Super Delegate votes
Greg Goss
weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to
vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/16/1029646.aspx
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
QueBarbara
Doesn't seem weird to me, it seems like the right thing to do.
--
QueBarbara
Greg Goss
Weird is from the quote. If I didn't like his logic, I would have
said something sarcastic in the lead-in or after it.
As an Obama, I may not like it, but it's logical and honourable.
Snidely
> but it's logical and honourable.
Wash your mouth out with soap!
/dps
D.F. Manno
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> As an Obama, I may not like it, but it's logical and honourable.
By birth or marriage?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)
Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any
> weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
> Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
> vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
> actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to
> vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
> Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
>
If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
If that's the case, why bother having them?
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
xho...@gmail.com
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:
> >
> > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any
> > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
> > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
> > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
> > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to
> > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
> > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> >
> If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well,
adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in some
grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean *something*.
> If that's the case, why bother having them?
So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come
out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally
pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies
in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do
you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')
xho...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Greg Goss wrote:
> > >
> > > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any
> > > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
> > > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
> > > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
> > > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to
> > > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
> > > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> > >
> > If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
>
> No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well,
> adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in some
> grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean *something*.
>
But the delegates are already being divided up based on who won
certain districts.
> > If that's the case, why bother having them?
>
> So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come
> out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally
> pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies
> in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do
> you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
>
They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this
to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the
delegates in Fl and Mich?
xho...@gmail.com
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> xho...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')"
> > <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Greg Goss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any
> > > > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
> > > > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
> > > > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
> > > > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going
> > > > to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
> > > > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."
> > > >
> > > If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?
> >
> > No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well,
> > adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in
> > some grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean
> > *something*.
> >
> But the delegates are already being divided up based on who won
> certain districts.
But there are multiple delegates per district, and they are generally
divided up proportionally, not winner take all. So this adds winner takes
all on top of it.
>
> > > If that's the case, why bother having them?
> >
> > So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't
> > come out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else
> > equally pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on
> > butterflies in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago,
> > but hey, What do you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
> >
> They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this
> to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the
> delegates in Fl and Mich?
What part of "They are Democrats, it's what they do" did you not
understand? :)
S. Checker
>
>
>> So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come
>> out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally
>> pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies
>> in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do
>> you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
>>
> They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this
> to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the
> delegates in Fl and Mich?
The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two
candidates that had strengths in the different states. Used to be that
conventions were always for nominating the candidate, and not that long
ago either - look at some of Nixon's machinations.
As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be put
in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention, for
belonging to bonehead state organizations.
--
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible
and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
huey.c...@gmail.com
> As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be
> put in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention, for
> belonging to bonehead state organizations.
I'd like to urge the AFCA readership to write their democratic party
leadership and urge them to adopt this idea.
--
Huey
Paul Ciszek
In article <h8jdg5x...@fernon.pffcu.org>,
S. Checker <spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')"
><tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> xho...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come
>>> out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally
>>> pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies
>>> in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do
>>> you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.
>>>
>> They have created a system that is likely to let Hillary take this
>> to the convention, if she wants to. and what happens with the
>> delegates in Fl and Mich?
>
>The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two
>candidates that had strengths in the different states. Used to be that
>conventions were always for nominating the candidate, and not that long
>ago either - look at some of Nixon's machinations.
>
>As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be put
>in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention, for
>belonging to bonehead state organizations.
Is it always the state party's decision? I thought that in Florida, the
Republican-dominated state legislature decided to move the state primary,
knowing that it would result in the local Democrats being disenfranchised.
--
Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.
D.F. Manno
spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker) wrote:
> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two
> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are
winner-take-all.
Hank Gillette
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Is it always the state party's decision? I thought that in Florida, the
> Republican-dominated state legislature decided to move the state primary,
> knowing that it would result in the local Democrats being disenfranchised.
That's partially true. There were only two votes total against moving
the primary in the Florida legislature, so the Democrats weren't exactly
dragged into it kicking and screaming. The claim that the bill also had
a fix for the voting machines and that's why they supported it.
