Michigan, Florida, and the Rest of US
by Gray Kane
Prior to Ken Starr's investigations, I never detected what so greatly disturbed other conservatives about the Clintons. Bill Clinton shrunk the federal government, especially social plans like welfare. Although he increased corporate taxes, Bill revoked the law that prevented individuals and corporations from owning multiple types of media (newspapers, television stations, radio stations, internet sites), with the end result that his policies created multimedia conglomerates. In other words, like a conservative, Bill Clinton was in favor of small government and big business, and he pulled us out of the 1992 recession. Not to mention, also like most conservatives, Bill Clinton is an extremely devout Christian. So, when Ken Starr's investigations took off, I found the seething hatred for the Clintons to be not merely irrational (seething hatred is always irrational), but more importantly, based on little more than a desire for a Republican to be in office.
This election has shown me another side of the Clintons.
Michigan and Florida scheduled their primaries ahead of schedule and thereby violated the Democratic National Party's rules for when they could hold their primaries. As a result, the Democratic National Committee stripped both Michigan and Florida of their delegates-- back in August of 2007.
Four of the early-primary states asked that Edwards, Obama, and Clinton sign an agreement to withdraw their names from Michigan's ballot and not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida. All three signed the agreement, without argument. However, the Clinton campaign "forgot" to withdraw Clinton's name from the Michigan ballot, presumably as an oversight. Being the only Democratic candidate on the ballot-- guess what happened-- Clinton won in Michigan. When it came time for Florida, Clinton argued that the pact that she had signed prohibited only "campaigning," not "fund raising." Immediately prior to the Florida primary, Clinton held fund-raisers across the state of Florida. Prior to the election, Clinton was quoted as saying, "Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard." According to the Miami Herald, "... the Clinton campaign inquired... if the Miami Beach Convention Center will be available for a 'rally' on Jan. 27, two days before the state holds its earliest primary in history...." Being the only Democratic candidate in the state-- guess what happened-- Clinton won in Florida.
Now Clinton wants not only to seat both Michigan and Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention, but to let their votes for her count in the party's nomination.
Michigan and Florida's delegates likely will get seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer, and their votes likely will count. After losing the 2000 General Election by a mere 500 votes in Florida, the Democratic National Party does not want to disenfranchise entire states, particularly Florida.
However, here are the problems:
1) Michigan's voters never had an opportunity to vote for anyone but Clinton.
2) Floridians voted for the only Democratic candidate they saw.
3) As much as Clinton now speaks on behalf of both Michigan and Florida's rights in this election, she agreed whole-heartedly with their censorship-- namely from August of 2007 until after the primaries of the four states that asked the Democratic candidates to sign the pact.
By organizing Michigan's election such that they could not vote for anyone but her, and then orchestrating Florida's election such that Floridians could not hear how the other candidates' policies might benefit Florida, Hilary Clinton not only willingly participated in the Democratic Party's impediment to the democratic process, but more importantly, Hilary Clinton ensured the impossibility of a democratic solution to that impediment. And Clinton consciously did this for her own personal political gain.
Clinton's willingness to disrupt the social integrity of our nation for personal political gain repeated itself in the last debate. One of the questions had to do with the prospect of illegal immigrants (Hispanics) possibly taking African Americans' jobs. After Obama explained that it was a bad idea to "scapegoat" Hispanics for the loss of jobs in the African-American community, Clinton intentionally encouraged the antagonism between the two cultures.
Don't get me wrong: both candidates' answers were politically motivated. Obama wants to unite African Americans and Hispanics in order to increase Hispanic support for his campaign.
However, Clinton intentionally increased cultural tensions, which hurts this country. In other words, Clinton is consciously hurting this country for personal political gain-- just as she did when she intentionally blocked democratic solutions to the problems in Michigan and Florida.
