruce Braley (D-IA) to announce the first 13 challenger candidates for change who qualified for the Red to Blue:

Kay Barnes (MO-06)
Anne Barth (WV-02)
Darcy Burner (WA-0
Robert Daskas (NV-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Christine Jennings (FL-13)
Larry Kissell (NC-0
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Mark Schauer (MI-07)
Dan Seals (IL-10)
Red to Blue was a proven success in the 2004 and 2006 cycles. In 2004, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $7.5 million for twenty seven campaigns across the country with an average of more than $250,000 per campaign. In 2006, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 campaigns with an average of $404,000 per campaign. Red to Blue was also responsible for solidifying the structure of dozens of campaigns and making a real difference for Democrats across America.

Soon after the DCCC put this up on their website, they got some comments about these candidates not being what’s best for the party in terms of stances, but the fact that they’ll be able to raise large amounts of money:

Your only criteria for inclusion seem to be fund-raising ability, not issues.
Isn’t this what scuttled the progress of the party over the years since
you deep-sixed progressive programs and started going to corporations hat in hand?

Soon after other negative comments, the DCCC disabled comments on that press release.

What were the results of the 2006 Election?

Joe Knollenberg (R) 142,290 51.56%
Nancy Skinner (D) 127,620 46.21%
Adam Goodman (L) 3,702 1.34%
Matthew R. Abel (G) 2,468 0.89%

Is this actually close?

For Knollenberg, it is somewhat close, since he was a 14-year incumbent, but he still won by over 5%.

So, who exactly is Gary Peters?

Gary Peters is running against Representative Knollenberg. He was a state Senator from 1994-2002, when he was term-limited out. He then ran against Mike Cox for Attorney General in 2002, where he lost the general election.

He was the Michigan Lottery Commissioner from 2003-2007.

He was hired to teach at Central Michigan University, where he was the center of controversy (that’s a way too long story to tell, so just read The Peters Report or my category of posts on him here, or just search “Gary Peters” here on the Right Michigan website).

Who is Jack Kevorkian?

Jack Kevorkian is a doctor who was sent to jail a few years ago for assisting a patient in committing suicide. Dr. Kevorkian hired attorney Geoffrey Fieger to represent him in that case, but obviously, he lost. He was sentenced for 10-25 years, but only served 8, after the parole board let him out early due to his kidney illness. He was expected to die within a year of leaving prison in May of 2006, but instead, he decided to run for Congress, against Joe Knollenberg and Gary Peters.

How will having Dr. Kevorkian running affect the race?

That is somewhat hard to tell. I have done some calculations. In 1998, Proposal B was brought before voters to allow for assisted suicide. Although it failed statewide as well as in Oakland County, it did better than average in the 9th District (33.05%-66.95%). I did some calculations, and if we assume that only 75% of voters who voted against the proposal vote for Knollenberg in 2008, Knollenberg would still come out with a win just above 50%. Peters would received around 45%, and Kevorkian would receive 5%.

This assumes that Kevorkian only gets 5%, and I think he will get a little more from the Democrats who are unsatissfied with the direction of the party. So, if we assume that Kevorkian gets 8%, 2% more from Peters and 1% from swing-Knollenberg-voters (libertarians), we would have Knollenberg with 49%, Peters with 43% and Kevorkian with 8%. This leaves plenty of room for Knollenberg to lose a few voters who are mad at the Republican party an the Iraq War, but I think Knollenberg is pretty safe this election.

Again, I’d like to thank Nick for allowing me to report on this race.

Next week, I’ll be looking into some of the fundraising of this race.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Nebraska and West Virginia Primary Prediction: McCain and Clinton to Win

inkslwc — Tue, 13 May 2008 02:26:13 +0000

Tomorrow, West Virginia, and Republicans in Nebraska will head to the polls. Here’s my prediction for West Virginia:

Democrats

Clinton 67% 19 delegates
Obama 32% 9 delegates
Edwards 1% 0 delegates

Republicans (the delegates for each candidate will be listed, and 3 from each 3 district will be elected):

John McCain 60% 7 delegates
Huckabee 21% 2 delegates
Paul 13% 0 delegates
Romney 5% 0 delegates
Others 1%