--
Hank Gillette
"If you can't drink everyone under the table, well, you're just wasting the
whole experience of being an alcoholic." -- "HusseinTenaX" at TPM
S. Checker
You'd find more widespread support for this if the average delegate
were not in his or her 50s and overweight.
--
James McGuire of the University of Liverpool... notes that, in general,
punishment is not effective... Boot camps... and the death penalty are
proving ineffective in preventing recidivism.
--Scientific American, on zombie criminals
M C Hamster
wrote:
>In article <h8jdg5x...@fernon.pffcu.org>,
> spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker) wrote:
>
>> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two
>> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
>
>Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are
>winner-take-all.
That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been winner-take-all,
I wonder what the delegate count would look like. My initial T-O-M
guess is that it would still be close, but since Hillary won most of
the big states, on second thought that might not be true.
Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turning" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Opus the Penguin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:25:43 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <h8jdg5x...@fernon.pffcu.org>,
>> spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker) wrote:
>>
>>> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had
>>> two candidates that had strengths in the different states.
>>
>>Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are
>>winner-take-all.
>
> That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been
> winner-take-all, I wonder what the delegate count would look like.
> My initial T-O-M guess is that it would still be close, but since
> Hillary won most of the big states, on second thought that might
> not be true.
>
> Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
>
While that would be interesting, remember that it doesn't really tell
you who would have won those states under winner-take-all rules. The
campaignins would have used different strategies to address the
different rules.
--
Opus the Penguin
I can't remember the specifics but it's probably safe to blame the
French. - N. Jill Marsh
Greg Goss
>While that would be interesting, remember that it doesn't really tell
>you who would have won those states under winner-take-all rules. The
>campaignins would have used different strategies to address the
>different rules.
In theory. There are reports that one of the key strategists in the
early Clinton planning repeatedly needed to be reminded that
particular states were NOT winner-take-all. The blog reporting this
was incredulous that a highly paid consultant wouldn't know something
so simple, and wouldn't pick up on it the first time it was mentioned,
but had confirmation from more than one "anonymous source".
Paul Ciszek
In article <69lq84F...@mid.individual.net>,
I seemed to hear ONLY about non-winner-take-all races. Which states are
winner-take-all for the Democrats?
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:25:43 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <h8jdg5xbm2....@fernon.pffcu.org>,
> > spam...@gmail.com (S. Checker) wrote:
>
> >> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two
> >> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
>
> >Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are
> >winner-take-all.
>
> That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been winner-take-all,
> I wonder what the delegate count would look like. My initial T-O-M
> guess is that it would still be close, but since Hillary won most of
> the big states, on second thought that might not be true.
>
> Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
There was a piece in Slate a few weeks back with just this. Clinton
would be way ahead in the delegate count. The writer was spinning
this as therefore Clinton should be nominated. The reasons why this
is blatantly stupid were laid out in small words in another article by
someone else a few days later.
Richard R. Hershberger
Boron Elgar
I think you mean Wilentz's Salon and the article just says that if
there were a winner-take-all system, that she'd have pretty much
clinched by April (then the article was written).
Nowhere does it say that she *should* automatically get the nom, as
the system is obviously not a winner-take-all one, but that she
shouldn't be considered any sort of loser at that point.
I don't think there is any question that the writer favors Clinton,
in general, though.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/
The rebuttal opinion piece, by Brad DeLong, sums up in the following
way, not exactly high intellectual scholarship...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/10/wilentz_reply/
And, alas, the arguments that Clinton would fare worse in those
states, and that she is less electable generally than Obama, are
numerous and distressingly powerful:
* She is a Clinton, and hence will energize the Republican base
against her nationwide as nobody else can.
* The press corps has never given her a fair shake, and as
Machiavelli once said, we can never forgive and be fair to those to
whom we have done injury.
* Barack Obama is a charismatic, historic figure.
* The positions that Clinton has been taking vis-à-vis Obama in
the past month appear to open up major vulnerabilities in the fall.
McCain's national security experience in Vietnam trumps Clinton's
national security experience in Tuzla, Bosnia.
Now, none of these are Hillary Rodham Clinton's fault -- well, except
for that last one, which is her fault, or perhaps Mark Penn's. None of
these are fair. But they do make me believe that flinty-eyed
Democratic superdelegates making coldblooded calculations about the
national interest are making a better bet on the future if they decide
to support Barack Obama.
