Indexes
November 20th, 2008
November 19th, 2008
November 18th, 2008
November 17th, 2008
November 15th, 2008
November 14th, 2008
November 13th, 2008
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Male-female marriage has survived 5,000 years (144)
- Comments in article concern writer (87)
- Poor economy, debt force Lodi Memorial Hospital to lay off 44 workers (50)
- Palin bashing is disgraceful (38)
- Obama's temperament shift is not confusing (34)
- Lodi council spends $500,000 in hopes to separate itself from Stockton (28)
- CHP: Road rage leads to Highway 12 crash (23)
- Two accused of damaging sprinkler at Lodi courthouse (21)
- Times will be a little better if we pull together and 'Shop Lodi' (20)
- Thoughts after the election (20)
ADVERTISEMENT
Contests have rules — elections included
In any contest, be it sports, the lottery, politics or whatever, there are rules to be followed.
Prior to the commencement of the contest, all participants are expected to fully understand and accept those rules. Thereafter, the strategies employed by each contestant to give them the best chance of winning must be conducted within the confines of those rules. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason — arrogance, entitlement, etc. — designed her strategy under the belief/illusion that she was the heir apparent not only to the Democrat nomination, but to the Oval Office as well.
Florida and Michigan violated the rules that were fully accepted prior to the commencement of this contest. As a result, those states are suffering the consequences of those violations. We find ourselves in the "fifth inning" of the presidential primaries and suddenly Clinton has discovered that her strategy isn't working as she had planned. Rather than adjust her strategy to allow for the best possible conclusion, based upon the facts as they now exist, Clinton screams "Foul!" and is now calling for a "do over" for Florida and Michigan. To allow a do-over would be tantamount to rewriting history.
The Democrat nomination process, as it currently stands, is due to the rules being followed from the beginning. To entertain allowing new primaries for Florida and Michigan flies in the face of our democratic processes and will invalidate every candidate's position. Who knows who would have or would not have dropped out of the race had Florida and Michigan followed the rules as they were required and held their primaries after February 5? Who knows how the actual results of Florida's and Michigan's primaries influenced voters in other states? Who knows what the vote totals would have been had the candidates been permitted to campaign in those states? The "snap-shot" of Florida and Michigan has already been taken. A new one will reveal a very different picture. One thing is clear: To allow this re-vote will open a door for future do-overs possibly involving much more important matters than the Democrat primary.
Jerome Kinderman
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
girard74 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:03 AM:
A trial in the Senate requires a two thirds majority to convict. As long as the Democrats know that they cannot possibly achieve that majority, they are not going to fracture the country with an impeachment and trial that are doomed to failure.'
Impeachment is supposed to be 'political,' not judicial. That's why it isn't in a court. Only two presidents have been impeached. History will record those events as their 'legacies.' "
nylodian wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:11 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:10 AM:
Conspiracy theories provide tremendous insight as to what 'might' have been if true; murders and suicides provide to me better insight as to what actually 'is' as a result of these actions. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:02 AM:
The 60s as well. There is much speculation that Vietnam would have developed very differently without Johnson. With no Nixon in '68, no Watergate. No Watergate, no Ford and probably no Carter.
Much of this can be attributed to the 'aim' of two lunatics. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:16 AM:
Think where we might be today if the 1970's had played out differently. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:55 AM:
That being said, I believe that there are two very insignificant people (aside from their singular roles), that dictated not only the political ambitions and paths of almost every politician, but also caused a very real and visible shift in American culture and history.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan.
I've been waiting for the movie that would suggest possible results had JFK and/or RFK had not been killed. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:43 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:41 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:30 AM:
I have a question for you. Politically, who do you think had the most influence over not only the landscape of the political scene, but also the actual course of history in America during the last half of the 20th century? If possible, set aside any conspiracy theories - just as history currently accepts events as they occurred. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:28 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:42 AM:
If so, why wasn't the law fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to make a determination as to its 'constitutionality
What law? The entire problem rises out of the fact that the Administration was acting illegally. If a law had existed that allowed the telecommunications companies to provide this sort of collaboration, why would they need immunity from civil and legal prosecution? "
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:39 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:37 AM:
" Leonard stated, ‘...a President who is currently holding legislation hostage in order to obtain broad based immunity from prosecution for a group of companies that were ‘ALMOST?’ certainly involved in a criminal conspiracy with his Administration to deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights.' (emphasis added)
My bad. The use of the word "almost" introduced uncertainty where no uncertainty existed. Let me rephrase my previous statement. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:35 AM:
Clinton was impeached, as it is constantly contended 'just because of sex,' yet partisan politics didn't keep that from happening.