Nebraska (The election tomorrow is simply an advisory primary. The actual delegates will be chosen at the state convention in July, and the delegates are not bound by tomorrow’s primary):

McCain 85%
Paul 15%

I probably won’t be able to live-blog the results tomorrow, but I will hopefully have a couple of updates through the night.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Hillary Clinton Brags About How She’s the Candidate for “White Americans” … Oops!

inkslwc — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:10:19 +0000

In an interview with USAToday, Hillary Clinton had a little slip of the tongue, when she essentially said that she’s the “white folks” candidate. In fact, after recent highly racist comments were made, this picture even surfaced:

OK, so obviously I’m joking. What actually happend is Clinton misspoke, and the media has blown it somewhat out of proportion (the media, blowing things out of proportion to enhance ratings! NEVER!). During an interview with USAToday, Clinton said the following: “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on. … There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Wow, that was extremely poorly worded. I mean, this was worse than the “guns and religion” quote from Obama.

But, John Edwards came to Clinton’s rescue. When he was interviewed on CBS’s Face the Nation, he told Bob Schieffer, “I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it’s a very hard place to be in. But she’s shown a lot of strength about that. … She’s in a very tough, very competitive race that’s been going on a long, long time. And you know, she didn’t probably — I’m sure she feels like she didn’t choose her words very well there.”

David Axelrod, an Obama campaign strategist responded by saying, “The words weren’t well chosen, but the thesis was wrong” (for the life of me, I can’t figure out what he meant. Did he mean to say “and the thesis was wrong”? The “but” is really throwing me off, because that would imply that he somewhat agrees with her - anyway…).

Clinton has come back to defend her statement, saying, “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.” And that’s true. Like it or not, that’s most of America. This is something that the Democrats aren’t getting. Not only do they need to reach white average Americans, they kinda need a white MALE candidate to win. America won’t vote for a black man, and America won’t vote for a woman. That’s just a fact of the current society. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s true.

So, if I were Clinton, I would keep bragging about being “dem white folks’ candidate,” because she won’t win without them (not that she’ll win at all). I just don’t think Obama will reach out to enough of America, and too much of America hates Clinton (and rightfully so).

So who wins? John McCain! And he will hardly have to campaign (hey, it gives me more free time too).

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

John Edwards: “The math is very, very hard” for Hillary Clinton

inkslwc — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:49:14 +0000

This morning, John Edwards appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. Here’s a transcript of the show:

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Barack Obama now leads in the number of delegates. He’s overtaken Hillary Clinton in the number of superdelegates, and now he has the largest percentage of the popular vote. So when we spoke with former Democratic candidate John Edwards late yesterday, we asked if he saw any way for Senator Clinton to get the nomination now.

Mr. JOHN EDWARDS (Former Democratic Presidential Candidate; Democrat, North Carolina): I think it’s very hard, Bob. I mean, I think, actually, as I’ve been watching her campaign the last few weeks, I think she’s become a stronger and stronger candidate. She’s been making a pretty compelling case for her candidacy. The problem is, I think you can no longer make a compelling case for the math. The math is very, very hard for her.

Well, of course she made a compelling case. She pulled all the guns out. She played every card she had, and it made Obama look terrible. But she still didn’t have enough time to come back and win. Take the analogy of a fighter plane and a ship. She kept firing more at the ship as she tried to pull up, and although she may miss the boat and not kill it now (letting Obama be the nominee), she’ll still crash in the water, and all the damage she did to the boat (Obama) will sink it eventually (he’ll lose against McCain).

SCHIEFFER: Well, you ended your campaign because you said it was–it was simply not going to be possible for you to get the nomination, and you felt it was better to end the process sooner rather than later. I remember you said that you were–you didn’t–you did not think it was being helpful to the party. Are you ready to give her that advice?

Mr. EDWARDS: It’s a hard judgment to make, Bob. You know, in my case, I–basically, there were two things going on. One was I had concluded I could stay in the race, keep getting significant number of votes, keep accumulating delegates, but the overwhelming likelihood was I would not be the nominee. And I also believe that if I got out of the race, it would accelerate the process of one person pulling away. Well, I was obviously dead wrong about that. I think it’s a judgment that she has to make, and I think she’s in a very, very tough place.