D.F. Manno
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>While that would be interesting, remember that it doesn't really tell
> >>you who would have won those states under winner-take-all rules. The
> >>campaignins would have used different strategies to address the
> >>different rules.
> >
> >In theory. There are reports that one of the key strategists in the
> >early Clinton planning repeatedly needed to be reminded that
> >particular states were NOT winner-take-all. The blog reporting this
> >was incredulous that a highly paid consultant wouldn't know something
> >so simple, and wouldn't pick up on it the first time it was mentioned,
> >but had confirmation from more than one "anonymous source".
>
> I seemed to hear ONLY about non-winner-take-all races. Which states are
> winner-take-all for the Democrats?
None of them. The Democrats banned winner-take-all primaries as part of
the McGovern-Frazer reforms after the 1968 campaign.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > S. Checker <spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As for the Florida and Michigan delegates, I believe they should be
> >> put in bunny outfits and made to serve drinks at the convention,
> >> for belonging to bonehead state organizations.
> > I'd like to urge the AFCA readership to write their democratic party
> > leadership and urge them to adopt this idea.
> You'd find more widespread support for this if the average delegate
> were not in his or her 50s and overweight.
When you said "bunny outfits", I wasn't thinking 'Playboy', but 'Easter'.
--
Huey
S. Checker
I'd go with it either way. Just not the clean room outfits. Those can
be creepy.
There's a legend about a Philadelphia-area[1] police department that owned
an Easter bunny costume. An officer would get in the suit and go and
work over any suspects who were proving recalcitrant. When the suspect
was later asked who had beat him up, all he could say was "a guy in a
pink bunny suit."
[1] Since it's probably a UL, the location may vary. I heard it here.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis ad capul tuum saxum
immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money or I will
fling an enormous rock at your head.)
Richard R. Hershberger
Read the headline. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilentz didn't write
that headline, but it sets the tone. And that tone is there: Wilentz
characterizes proportional representation as an "eccentricity" and
contrasts this with winner-take-all, which he characterizes as "one of
the central principles of American electoral politics". This is a
normative argument, not merely a description.
Boron Elgar
Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say
originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all really
is one of the central principles of American electoral politics.
And the counter argument from DeLong was, in summation, as I quoted,
rather blatantly stupid itself. You clipped all the good stuff I
posted that pretty much pointed that out.
Boron
Opus the Penguin
> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say
> originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all
> really is one of the central principles of American electoral
> politics.
>
MONEY TALKS!
--
Opus the Penguin
I'm afraid I lied to you, you weren't my first, Dover was. - QueBarbara
Boron Elgar
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Boron Elgar (boron...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say
>> originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all
>> really is one of the central principles of American electoral
>> politics.
>>
>
>MONEY TALKS!
Yeah, but if the rest of that adage were true, we'd have a lot of
really thin politicians.
Boron
Richard R. Hershberger
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:35:05 -0700 (PDT), "Richard R. Hershberger"
>
>
>
>
>
Winner-take-all on the state level is perhaps a central principle
American presidential politics, but we don't see, for example, a
state's House of Representatives delegation chosen this way. If we
are going to toss about the word "eccentric" I would apply it to the
electoral college system.
The thing is, if we take the article as purely descriptive, and not
normative, then what we have is a mildly interesting exercise in
trivia: a game of what-if, but poorly designed since it pretends you
could change the system while assuming people wouldn't adapt to this
different system.
It would be possible to have a reasonable discussion about
electability looking at each state, and this discussion of course
would take into account the winner-take-all system. But in that
discussion, you can't point at some solidly Democratic state that
Clinton won and claim that because she won it, McCain would win it
running against Obama. At least you can't do this if you don't want
to induce giggles in your readers.
As I wrote above, it is possible that the headline did not accurately
reflect Wiletz's intend. I believe it does, but I acknowledge that
reasonable persons can disagree on this. It is possible that Wiletz
meant nothing beyond a trivia game. But at the very least, it is
reasonable for a reader to include the headline in interpreting the
article.
