Elections 2009-2012, Part 3

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-25-2011 11:00 AM


January 25, 2011

Rahm Appeals to Get Back on Ballot

With just four weeks until Election Day, Rahm Emanuel's lawyers filed an emergency motion with the Illinois Supreme Court in an effort to have his name put back on the ballot for Chicago mayor, the Chicago Tribune reports.

First Read: "The case turns on the meaning of an Illinois law providing that a person cannot run for a city office 'unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality' for at least a year preceding the election. It's an issue for Emanuel -- a Chicago native and former congressman representing the city -- because he went to Washington to become White House chief of staff when President Obama was elected. At first, he lived in an apartment while his family remained in Chicago. Then, in June 2009, he and his family rented a Washington, DC house while leasing the Chicago house to another family."

"The 2-1 ruling said Emanuel meets the less restrictive state law test of being 'a qualified elector,' because he clearly intended to live in Washington temporarily and then return to Chicago. What's more, Illinois law says no voter can be found to have lost his legal residence 'by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.'"

"But the court found that the legal test for the residence of a candidate is more narrow. The requirement that a candidate must have 'resided in' the city for a year before the election means, the court said, to 'actually live rather than having legal voting residence' -- a qualification that Emanuel 'unquestionably does not satisfy.'
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/ ... allot.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-25-2011 11:01 AM


January 25, 2011

Giuliani's Mistake

In an interview with Piers Morgan, Rudy Giuliani looks back on his failed presidential bid in 2008.

Said Giuliani: "The basic mistake was -- I made a lot of them, but I made one big one, which was I built a national campaign. When John McCain was ahead, we were kind of like trying to catch him. We caught him and we went ahead of him. So we were the front-runner for six months, five months, whatever. But I didn't build a good enough campaign in any one state to win a primary. I had a great national campaign, a terrible primary campaign. And it should be reversed. You've got to win primaries in order to get nominated."

"So if I did it again, or for anybody else who is running, I would concentrate on figuring out how do you win Iowa? How do you win New Hampshire? How do you win South Carolina? How do you win Florida? In that order, at least one or two of those."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/ ... stake.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-25-2011 11:06 AM


January 25, 2011

Quote of the Day

"When the President talks in his speech about investment, the American people need to understand that translates into spending."

-- Sen. John Thune (R-SD), quoted by KFSY-TV.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/ ... e_day.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-25-2011 02:49 PM


Supreme Court will hear appeal of ruling knocking Emanuel off ballot

By ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Jan 25, 2011 01:41PM

The Illinois Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear the appeal of a court decision that knocked Rahm Emanuel out of the mayoral race.

Earlier Tuesday, the Supreme Court ordered the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to put Emanuel’s name back on the mayoral ballot while it considered Emanuel’s appeal of Monday’s Illinois Appellate Court ruling that Emanuel did not meet the one-year residency requirement to run for mayor of Chicago.

The Supreme Court said it will not accept any new legal briefs or even hear oral arguments on the case. Instead, the court will rely on the briefs already filed at the appellate court level.

“This Court is taking the case on the briefs filed by the parties in the appellate court,’’ the Supreme Court’s order reads. “No additional briefs will be filed in the Supreme Court. Oral argument will not be entertained.

In its earlier ruling Tuesday, the court granted Emanuel’s motion to suspend enforcement of the appellate court ruling.

“The appellate court decision is stayed,’’ the Supreme Court’s order reads. “The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago.’’

Emanuel’s attorneys, heavily citing the dissenting opinion in that case, are hoping to convince the seven justices of the Supreme Court to allow Emanuel to run.

Emanuel had been leading in the polls and in campaign fund-raising.

The appellate court decision came just as a Waukegan firm hired by the Board of Election Commissioners was about to print ballots Tuesday for the Feb. 22 election. Early voting begins Monday.
http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/ema ... allot.html

--

Mayoral candidate and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel speaks to reporters during a campaign stop at a bowling alley January 24, 2011 in Chicago.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-25-2011 06:08 PM


The Note

Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Reid Reiterates Defense of Earmarks in Face of President's Proposed Ban

January 25, 2011 3:33 PM

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today was asked if he might change his stance on pork now that President Obama is going to propose an earmark ban in tonight’s State of the Union.

Reid’s answer was pretty clear: Nope.

“I think this is an issue that any president would like to have, that takes power away from the legislative branch of government and I don’t think that’s helpful. I think it’s a lot of pretty talk and it’s only giving the president more power. He’s got enough power already,” Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill after a Democratic caucus meeting.

Reid’s comments today echo his statement last month when he gave a passionate defense of pork on Dec. 16, hitting out at the President and Republicans alike.