Translation: Yes. I helped the party, she should too.

SCHIEFFER: It does seem that she has taken this campaign–and there’s no way else to put it—no way else–other way to put it–than to kind of a different place, suggesting that she is the candidate of white people, hard-working white people, I think was the phrase she used. Here’s the sound bite that everybody’s talking about.

Senator HILLARY CLINTON: (From audiotape) There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working–hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.

SCHIEFFER: Do you find it interesting, senator, that she did not make that argument before the North Carolina primary, where you had a large African-American vote, but now she seems to be making it? And isn’t she really arguing that white people won’t vote for Barack Obama?

Mr. EDWARDS: You know, I think what’s going on, Bob, is she’s in a very tough, very competitive race that’s been going on a long, long time and, you know, she didn’t probably–I’m sure she feels like she didn’t choose her words very well there. And I think the difficult place that she’s in, is she’s not just in a tough race now. And I have to tell you, I’m different than a lot of people. I actually admire some of the strength and fortitude that she’s shown. I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it’s a very hard place to be in. But she’s shown a lot of strength about that. But I think the one thing that she has to be careful about–and she doesn’t need my advice, she knows this full well–is she has to be careful about, going forward, is that if she makes the case for herself, which she’s entitled–completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she’s not damaging our prospects–the Democratic Party and our cause–for the fall.

Everybody slips up and misspeaks. But opponents will still use that against you, and the Democrats will use McCain’s slip-ups against him, so it’s not really an excuse.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think she has?

Mr. EDWARDS: Well, no more than there being a tough, competitive race that’s gone on a long time. What I think is, at the end of the day, when this is over–and I think it is likely, certainly at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee–that the Democrats will unite, we’ll all be behind our nominee and we’ll be out there campaigning our hearts out. And if Senator Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, I am absolutely certain that she and President Clinton will be out there campaigning for Senator Obama.

He didn’t answer the question. Translation: Yes. She screwed us over, and now we’ll lose.

SCHIEFFER: You sort of danced around the question when you were on some of the morning shows on Friday about whether or not you’re ready to endorse anybody. I’m not going to try to keep on with this. Are you going to endorse anybody at this point?

Mr. EDWARDS: I might. I don’t think it’s a big deal, to be honest with you. I think voters are the ones who are speaking in this process. My feeling all along, in addition to what we talked about earlier and me getting out earlier, I hoped would accelerate us having an earlier nominee. But my feeling is also that I think that my endorsement or anybody else’s endorsement has not particularly helped with the divide. And I think that actually endorsements sometimes make the divide worse. And what’s important here is not me or who I’m for or who I’d vote for or who I support. What’s important is that we get united as a party behind our nominee, that we’re successful in November. Because the people that I care the most about, you know, the lowincome families in this country, working families, people who are having a hard time, those men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, they’re the ones that matter in this, not some particular candidate or some strategic position that somebody’s taken.

Oh, Mr. Edwards, it’s a VERY big deal. Whoever you endorse will get most of your delegates. And if that’s Clinton, she’s back in this.

SCHIEFFER: You this week are launching a plan to cut poverty in half. That is your–is your goal within the next 10 years. Among the things you’re going to try to do is increase child care, you want to extend income tax credits, you want more unemployment insurance, you want to raise the minimum wage. Have you been able to get any of the candidates to sign on to this plan that you plan to launch this week?

Mr. EDWARDS: Yeah. Actually, as a matter of fact, I’ve been–that’s been one of the most encouraging things that’s happened. When I–at the time I got out of the race, I spoke to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I did not speak to Senator McCain at that point. But both of them committed to do a number of things to make poverty central to the campaign, both in the nomination and also in the general election; and also to make ending poverty in America central to their presidency. I’ve had a number of conversations with each of them since that time. They reinforced that position. I believe they believe it. By the way, I don’t know that they need to be pushed by me. Obviously, this is a central cause in my life. But the two of them care deeply about this, independent of me, and I think that they are committed to the cause. And as to John McCain, I actually spoke to Senator McCain on April the 4th, the anniversary of Dr. King’s death, and because Martin Luther–Martin Luther III asked me to speak to him about possibly having a Cabinet-level position to fight poverty in this country, and I got a very positive response. He didn’t commit to the Cabinet-level position, but he did commit to doing something about this cause. So I actually feel pretty encouraged about this.