Clinton would never, ever had been impeached if the Republicans had held the same narrow margins that the Democrats hold in the House and Senate.
A trial in the Senate requires a two thirds majority to convict. As long as the Democrats know that they cannot possibly achieve that majority, they are not going to fracture the country with an impeachment and trial that are doomed to failure. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:30 AM:
If so, why wasn't the law fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to make a determination as to its 'constitutionality?'
'Checks and Balances.' I suppose you accuse the President, the Legislature and the Judiciary of collusion - they're all guilty of treachery?
‘Treason’ is never to be bantered around so cavalierly. Such a charge MUST have absolute proof. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:20 AM:
No. That doesn't fly. If any legislator contends as you do, that the president is a traitor, the very least they would do would be to bring the matter to the floor - in one way or another.
The press, with their unending loathing for this president, would have no compunction whatsoever against calling for Bush's ouster, on a daily basis, if there was any actual proof of Bush's 'crimes' against the Constitution.
There's simply nothing there.
Clinton was impeached, as it is constantly contended 'just because of sex,' yet partisan politics didn't keep that from happening. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:55 AM:
Leonard - If, as you state, that Bush and others are traitors, why was there no action put forth to impeach them or bring them before the bar of justice?
Two words my friend.
Partisan Politics.
"
Leonard wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:52 AM:
Previous presidents have openly shown their disdain for the rule of law and the rights of individual citizens-for their own personal gain.
Girard, you are talking about a President who is currently holding legislation hostage in order to obtain broad based immunity from prosecution for a group of companies that were almost certainly involved in a criminal conspiracy with his Administration to deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights.
Disdain for the rule of law?
I most certainly do think so! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:03 PM:
I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. He broke the law and tried very hard to usurp the legal system in order to protect his position as president. He dropped bombs; he refused to respond to terror. Yet I don't call him 'traitor.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:54 PM:
When one suggests that a president 'did his best to destroy...,' the connotation is that he is a criminal. There is no evidence to suggest any such thing. That's anecdotal at best. Previous presidents have openly shown their disdain for the rule of law and the rights of individual citizens-for their own personal gain. Bush is not in that category.
Bush made mistakes, no doubt, but to suggest he committed those mistakes in the course of criminal activity is disingenuous. (IMHO) "
Leonard wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:23 PM:
Pointing to Bush’s failures will work for just so long.
Perhaps but a candidates complicity in Bush's failures will be a stone around their neck.
George Bush did his best to destroy our economy, country and our Constitution over the last 7 years and Hillary Clinton and John McCain were there helping him at every step. People will not forget the actions of these latter day Quislings. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:31 PM:
Pointing to Bush’s failures will work for just so long. It won't get them elected. He/she need to convince voters that they provide solutions.
If, Democrat nominees so blatantly (and stupidly) demonstrate their 'waffling' on an issue as important as an economic matter (taxes), they're doomed before the general election even begins.
The ‘media’ has not yet fully embraced this issue; but it won’t be long before they do. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:57 PM:
A hallmark of both Clinton's and Obama's campaign up until today was to raise taxes on the 'rich' and provide relief to the 'middle class.'
Bush will be gone in less than a year. Those running for his job had better not behave in much the same way as the guy they propose to replace; especially if he is the 'cause' of all this woe. The voters are smarter than that.
It’s called hypocrisy no matter who you support. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:10 PM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:01 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 1:29 PM:
Although defined as a 'blueprint' and basically 'symbolic,' they nevertheless voted to extend tax HIKES to citizens earning as little as $32,000.00/yr.
Both Clinton and Obama voted 'for' this measure.
While they will certainly attempt to blame the Bush Administration policies for the 'need' to do this, there is no possibly way that the 'people' will accept even the 'idea' of raising taxes on the lower middle-class.
'Doomed' is the word of the day. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:54 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:31 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:29 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:27 PM:
OHH, Leonard I guess you really do not like the guy. LOL. "
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:25 PM:
Well said, OTH. I watch tv with him telling people to vote for Hillary and I want to puke. He needs to move on and never live in the White House again. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:14 PM:
Its wrong in both cases. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:12 PM:
That being said, I'm a Republican and I do not like Hillary one bit - I freely admit that. But I know when wrong is wrong - and to make the connection that they are somehow 'closely' related is ludicrous.