“I am convinced that I do not want to give up more power to the White House, whether it's George Bush or Barack Obama,” Reid said last month. “I'm going to fight as hard as I can against President Obama on these earmarks, and my Republican colleagues who hate to vote for them but love to get them.

“I can’t accept the fact that people are saying, ‘Why should we vote to accept Congressionally-directed spending?’ That’s our job. That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, today said they are none too impressed with the President’s plan to propose a budget freeze.

“I would remind you that in the speech last year there was a recommendation for a three-year freeze,” the Senate’s top Republican Mitch McConnell said. “And the problem with that is it freezes in place an extraordinary increase in spending that’s occurred over the last two years. So it strikes most of us that the effort by the House of Representatives to get us back to 2008 spending levels would be the direction to go if we really wanted to have an impact on our annual deficit problem.”

Sen. John Thune, R-SD, also downplayed the President’s budget freeze.

“If you look at the record in the last couple of years, you’ve seen spending increase dramatically – you know, a five-year freeze after a two-year increase of 21 percent at a time when inflation in the overall economy was two percent means the government is growing at 10 times the rate of inflation in the last two years. So that’s probably not going to inspire a lot of people who want to see meaningful efforts to reduce spending and reduce the debt,” Thune said.

“It’s going to be the action that follows from this more than what he says this evening, I think, that really defines whether or not we’re going to make any meaningful progress toward addressing what I think the American people care about the most – and that’s jobs, spending, and debt.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... d-ban.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-26-2011 09:35 PM

Snip:

Senate Democrats Drop Campaign to Limit Filibuster

By CARL HULSE

Published: January 26, 2011

WASHINGTON — Democratic advocates of an overhaul of Senate rules to curb the filibuster abandoned that effort on Wednesday, clearing the way for a bipartisan agreement to institute less sweeping changes to ease procedural gridlock.

After a lengthy meeting with their colleagues and clear signs that they lacked the votes to try to force through new restrictions on the filibuster, the lawmakers — Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Harkin of Iowa — said they would relent now but press their case over the long term.

“While I’m disappointed this body lacks the necessary will to enact truly substantive reforms, we have certainly succeeded in bringing reform to the forefront and shining a light on the sources of our dysfunction,” Mr. Udall said. He added that he was committed to “making sure the Senate is more than just a graveyard for good ideas and we are able to address the challenges we face as a nation.”

The Democrats had never championed elimination of the filibuster, but sought to reduce its use and to require senators taking part in any blockade to be represented on the floor while doing so.

The Senate is set to take a series of test votes on Thursday on various proposals to make it more difficult for lawmakers to block action through filibuster, but any changes would have to attract 67 votes to pass — an unlikely prospect. . . .
Rest of Article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/po ... 7cong.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-27-2011 06:49 PM

Snip:


January 27, 2011

Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot


UPDATED at 5:28 p.m. by Liam Ford and Jeff Coen


The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago.

The decision comes without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31.

You can read the opinion by clicking here ( http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/S ... 111773.pdf ).

A cheer went up at Emanuel's headquarters when the news came out. The candidate was preparing to leave for tonight's debate with the three other leading contenders. But first he stopped at the Clark and Lake "el" stop to greet voters.

He shook hands with a large smile on his face, slapping the backs of commuters and posing for photographs. Some slapped his back in return.

The high court's decision reverses a 2-1 Illinois Appeals Court decision Monday that ruled Emanuel ineligible on the grounds he did not meet the requirement of being a Chicago resident for a year before the election. Emanuel returned to Chicago last fall to run for mayor after serving as White House chief of staff to President Barack Obama.

The Chicago election board and a Cook County Circuit judge had earlier both ruled Emanuel met the residency requirements. The Supreme Court unanimousy said the appellate court was in error in overruling them. . . .
Rest of Article at:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clo ... today.html
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 01-27-2011 07:26 PM

SETIsLady wrote: Hey Race, looks like Mike Pence is positioning for 2012 what are your thoughts ?

Mike Pence resigns from GOP leadership[/B]
--
Originally posted by racehorse

SETIsLady, I very much doubt that Mike Pence will run for President in 2012. If he does, he will lose badly and he probably knows that. Pence is a likeable person but his most likely base of potential supporters is already mostly committed in their intentions to other potential candidates.

I think he probably will run and win for Governor of Indiana in 2012. I think this is what he really wants (for now). A Presidential bid, if there is to be one, can wait until there is a more opportune time for him.


--

Snip:



POLITICO

Aide: Mike Pence will pass on White House run in 2012

By KASIE HUNT & DAVID CATANESE | 1/27/11 3:08 PM EST Updated: 1/27/11 5:27 PM EST

In a blow to conservative activists and the tea party, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) will announce late Thursday that he will not run for president.