Limit frivolous lawsuits - that’d cut down on poverty! But that’d also put you out of a job.

SCHIEFFER: Well, it’s certainly a worthy goal. But how much would something like this, what you’re talking about, cost, senator?

Mr. EDWARDS: Well, some of the things don’t cost anything and some of them do have costs associated with them. I mean, raising the minimum wage, which is one of the things that we talked about doing both at the state and national level, does–certainly doesn’t have any direct costs. And in fact–in fact, in places where the minimum wage has been raised, I think most studies show that the economy has improved in those places. And I would add to that, Bob—and it depends on, in answer to your question specifically, is it depends on how much you expand the earned income tax credit, which is what you just spoke about.

SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.

Mr. EDWARDS: How much we expand the availability of child care. You know, there are gradations in how much of this we do. But I would say, and I think this is an important thing for the country, that if we care about middle-class families, working families in this country, and having sustainable, long-term economic growth, that when–in American history, when we have been lifting millions of Americans out of poverty and putting them in the middle class and broadening that middle class and strengthening the middle class, that’s when we–when we’ve been able to sustain long-term economic growth. And there’s absolutely no reason to believe that’s not true now. I think it is.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, senator, it’s nice to have you back on television again, back to–nice to have you on FACE THE NATION. Hope we’ll see you another time down the trail. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS: Thanks so much for having me.

SCHIEFFER: And we’ll be back in one minute with Senator Clinton’s campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe.

So, it was a pretty standard interview for John Edwards. Subtly hinting that Clinton should quit, and not endorsing anybody.

I don’t think he ever will endorse anybody, at least not before we’re 99.99% sure who will win. If he does endorse somebody, it could give them the win, and that would further divide the party and make people angry against Edwards in the future (2016 election!!!).

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Michigan Supreme Court : No More Health Benefits for Gays’ Partners

inkslwc — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:59:37 +0000

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court decided a case dealing with whether or not public employers are allowed to provide health care benefits to partners of homosexuals. The Court reached that decision in a 5-2 vote in the case of National Pride At Work v. Governor of Michigan.

Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, written by Justice Stephen Markman:

We granted leave to appeal to consider whether the marriage amendment, Const 1963, art 1, § 25, which states that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that providing such benefits does violate the marriage amendment, we affirm its judgment.

…

CONCLUSION

The trial court held that providing health-insurance benefits to domestic partners does not violate the marriage amendment because public employers are not recognizing domestic partnerships as unions similar to marriage, given the significant distinctions between the legal effects accorded to these two unions.
However, given that the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of unions similar to marriage “for any purpose,” the pertinent question is not whether these unions give rise to all of the same legal effects; rather, it is whether these unions are being recognized as unions similar to marriage “for any purpose.”
Recognizing this and concluding that these unions are indeed being recognized as similar unions “for any purpose,” the Court of Appeals reversed. We affirm its judgment. That is, we conclude that the marriage amendment, Const 1963, art 1, § 25, which states that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners.

Stephen J. Markman
Clifford W. Taylor
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.

Justice Marilyn J. Kelly wrote the following in her dissent:

The issue we decide is whether the so-called “marriage amendment” of the Michigan Constitution prevents public employers from voluntarily providing health benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners. The majority has determined that it does. I disagree.

First, the language of the amendment itself prohibits nothing more than the recognition of same-sex marriages or similar unions. It is a perversion of the amendment’s language to conclude that, by voluntarily offering the benefits at issue, a public employer recognizes a union similar to marriage. Second, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment strongly suggest that Michigan voters did not intend to prohibit public employers from offering healthcare benefits to their employees’ same-sex partners. The majority decision does not represent “the law which the people have made, [but rather] some other law which the words of the constitution may possibly be made to express.”
Accordingly, I dissent.

…

CONCLUSION

The majority decides that the “marriage amendment” prevents public employers from voluntarily entering into contractual agreements to provide health benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners. Its decision is contrary to the people’s intent as demonstrated by the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment and as expressed in the amendment’s language. For
those reasons, I must dissent.