Most folks aren't as open-minded as I, but I believe the majority of people will see these images for what they really are. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:56 PM:
I'm still not sure where you stand on Nader, could you be more clear? LOL!
"
nylodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:53 PM:
"
Leonard wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:01 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:02 AM:
It never ceases to amaze me how when one of their own (Spitzer) gets caught doing something wrong, the rest of his ilk (politicians in general) come out of the woodwork. Give a politician the chance at a microphone and they'll steal it from you.
But what do they actually say? I've been listening to their grandstanding about how all of this is a 'distraction' and we 'need to put it behind us' and 'get back to the business of governing.'
Who are they kidding? They'll just go back to sleep. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:55 AM:
I still say if there had been a stronger candidate running, Nader would not have had the impact on the election that he did.
That may have been true but the candidates that ran were the candidates that ran. Nader made his choice and he has no one to blame but himself if that choice earned him the enduring hatred of many Americans.
That said, I couldn't stand Nader even before 2000. The man is an arrogant toadstool with all the personality of a diseased lamprey. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:51 AM:
"
nylodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:44 AM:
I personally agree that we should get rid of the Electoral College, ESPECIALLY the super delegates. "
Cogito wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:08 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:51 PM:
As for Hillary Clinton with me it's not gonna happen. Her husband has been too visible in her campaign. No way would I vote for her.
I guess I'm old fashioned but the man disgraced the office of the presidency, he disgraced the White House and the American people.
If the man had any class he would stay in a back room with the monitor. We saw what he's going to do early on in her campaign. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:32 PM:
Would you continue to have that same idea of fairness when it comes to electoral votes from the State of California? Where the electoral votes are divided by the percentage of votes, not winner take all?
I am absolutely and completely for the abolition of the Electoral College. Any solution that falls short of that goal is no solution at all.
That said,assuming that the Electoral system is not abolished, I would support the proportional voting system only if it were applied simultaneously nationwide. "
Cogito wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:59 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:56 PM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:35 PM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:33 PM:
" Who cares about charm? I care about logic, reason, and sound decisons. Bush got elected because he was charming
Electoral fraud aside, Bush was "elected" because Ralph Nader's hubris made it possible for Bush to be "elected" "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:31 PM:
" Jeff wrote, 'Ralph Nader. That's how I'll voice my opinion in the matter (hopefull, third time is a charm)'
Perhaps, but only if Ralph was a tad more charming!
LOL! It will be a cold day in Hell when I vote for the Nader Traitor. 2000 aside, Nader gives new meaning to the words arrogance and hubris. Just listening to the bug eyed freak makes me want to vomit.
I say all of the above as a die hard liberal. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 11, 2008 4:34 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 11, 2008 4:32 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:41 PM:
How much of what we see and hear from the candidates is not choreographed? Whenever these folks divert from the script, it is usually when they make big mistakes.
How long do you think they preen themselves before heading out onto the stage? Additionally, I think we'd all be surprised as to how much money each candidate spends (of contributors' money) to define and improve their images.
How much different is this from American Idol? Is it crazy? Absolutely! But it is the way that it is. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:59 PM:
But, since you bring it up - personality, right or wrong, does play a part in choosing our elected officials. A large part of the reason that Hillary hasn't swept through this nomination is because she is so 'unlikeable' to many voters. This is in spite of 'whether' or not she is more qualified.
Look at Reagan - charisma. Mondale - aka, 'Mondull.' There 'is' a place for it in politics, regardless of whether or not it is a 'valid' place. "
Jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:34 PM:
Sorry, I know I'm coming off harsh, but that's a problem with our current democratic system. Voters pick charm and looks over policy and ability to think and make reasoned judgements. It reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Guy's wife laughed at the notion of that other candidate winning based off his looks and lack of charm. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:21 PM:
Perhaps, but only if Ralph was a tad more charming! "
Jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:07 PM:
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=1427&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2945 "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:05 PM:
That sounds promising. Of course the old system of gerrymandering would need to be kept in check. History has shown us that by dividing congressional districts in just the slightest way can alter an election in a very significant way. "
Jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:49 PM:
Jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:42 PM:
Jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:37 PM:
First: Leonard a) Instant Runoff Voting: http://instantrunoff.com/
b) I whole heartedly agree I'll take McCain over subvert democracy. Two words come to mind: Ralph Nader. That's how I'll voice my opinion in the matter (hopefull, third time is a charm) "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:35 PM:
In this case, the DNC was so infuriated that two states dared to defy them by holding their primaries when they wanted. The DNC would have been better served had they counted to ten before enacting their knee-jerk reaction.
