Every so often, political hacks join high-minded commissions and say things that sound downright statesman-like. But then, with the passage of time, when dollar signs dance in their heads, they forget that they have a conscience and go back to prostitution. That appears to be the case here in California, where lawyers for the Republican Party have put forward an initiative so cynical and embarrassingly partisan, that Fidel Castro would blush. The New York Times put it succinctly in a scathingly powerful editorial yesterday: this initiative is an "elaborate dirty trick" by a "shadowy group" of California Republicans will "do serious damage to our democracy."
The story is really quite simple: President Bush is fast outpacing Richard Nixon as the modern president who can most effectively shred the constitution. Mr. Nixon avoided impeachment, conviction and a probable prison sentence for disgusting dirty tricks by resigning from office and receiving a subsequent pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford. At the time, Mr. Nixon suffered from a chronic inability to tell the truth about a "third rate burglary" in the Watergate building in Washington. A free press and a truly bi-partisan Congress ended the national misery of this threat to constitutional democracy by demanding the truth and then forcing Mr. Nixon to leave office.
Dirty tricks brought down Richard Nixon two years after he had reelection in 1972 by a near record landslide.
These days, the Bush White House and minions see the writing on the poll. Mr. Bush's affirmative ratings rival those of Mr. Nixon in his last days in office. Over the years, the Republicans have learned their lessons at the hand of Professor Rove. The teachable moment began in December, 2000, when the Republicans stole votes in Florida, used lawyers and liars to avoid a recount and then in a precedent-setting vote, had one member of the Supreme Court declare Mr. Bush as president.
Dirty tricks stole the 2000 election. Mr. Nixon would have been embarrassed by his lack of creativity.
Tom DeLay, who as the House majority leader put up with the inconvenience of having to achieve Congressional majorities to pass legislation, simply stole five new congressional seats in 2003 by using corporate money to bribe members of the Texas legislature to invent new Republican seats where formerly Democrats had been electable. Remember when the minority Democratic members of the Texas legislature fled the state so that there could be no vote on this literally corrupt power grab? Eventually, DeLay won and Democrats did not win back the House, by about five seats. DeLay's gone, but at what price?
Dirty tricks, paid for illegally by corporate funds, kept the House in Bush's hands for another two years.
Now a lawyer named Tom Hiltachk, who works for the California Republican Party and until a few months ago worked for Governor Schwarzenegger, has filed an initiative that would steal 20 or so Electoral College votes from California's 55, making it damn near impossible for a Democrat to win back the White House. Mr. Hiltachk would clearly have been right at home in Nixon's White House, Bush's Florida election-stealing operation and Tom DeLay's House seat grab. He understands the nuances and effects of big money on electoral politics, successfully serving the likes of Philip Morris, Blue Cross, Tenet Healthcare and Allststate Insurance (not to mention California Congressman Richard Pombo, until his untimely defeat last year). If Mr. Hiltachk's's initiative qualifies for and passes the June, 2008 California ballot, he'll go right up there with Nixon, Bush and DeLay in the pantheon of thieves of democracy.
Dirty tricks win out for Republicans, decade after decade, especially in the era of Bush and Rove. They are addicted to dirty tricks so we have to intervene. That's why Courage Campaign together with netroots and other activists around the country is circulating a petition to stop these dirty tricks.
But Mr. Hiltachk probably did not realize that his own law partner felt a civic duty to join with former Presidents Ford and Carter, among many others of high repute, to issue a report on how to avoid future "Florida's." Issued in August, 2001, the commission on which sat Mr. Hilchak's law partner Colleen McAndrews, said "The supposed disproportionate influence of small states may be counter-balanced by the "unit rule" adopted by 48 of the 50 states that allows the popular vote winner, whatever the margin, to claim all the state's electors. Put simply, the report says that so long as there is an electoral college, the best way to assure that large states have proportionate influence on the outcome of the presidential elections is winner take all, just as California and all but two small states have mandated for decades.
Why does this matter? Well, Mr. Hiltach and his cronies have adopted Goebbels-speak to say the opposite is true, that by some miracle of math, California's "prestige" would be enhanced by splitting up our Electoral College vote. Mr. Hilchak and his partner Ms. McAndrews owe us an explanation. Either Mr. Hiltach does not believe his own law partner, or he knows he's lying when he says his initiative will help increase the California's clout in national politics. Either way, it's another dirty trick.
There's one simple way to put this behind us. Imagine if hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in this country signed a petition to say "no more dirty tricks." And then every day, for as long as it takes, we force those who have the temerity to support this dirty trick to explain themselves.
What post-partisan leader could possibly favor this?
I myself am an Independent, don't belong to either party, as I feel both have largely sold themselves down the river well past the point of any discernible level of public respectability, cash cows long overdue for the freezer that no longer have any real or percieved obligation to the public, tools for certain parties to enhance their personal and corporate wealth, and not much beyond that.