Furthermore, by proceeding as it does, the majority condones and even encourages the use of misleading tactics in ballot campaigns by ignoring the extrinsic evidence available to it. CPM petitioned to place the “marriage amendment” on the ballot, telling the public that the amendment would not prohibit public employers from offering health benefits to their employees’ samesex domestic partners. Yet CPM argued to this Court that the “plain language of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment” prohibits public employers from granting the benefits at issue. Either CPM misrepresented the meaning of the amendment to the State Board of Canvassers and to the people before the election or it misrepresents the meaning to us now. Whichever is true, this Court should not allow CPM to succeed using such antics. The result of the majority’s disregard of CPM’s preelection statements is that, in the future, organizations may be encouraged to use lies and deception to win over voters or the Court. This should be a discomforting thought for us all.

Marilyn Kelly
Michael F. Cavanagh

Here’s the copy of Proposal 2 of 2004:

PROPOSAL 04-2

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN

BE RECOGNIZED AS A “MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION” FOR ANY PURPOSE

The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that “the union of one man and one

woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any

purpose.”

And here’s an excerpt from the the Constitution (Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 1, Constitution of Michigan of 1963, Constitution-I, Article I, § 25):

§ 25 Marriage.

Sec. 25.

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Many people who disagree with the ruling cite sources from the Michigan Christian Citizens Alliance’s committee, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage (CPM), when they said that the amendment was simply about marriage. One source was a CPM brochure:

Proposal 2 is Only about Marriage

Marriage is a union between a husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is—for families today and future generations.

Well, honestly, brochures aren’t legal documents. That was a brochure to get more people to vote for the amendment. It may have been unethical, but it wasn’t illegal, and the Supreme Court’s job is not to interpret a brochure, but the Constitution, and the constitution clearly states, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose” (emphasis mine), and determining health care benefits is one of those purposes. I agree with the Court’s ruling.

I just don’t think that the government should be rewarding people for sinning. I don’t support gay marriage or civil unions as they’ve been proposed so far. What I WOULD support is the government to remove itself from marriages and give civil unions to any 2 people who wanted it (brother and sister, mother and daughter, husband and wife, a man and his neighbor, etc). That would make it so that those 2 people could have whatever benefits they want, and it removes “love” completely from the picture and makes it purely objective. But that will never happen. Why? Because gays want their time to shine, and if they are given rights with a bunch of other people, it won’t be something new and exclusive to them.

So, again, I fully support the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in this case. It doesn’t matter what the “intentions” of the amendment were, wording is wording, and it seems pretty clear to me what that wording means.

(I will now list the other plaintiffs in this case: Becky Allen, Dorthea Agnostopoulos, Adnan Ayoub, Meghan Bellanger, Judith Block, Mary M. Brisbois, Wade Carlson, Courtney D. Chapin, Michael Chapman, Michelle Corwin, Lori Curry, Joseph Darby, Scott Dennis, Jim Etzkorn, Jill Fuller, Susan Halsey-Ceragh, Peter Hammer, Debra Harrah, Ty Hiither, Jolinda Jach, Terry Korreck, Craig Kukuk, Gary Lindsay, Kevin McMann, A.T. Miller, Kitty O’Neil, Dennis Patrick, Tom Patrick, Gregg Pizzi, Kathleen Poelker, Jerome Post, Barbara Ramber, Paul Renwick, Dahlia Schwartz, Alexandra Stern, Gwen Stokes, Ken Cyberski, Joanne Beemon, Carol Borgeson, Michael Falk, and Matt Scott. “Plaintiff National Pride at Work, Inc., is a nonprofit organization of the American Federation of Labor–Council of Industrial Organizations. The remaining plaintiffs are employees of the city of Kalamazoo, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, the Clinton/Eaton/Ingham County Community Mental Health Board, or the state of Michigan and those employees’ same-sex partners. Because the benefit plans of Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, and the Eaton/Clinton/Ingham Community Mental Health Board are not part of the record, they are not discussed. Likewise, this opinion does not address whether private employers can provide health-insurance benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners.”)

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::