Bush to run write-in campaign in IL in 2004

From the Chicago Sun-Times

President Bush's spot on next year's Illinois ballot was threatened Friday after the state Senate killed a Democratic bid linking next year's presidential race with a controversial plan to forgive steep election fines against scores of Democrats...

In order to be on the Illinois ballot, state law requires that President Bush certify his candidacy for president in late August. But he won't be nominated by his party until Sept. 2, the last day of the Republican convention in New York City.

So Democrats won't allow the Republican nominee to be on the ballot unless they can pass a law forgiving them huge fines for violating election laws. Tell me again which party undermines democracy?

Congrats, ral! You''ve just discovered Chicago-style politics!

Congrats, ral! You''ve just discovered Chicago-style politics!

Ah-ha! That explains it. I guess Gore''s attempt to steal the election in Florida, Robert Torricelli''s after-deadline replacement in New Jersey, and Democratic state senators fleeing rather than face votes in Texas all came out of Chicago after all...

If anything, this is worse. The Democrats are asking for a general pardon of a crime in exchange for having the incumbent president on the balot.

Gore won Florida. But, he would have still lost if they just recounted all the counties that he and Bush wanted.

Gore won Florida.

Huh. And yet he asked for a recount. I didn''t know the winners ever asked for recounts...

Oh wait, that''s right - Gore didn''t win Florida. He didn''t win the machine count. he didn''t win the machine recount. And every count done after the fact showed Bush won.

Democratic senators in Texas breaking quorum is just another political tactic. How exactly is it undermining democracy?

Gore lost Florida, but it was close.

Chicago is home of the living dead. This doesn''t surprise me.

Democratic senators in Texas breaking quorum is just another political tactic. How exactly is it undermining democracy?

They aren''t allowed to flee to avoid voting. The reason they left the state was that under state law, they are required to fulfill their duties, and would have been brought back by Texas law enforcement if they hadn''t crossed the state line.

Democracy has rules. The people of Texas elected a legislature and that legislature was following its procedures to enact policy. The Democrats decided that their will as a group of individuals was more important than the will of the people of Texas as executed by a duly elected legislature.

""The Democrats are asking for a general pardon of a crime in exchange for having the incumbent president on the balot.""

If you are playing ""sarcastic boy"", I bow to the master. You are truly making more and more sense each day. I concede, you are a better Republican than I am a Democrat.

""Democratic senators in Texas breaking quorum is just another political tactic. How exactly is it undermining democracy?""

It undermines the principals of our Republic when the Democrats refuse to allow an issue to be voted on because they know they can not win. For instance, federal judges....

I''m guessing this Rat Boy is some sort of cruel doppelganger. Or it could just be Bender avatar withdrawal.

It undermines the principals of our Republic when the Democrats refuse to allow an issue to be voted on because they know they can not win. For instance, federal judges....

That''s quite a reach. Exploitation of parliarmentary rules of order is very far from new, and hardly unique to dems. Considering how long this sort of thing has been going on, if it really undermined the republic I think we''d have toppled a good century ago.

Well, Stekos, in case you''ve missed it, some people like to take everything bad, mischevious, underhanded, questionable, surreptitious, or otherwise rapscallion-eque and pretend that Democrats are largely the perpetrators. Then they take all that is good, honorable, smart, noble, and otherwise flag-waving freedom-lovin'' and pretend that belongs in the camp of Republican.

The important thing to note is that people who do this seriously lack perspective. Including, at times, myself.

That''s quite a reach. Exploitation of parliarmentary rules of order is very far from new, and hardly unique to dems. Considering how long this sort of thing has been going on, if it really undermined the republic I think we''d have toppled a good century ago.

I agree, when it comes to the nomination of judges. While I dislike the tactic being used against Bush''s minority or religious nominees, if the Republicans wanted to changes the rules to stop this tactic, they could. The reality is that a few of them won''t vote to change the rules- mostly so that they can use this new tactic themselves someday...

What the Texas Democrats did was ignore the rules completely. They didn''t have the agreed upon numbers to win the vote or even stop it, so they exited the democratic process, ignoring the will of the people.

The important thing to note is that people who do this seriously lack perspective.