This willingness to hurt this country for personal political gain makes me think back to Bill Clinton's presidency. Did other conservatives see something that I didn't see? Did I misinterpret the 1990s?
http://graykane.blogspot.com/2008/02/michigan-florida-and-rest-of-us.html
by Gray Kane
Prior to Ken Starr's investigations, I never detected what so greatly disturbed other conservatives about the Clintons. Bill Clinton shrunk the federal government, especially social plans like welfare. Although he increased corporate taxes, Bill revoked the law that prevented individuals and corporations from owning multiple types of media (newspapers, television stations, radio stations, internet sites), with the end result that his policies created multimedia conglomerates. In other words, like a conservative, Bill Clinton was in favor of small government and big business, and he pulled us out of the 1992 recession. Not to mention, also like most conservatives, Bill Clinton is an extremely devout Christian. So, when Ken Starr's investigations took off, I found the seething hatred for the Clintons to be not merely irrational (seething hatred is always irrational), but more importantly, based on little more than a desire for a Republican to be in office.
This election has shown me another side of the Clintons.
Michigan and Florida scheduled their primaries ahead of schedule and thereby violated the Democratic National Party's rules for when they could hold their primaries. As a result, the Democratic National Committee stripped both Michigan and Florida of their delegates-- back in August of 2007.
Four of the early-primary states asked that Edwards, Obama, and Clinton sign an agreement to withdraw their names from Michigan's ballot and not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida. All three signed the agreement, without argument. However, the Clinton campaign "forgot" to withdraw Clinton's name from the Michigan ballot, presumably as an oversight. Being the only Democratic candidate on the ballot-- guess what happened-- Clinton won in Michigan. When it came time for Florida, Clinton argued that the pact that she had signed prohibited only "campaigning," not "fund raising." Immediately prior to the Florida primary, Clinton held fund-raisers across the state of Florida. Prior to the election, Clinton was quoted as saying, "Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard." According to the Miami Herald, "... the Clinton campaign inquired... if the Miami Beach Convention Center will be available for a 'rally' on Jan. 27, two days before the state holds its earliest primary in history...." Being the only Democratic candidate in the state-- guess what happened-- Clinton won in Florida.
Now Clinton wants not only to seat both Michigan and Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention, but to let their votes for her count in the party's nomination.
Michigan and Florida's delegates likely will get seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer, and their votes likely will count. After losing the 2000 General Election by a mere 500 votes in Florida, the Democratic National Party does not want to disenfranchise entire states, particularly Florida.
However, here are the problems:
1) Michigan's voters never had an opportunity to vote for anyone but Clinton.
2) Floridians voted for the only Democratic candidate they saw.
3) As much as Clinton now speaks on behalf of both Michigan and Florida's rights in this election, she agreed whole-heartedly with their censorship-- namely from August of 2007 until after the primaries of the four states that asked the Democratic candidates to sign the pact.
By organizing Michigan's election such that they could not vote for anyone but her, and then orchestrating Florida's election such that Floridians could not hear how the other candidates' policies might benefit Florida, Hilary Clinton not only willingly participated in the Democratic Party's impediment to the democratic process, but more importantly, Hilary Clinton ensured the impossibility of a democratic solution to that impediment. And Clinton consciously did this for her own personal political gain.
Clinton's willingness to disrupt the social integrity of our nation for personal political gain repeated itself in the last debate. One of the questions had to do with the prospect of illegal immigrants (Hispanics) possibly taking African Americans' jobs. After Obama explained that it was a bad idea to "scapegoat" Hispanics for the loss of jobs in the African-American community, Clinton intentionally encouraged the antagonism between the two cultures.
Don't get me wrong: both candidates' answers were politically motivated. Obama wants to unite African Americans and Hispanics in order to increase Hispanic support for his campaign.
However, Clinton intentionally increased cultural tensions, which hurts this country. In other words, Clinton is consciously hurting this country for personal political gain-- just as she did when she intentionally blocked democratic solutions to the problems in Michigan and Florida.
This willingness to hurt this country for personal political gain makes me think back to Bill Clinton's presidency. Did other conservatives see something that I didn't see? Did I misinterpret the 1990s?
http://graykane.blogspot.com/2008/02/michigan-florida-and-rest-of-us.html