Glenn Dowdy
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA76D1A31A87op...@127.0.0.1...
> Boron Elgar (boron...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say
>> originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all
>> really is one of the central principles of American electoral
>> politics.
>>
>
> MONEY TALKS!
>
Glenn D.
M C Hamster
Regardless of the headline, the first Salon piece did show the
computation that I was looking for. Thanks for posting it, Boron, and
thanks to Richard for identifying it initially.
I don't personally find Winner Take All to be a compelling method for
allotting delegates, any more than the electoral college system, but
that's beyond what I was asking.
(This reminds me... I just finished watching the HBO series on John
Adams, and among other things, it really points out just how fallible
and flawed the thinking of the "founding fathers" was. But somehow,
nowadays any reference to "the founding fathers" seems to
automatically impart reverent, God-like wisdom to them. It's clear
they were just making it up as they were going along. It's too bad
that they came up with this ridiculousElectoral College thing, among
other stupidities.)
Don K
news:pech34h2q9t2posho...@4ax.com...
> I don't personally find Winner Take All to be a compelling method for
> allotting delegates, any more than the electoral college system, but
> that's beyond what I was asking.
I don't mind the electoral college. It's the caucus stuff that is too wierd
for me. It's a way for a small group of dedicated fanatics to seize control.
This year 11 states had caucuses. The rest had elections.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/2008_Pres_Prim_ByState.htm
>
> (This reminds me... I just finished watching the HBO series on John
> Adams, and among other things, it really points out just how fallible
> and flawed the thinking of the "founding fathers" was. But somehow,
> nowadays any reference to "the founding fathers" seems to
> automatically impart reverent, God-like wisdom to them. It's clear
> they were just making it up as they were going along. It's too bad
> that they came up with this ridiculousElectoral College thing, among
> other stupidities.)
The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held out
until a perfect constitution was created, but that they compromised
and went with the best one they could agree upon.
I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of compromise
to move forward for the common good.
Don
S. Checker
> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held out
> until a perfect constitution was created, but that they compromised
> and went with the best one they could agree upon.
>
> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of compromise
> to move forward for the common good.
Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners?
Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand by it
forever.
--
I remember in elementary school having monkey bars over a
concrete slab. Great incentive to stay on.
-- misty-eyed recollections from Tim W
Opus the Penguin
> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>
>> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held
>> out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they
>> compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
>>
>> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of
>> compromise to move forward for the common good.
>
> Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners?
> Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand
> by it forever.
>
I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's correct.
--
Opus the Penguin
I've known a few middle-aged guys who smoke pot regularly, and "a
permanent state of duh-ness" is an eloquent descriptor. - Veronique
Paul Ciszek
In article <Xns9AAB6512B8FD6op...@127.0.0.1>,
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>S. Checker (spa...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held
>>> out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they
>>> compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
>>>
>>> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of
>>> compromise to move forward for the common good.
>>
>> Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners?
>> Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand
>> by it forever.
>>
>
>I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's correct.
Um, Opus, didn't you flip-flop on your support for GWB?
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>S. Checker (spa...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction
>>>> held out until a perfect constitution was created, but that
>>>> they compromised and went with the best one they could agree
>>>> upon.
>>>>
>>>> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of
>>>> compromise to move forward for the common good.
>>>
>>> Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners?
>>> Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to
>>> stand by it forever.
>>>
>>
>>I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's
>>correct.
>
> Um, Opus, didn't you flip-flop on your support for GWB?
>
And I stand by that decision.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure how much of a flip-flop that was. I
did not vote for GWB or Gore. I very marginally preferred GWB to
Gore. I thought GWB was bad and he has since proved much much worse
than I thought. I still think Gore was a very poor candidate. I wish
the Dems could have run someone better.
--
Opus the Penguin
This is so obviously ludicrous that it's hard to get very interested
in contradicting it. - Pushmi-Pullyu
huey.c...@gmail.com
> > Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
> >> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held
> >> out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they
> >> compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
> >> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of compromise
> >> to move forward for the common good.
> > Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners?
> > Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand by
> > it forever.
> I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's correct.
you- ...you FLIPPER-FLAPPER!
--
Huey