Whatever. It''s called advocacy. I support my side and call bullsh*t on yours - and you do the same. Between the two, a pretty complete picture usually comes out - which means that both us and any observers are much more likely to be educated as to the whole story.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Whatever. It''s called advocacy. I support my side and call bullsh*t on yours - and you do the same. Between the two, a pretty complete picture usually comes out - which means that both us and any observers are much more likely to be educated as to the whole story.

But how much real advocacy is taking place -- from either side -- and how much is just ""calling bullsh*t""? I''m of the mind that there is much more of the latter than the former.

By the same token, how much education is really taking place? If each side to an argument are calling ""bullsh*t"" on the other then they are unlikely to objectively analyze any alternative viewpoints. Furthermore, any observers who aren''t caught in the crossfire (i.e. offended/miffed at some point due to a sweeping ""bullsh*t"" call) are either going to be bored silly or will merely side with the poster they like the most even if they have no knowledge of the topic at hand.

In short, I''m politely calling ""bullsh*t"" on your theory.

What the Texas Democrats did was ignore the rules completely. They didn''t have the agreed upon numbers to win the vote or even stop it, so they exited the democratic process, ignoring the will of the people.

They didn''t ignore the rules, in fact there are rules in place in the Texas Consitution for dealing with this situation.

Secondly, it''s not any legislator''s job to implement the ""will of the people""; they and their Republican counterparts are supposed to represent their constituents interests. Voting isn''t the only tool for representation -- besides the drastic step of breaking quorum, what about filibusters, sitting on legislation in committee, etc etc? And by the way, guess who last broke quorum in the Texas leg -- the Republicans, in 1993.

They aren''t allowed to flee to avoid voting. The reason they left the state was that under state law, they are required to fulfill their duties, and would have been brought back by Texas law enforcement if they hadn''t crossed the state line.

Let''s take a look at the Texas Constitution, shall we?

""Article 3 - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 10 - QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE
Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. ""

Under state law, they weren''t restricted from breaking quorum or from leaving the state''s jurisdiction. The only recourse legally available was for those still in attendance to pass a bill punishing the quroum breakers -- which they eventually did, providing for a sanction and fine for each day not in attendance.

In short, I''m politely calling ""bullsh*t"" on your theory.

And by doing so, confirming it''s basic truth. A paradox!

Under state law, they weren''t restricted from breaking quorum or from leaving the state''s jurisdiction.

Uh-huh. And if they ""weren''t restricted"" from breaking quorum, why exactly did they flee the state?

Uh-huh. And if they ""weren''t restricted"" from breaking quorum, why exactly did they flee the state?

Well, it would be speculation on my part, but I think they anticipated that state troopers would be sent out to round them up

A state judge (a Democrat) ruled a couple months after the whole thing started that the DPS (Texas state troopers) had absolutely no authority to do what Republican leaders sent them to do. But if they had remained in state, DPS officers probably could have compelled their attendance way before the courts had time to weigh in on the legality of this use of law enforcement.

Also, the entirely Republican state supreme court refused to order the quorum breakers back, in case you''re thinking that the state judge was biased.

Why are we ignoring the reason the dems wanted to break quorum. A ridiculous practice that both parties have done in various state governments is redraw district lines in completely...is nefarious a good word?...ways so as to win their party more seats. Even if said districts have no justifiable shape other than party affiliation. Districts are supposed to be...at the least geographically compact and if not circuitously contiguous (a big snake does not a district shape make. Try a square.)

Doesn''t manipulating the shape of the districts disenfranchise the people who had previously been in a district of normal shape who voted for the non-majority party? I mean, I find that worse than filibustering, or quorum breaking and I''m not pointing a finger and saying, ''Just the kind of things YOU guys do."" It''s the kind of crap both parties do.

I''m not sure if the redistricting was gerrymandering or undoing gerrymandering. Other than that I''m willing to agree.

How would you solve the gerrymandering problem I wonder? Both parties are equally evil about this as far as I''m concerned. Maybe at large elections where if there are 10 seats up for grabs you take the top 10 vote getters?

How about taking the power to re-district out of the hands of the legislature? I always thought districts were set up by population, but I can see how it would be tough to draw the lines around a given area.