The rules surrounding the entire primary were created with little or no consideration as to what might occur if a presumptive nominee was not chosen by March.
Such arrogance and incompetence isn’t surprising. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:56 PM:
I agree that all ideas should be considered. As I have discovered here just today regarding this subject, ideas need to be well thought out.
As far as Iowa and New Hampshire are concerned, I agree completely. Perhaps it's because New Hampshire doesn't want to remove their 'First In the Nation' signs on each of their highways leading into their state. Nothing else makes any sense. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:39 PM:
There are worse things in this world than losing to Senator McCain and subverting the democratic process is one of them. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:36 PM:
I for one have never been able to fathom the absurd importance that is placed on voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that are otherwise utterly unimportant in every other way.
Farm subsidies anyone? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:29 PM:
Actually, the primary system better reflects the idea behind the Electoral College. Here, the vote is to select delegates who in turn attend a convention. The convention, by its own rules, ultimately chooses the nominee.
The general election (having no convention to worry about) should be based simply on the majority of votes.
The problem again, of course, is when a third-party, such as Perot, allows someone to win with less than 50%.
Complicated stuff! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:22 PM:
From what I've read there are no such super delegates for the GOP. Also, their nomination process during the primary is much more cut-and-dried.
What really amazed me was how Texas was apportioned for the democrats. The number of delegates was awarded based upon how a particular district voted in a 'previous' election.
Talk about confusing! "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:20 PM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:19 PM:
The fact is that after the caucus votes were counted Hillary lost Texas by 4 delegates.
Still, this morning, the NY Times referenced Hillary's "stunning victory" in Ohio and Texas. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:18 PM:
Unless there are only two people on the nomination ballot. Wouldn't you then award the delegates to that candidate?
The idea of 'shifting votes' might cause voters to think that their vote is being manipulated. Many individuals while voting for candidate 'A' might NEVER want their vote to be awarded to candidate 'B.' Do you think they'd want a choice as to who the vote should go to; perhaps candidate 'C' who's just as statistically viable? "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:01 PM:
Does anyone know whether there are such delegates at the GOP convention? "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:01 PM:
There is no reason why a given candidate should win 100% of California's delegates just because they got .000001% more votes than their opponent. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:59 AM:
I believe the way it works is that a voter chooses his top x number of candidates on the ballot. As each candidate is eliminated, the voters vote is then assigned to their next preference.
Thus, in California, people a voter could have voted for Dodd, Edwards and Obama. When Dodd was statistically eliminated, the voters vote would have shifted to Edwards and then on to Obama. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:44 AM:
Redo the DNC rules so that it's a 'winner take all''
I was referring to the primaries.
And I believe I understand why you asked. If any one candidate does not get 50.01% of a state's vote, how to proceed? Giving the entire delegate count to someone who 'wins' but with only 25% doesn't make sense either.
So what do do? Take the top two and have a run-off? Expensive and time-consuming. Ideas anyone?
Or perhaps the DNC's current rules really are the only solution? Perhaps simply getting rid of the 'Super Delegates.' "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:19 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:18 AM:
Redo the DNC rules so that it's a 'winner take all'
Are you referring to the Convention, to individual primaries or what? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:15 AM:
The genius is that the formula actually permits them to 'see' into the future from almost any point in the process to allow them to begin to exert whatever force is necessary at just the precise moment in time.
Two things must happen. Redo the DNC rules so that it's a 'winner take all'; amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College. "
wtf wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:41 AM:
Vote for "the name you know" LOL! "
jeff wrote on Mar 11, 2008 9:28 AM:
A separate, but perhaps more dangerous, threat to democracy is the perverse use of 'superdelegates' in this "democratic" process. These politicians can hijack the process from people.
Should Hillary "steal" the nomination rebulican-style, by way of the superdelegates, there may not be better time for the creation of a "viable" third party. No offense to Nader or the Green Party. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:47 AM:
Of course, Hillary would never support a revote because she knows who would win. "
Comments on this story are now closed.