The whole business stinks, accomplishes little,
and gives credence to what Carlin was talking about.
The Constitution of the United States, gives the authority over how a State's Electors are appointed in a Presidential election, to the State Legislatures, and to no one else.
Article 2, Section 1. (clause 2) "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
The People of the State of California, cannot circumvent this Constitutional authority given to the State Assembly, by way of a "ballot initiative".
I tried to find out by what method the States of Maine and Nebraska decided that they would apportion their Electoral Vote, but I was unable.
I believe Maine did it in 1970 or thereabouts, and Nebraska in 1991.
If they did it by an Act of their State Legislature, then it was of course in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
It can't be done by a "ballot initiative", that goes end around the State Legislature or Assembly.
Apropos to that subject, I'd like to offer this quote, which deserves to be revived:
-----------
"Family" this and "family" that. If I had a family I'd be furious that moral busybodies are taking the perfectly good word family and using it as a code for censorship the same way "states' rights" was used to discuss racism in the mid-sixties.
- John Waters
----------
While "states' rights" may no longer be expressly a code word for racism, I do think that it is still a euphemism for defending the privileges of one group against another. And so it shall always remain.
Why can't we do something that works?
Why can't we have things up our sleeve?
When will justice prevail over just-us?
As I have posted elsewhere Rudy Guiliani WILL be the next POTUS.
Why? Simple because, the people that have spent the last 6 1/2 years putting this country on the course that it is, are not going to go quietly away in the night. They will do everything in their power to stay in power.
How??
Well first of all it would be to back a Republican candidate in Nov 08 that they could manipulate as well as have charisma to electrify their base. Rudy actually could do this much better than Dumbya.
What about Tricky Dick Jr. ? Is there any law that says he can't succeed himself?
Bullshit you say Hillary/obama/edwards......can beat him. Really?
Lets look at the last two elections. Not much different in voting totals, in fact Bush got a larger majority in 2004 then in 2000. If the Dems are going to win in Nov 2008 they will have to keep the votes they got in 2006.
Can they?? Don't bet on it.
Why?? Because the Repug leadership didn't really care whether they lost the control of Congress in 2006 but they will come out fighting to get those votes back to keep the WH.
Now onto 2008. What would the RNC strategy be? hmmmm?
Rah Rah convention nominating Rudy with little or no divisiveness.
Then Rambo Rudy goes out on the trail to scare the base into voting for him by using their most effective tool "Dems are weak on national security". Karl will have from now to then to do his dirty tricks.
RESULTS???
Rudy wins, the Repugs will easily get the Senate back and they won't give a shit what happens in the House.
So there I have said it. Am I a Repug troll? NO just a lifelong Dem who is having the balls to tell it the way it is going to come down.
Can they?? Don't bet on it.
Why?? Because the Repug leadership didn't really care whether they lost the control of Congress in 2006 but they will come out fighting to get those votes back to keep the WH"
Dems will hold there lead in BOTH Houses of Congress and THUMP repigs WORSE in 08, if they vote to begin getting out of Iraq next month, if they don't ALL incumbants go on the block in 08.
Saying Repigs didn't care about the 06' election is JUST A LIE and you know it.
The TRUELY lack luster field of Repigs for president could be beat by Kucinch doing a third trimester abortion on a burning flag.
The very notion that winner takes all could be removed in a piecemeal manner is deeply flawed. The way to execute this reform is in the from of a compact such that the actual change is only in effect if a critical percentage of the electoral votes are from states that have the reform in effect.
Put initiatives in CO-9, AL-9, AZ-10, FL-27, TX-34,VA-13, TN-11, PA-21, NC-15, OH-20, MI-17, LA-9, IN-11 and GA-15 ...totals 221 votes to be split say 50/50 which most elections show the electorate is evenly split.
So Democrats gain a possible 110 electoral votes from Red States, and lose 22 in CA...NET GAIN of 88 electoral votes.
BRING IT ON Repigs!
So they might lose their 22 votes and lose Another 110 votes....risky business Repigs.
I don't know if each state I listed allows initiatives or referendums, but I'd say it's a good chance they have some mechanism like this.
The wording in the constitution is fairly unambiguous "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." It's the legislature that sets the policy. As the site that I grabbed this from highlights below. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/eleccol/katz.htm)
"...critics of the Electoral College tend to advocate one of two types of reforms...Proposals of this sort might encourage the formation of third parties and even throw presidential elections into the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote regardless of population. Attempts to address this issue by constitutional amendment have been defeated, largely because of the fear of third parties."
Since I'm fed up with the two party system, I'm in favor of changes in this direction. Personally since I think that the CEO's currently running this country have screwed it up so much that it won't be very politically beneficial to win next year's election.
http://gov.ca.gov/interact
If this initiative in California is successful, it simply means the Dems on the Left Coast will have to get off their collective asses and forego sunbathing and surfing long enough to get out and vote...