South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Posted on 08/19/2006 7:22:05 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
CHICAGO Aug 19, 2006 (AP)— Come 2008, Democrats don't want their presidential candidates spending the entire month of January in high boots and barn jackets.
The Democratic National Committee on Saturday was expected to add Nevada and South Carolina to the early presidential voting states, a detour into gambling glitz and Southern gentility from the traditional cold winds and snow of Iowa and New Hampshire.
The change is designed to address a nagging problem for Democrats: How to give a greater voice in selecting a presidential nominee to minorities who are among the party's most loyal supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Headline should Read:
"Democrats break tradition to Help Hillary"
"Democrats break tradition to Help Hillary"
-----
It is such a pathetic, tragic joke. The libs are their own testimony to their criminality, their uselessness, their irrelevance to American, and their gross anti-American SOCIALISM and desire to trash the constitution.
Their candidate of choice says it all.
Why would this help Hillary? Giving a greater role to South Carolina would presumably help the Southerners who've been mentioned as possible candidates, like Edwards or Warner.
Beyond that, regardless of what happens in '08, something ought to be done about the current system. It's ridiculous that, every four years, Iowa and New Hampshire have such a disproportionate voice in picking both parties' nominees.
Oh my, you mean these clown princes and princesses made a decision! Nah, can't be....
"Beyond that, regardless of what happens in '08, something ought to be done about the current system. It's ridiculous that, every four years, Iowa and New Hampshire have such a disproportionate voice in picking both parties' nominees."
Why? It has worked for years. You have a primary, you pick a winner and on and on and on. The RATS are blaming the voters for their own incompetence.
Want to change it? Have a national primary on April 1 for both parties. On April 2, you have your candidates.
On August 1 you have your convention and on September 1, October 1 and November 1 you have your debates.
By October 1, all voter ID's need to be validated. On Election day, everyone votes electronically and gets a paper receipt and the voter signs that his receipt was valid.
Simple.
"So, as your senator, when we fleebergast the fritzen stobber, the lower gnash will . . . . HEY!!! Pay attention to what I'm SAYING, NOT what I'm DOING!!!"
There was a similar article in this morning's St. Louis rag. The last paragraph was interesting:
Several Democratic Committee members said Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Evan Bayh of Indiana, both of whom are weighing presidential runs, were encouraging their supporters on the committee to vote against the rules change.
source: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/73083A63788616E0862571CF00035C19?OpenDocument
The Post-Dipatch was ridiculed the other day by O'Reilly for its liberal content.
Darn shame I missed it. Whatever BOR said was probably only half of it. The editorials are so inane and incoherent they make Maureen Dowd's blatherings seem lucid in comparison.
It stood out to me because he generally smacks the usual suspects of newspapers "Boston Globe, NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post, St. Pete Times.." but he added the Post-Dispatch this one time.
This isn't about "the System", it's about insuring that all the appropriate Dem Machine members get to pocket the COMMISSIONS they will make off of the fund-raising and vote-buying...
The left extremists threaten the Washington Dem Status quo, and the Useful liberal idiots are about to get a lesson in power politics...
The Post-Dispatch isn't on the national radar screen because it's in a smaller market. It actually makes the Washington Post look conservative and reasonable.
Yeah, I'm confused too...How does this decision mesh with this other decision?
I have a list of newspapers that endorsed President Bush in 2000 and 2004. One that I remember: the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush in 2004, and have a long history of endorsing Republicans for Prez, but I also recall how one of their editors basically wrote a letter of explanation (maybe even an apology) to its readers for doing so. The Chicago Sun-Times switched from pro-Bush in 2000 to anti-Bush in 2004.
Ha, ha, ha! I'm laughing! So much for the NAACP's much bally-hooed boycott of South Carolina over the Confederate flag. The Democrats REWARD South Carolina with the most influential placing to select the Presidential nominee! LOL!
South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
imVho, they are NEVER going to elect a POTUS, as even people like my 92YO mother have "caught on to their game".
the RATS can NEVER win the southland & without dixie, they CANNOT win, period. end of story.
my prophesy is by 2016, they will be DEAD.
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.