Pence won’t formally announce his gubernatorial campaign on Thursday—a state law prohibits announced candidates from raising money during the state legislative session, scheduled to end April—but he fully intends to run for governor, a source with knowledge of his thinking told POLITICO.

Pence will formally announce the decision against a national run in an interview in The Indianapolis Star on Thursday night. . . .



Rest of Article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48306.html
Last edited by racehorse on 01-27-2011 07:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
Capt Tuttle
Pirate
Posts: 871
Joined: 07-03-2007 01:56 PM

Post by Capt Tuttle » 02-21-2011 02:18 PM

Number of Solidly Democratic States Cut in Half From '08 to '10

"Gallup's analysis of party affiliation in the U.S. states shows a marked decline in the number of solidly Democratic states from 2008 (30) to 2010 (14). The number of politically competitive states increased over the same period, from 10 to 18, with more limited growth in the number of leaning or solidly Republican states."

The link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146234/Numbe ... m=Politics
"Be good"
-Mom

cherry
Pirate
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05-28-2004 05:15 PM

Post by cherry » 06-18-2011 04:28 PM

Ron Paul wins the RLC presidential straw poll.

User avatar
Pegasuss
Pirate
Posts: 4061
Joined: 01-07-2006 07:33 AM

Post by Pegasuss » 07-13-2011 02:58 PM

racehorse wrote: --



--

Snip:



Rest of Article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48306.html


Racehorse my friend are you still out there.
Reading some of your postings brought back fond memories of animated debates and free expressions of concepts of all types.

I hope that you had read the invite to embark on the new cruise of an old ship as I have. If so, stow your duffel and lets get the sails trimmed and the sun on our backs, beginning again!
The Truth Is Out There

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 07-06-2012 07:21 PM

Romney seems like an odd choice, in a year when the incumbent is so utterly beatable.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all
As China rapidly evolves into a surveillance state determined to constantly monitor its own citizens, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stands to profit from the Orwellian buildup.

[...]

On the surface, the fact that Romney can profit from a company in the business of producing products human rights activists claim "are used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents" may seem curious because the former Massachusetts governor often criticizes President Barack Obama for a perceived leniency with China regarding human rights (for example, a statement on Romney's website implores, "Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights").
Probably not the biggest deal, but it's low hanging fruit - and there is tons of it with this guy. Pair it with the Obamacare/Romneycare weirdness (which is making Santorum, of all people, look pretty smart right now) and it becomes a real brow furrowing head scratcher.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7004
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 07-07-2012 05:59 AM

Romney is an odd choice, no matter what year.......

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 07-09-2012 02:55 PM

For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 07-09-2012 05:22 PM

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/09/the-r ... -delegates
While the rest of the world treats the GOP presidential race as completely over, the final selection of delegates in the state of Nebraska is still ahead on July 14, and Ron Paul is still fighting for them. A win, if he can pull it off, will be of greater importance than it might seem for a candidate who has already admitted his opponent Mitt Romney is sure to win the nomination. Nebraska, if he nabs it, will be the fifth state whose delegation Paul controls, which according to Republican National Committee rules gives him the ability to be formally nominated for president from the floor, guaranteeing him 15 minutes of floor speaking time before the first ballot.
This fellow is quoted in the above piece:
The article about the Nebraska GOP bringing in more "security" to protect delegates from the Ron Paul supporters caught my attention. The quoted individual holds the same job in the same party that I held fifty years ago. I was a very active Goldwater supporter, but kept that separate from my official duties. At that time, the Goldwater people were in control of the party organization, and the principal challengers were the Nelson Rockefeller/Bill Scranton advocates. Unlike the GOP establishment in most states today, Nebraska GOP officials - such as myself - made certain to take a non-partisan approach in our duties...

That "delegations" from other states encouraged this beefing up of security forces at the Nebraska GOP convention is not at all surprising. Does anyone believe that such advice was being offered by Ron Paul supporters in these other states? A reading of reports as well as videos from other GOP state conventions reveals the establishment forces using "disruptive" means of allowing the Paul supporters to be seated and/or heard....

What we are witnessing, today, is the Republican party - and "conservatism" generally - in its death rattle. Fifty years ago, these elements could still make a pretense of supporting liberty, free-markets, and individualism, by opposing the Soviet Union. But now that this "menace" is gone, these people have no philosophically-principled base upon which to stand. They now worship state power as an end in itself, and those who [...] favor peace, liberty, and the end of corporate-state machinations of the economy as well as the expanded police-state, must not be heard. -- Butler Shaffer
Last edited by SquidInk on 07-09-2012 05:43 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”