I think Rush is wrong on this one...If Obama wins the state Delegates and the SuperDelegates go to Hillary...the Dems will be just as divided as the GOP and I don’t see their PC culture allowing that to happen.
“I don’t see their PC culture allowing that to happen.”
So, being black trumps being a woman in the PC hierarchy?
Rush is looking here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#upcomingstates
Clinton leads in Ohio by 20+, Pennsylvania by 20+, and Texas by 12. Obama needs 2 of 3 of these or he’ll never catch her.
If I was Howard Dean and the others, I would lock both of them in a room and tell them to decide this right now and don’t come out until it is settled. I wonder if that would work or would one of them end up dead????
“I think Rush is wrong on this one...If Obama wins the state Delegates and the SuperDelegates go to Hillary...the Dems will be just as divided as the GOP and I don’t see their PC culture allowing that to happen.”
Don’t worry, Al Gore will make everything better and unify the party at the appropriate time.
Gore/Obama 08
I’d give the above scenario a 15% chance of occurring if it goes to the convention deadlocked.
Me neither. I love Rush but I do not agree with him on this.
I think that Rush may be wrong. If Obama gets more real delegates and has a higher percentage of the popular vote, Hillary has to get all the remaining superdelegates and those delegates of FL and MI. FL and MI will end up in court. There are 444 remaining superdelegates as Obama has 139 and she has 213. All of them with her current 1138 gives her 1582, with 2025 needed to win. She still needs another 400+....Machine versus momentum....
It really depends on how much control Hillary has over the party leadership and the super delegates.
Many people in the party would hesitate at fracturing the party, but Hillary wouldn't. The Clintons are all about themselves.
Hillary might try and mend the breach by offering to make Obama her running mate. He's still young enough to run again in the future, so if he went along with it, it might result in some damage control. However, she would do her best to keep him out of the spotlight to make sure he couldn't challenger her in 4 years.
It’s weird because the D’s are split as badly as we, but not along ideological lines. On the left, it’s the establishment liberals vs the establishment liberals. It’s so odd seeing Ted Kennedy behind Barack Obama.
Both of their morons run on nearly identical platforms. At least Hillary isn’t bent on yanking defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq - which is what you’d expect from a Muslim. Other than that, both can’t wait to tax the hell out of us, take things from us for the good of all, etc.
It’s SO RACIALLY divded over there and yet there’s NOTHING being said about it.
Then there’s the delegates in Florida and Michigan, the idiotic superdelegates, etc.
On the right, it’s nothing more than a hostage crisis: “Vote for this liberal idiot with the REPUBLICAN badge on, or you’ll get Hussein or Hillary.”
It’s beyond broken, and the fact that its become so dangerous isn’t really my fault.
They are pulling the pin on the grenade, and then asking me to put the pin back in by signing on the dotted line.
I hate to say this, but the party used to be our agent in this ideological battle with liberalism. Now Rush is basically implying that though the party no longer is an effective agent in that battle, we should somehow reserve our contempt because the antics of the other party are so much more egregious.
The result is that no matter how far to the left the Republican’s slide, as long as the Democrats remain even more screwed up, then leaving the party will never be a legitimate option.
The way I see it, and ironically, the way Reagan saw it, was that the party left me, and not the other way around. This is also not a very effective argument to establishment Republicans this year, so let’s look at where we are.
Pragmatically, and at least back in 2006, Rush believed that even IF McCain’s the guy, less evil is still good.
As such, when will it ever be safe enough to decide the party’s finished and that we should basically face the fact that you’ve got three parties anyway: the right, the center, and the left? Will there ever be an election cycle where, “Hey, this is the year you’re free to essentially vote your conservative convictions, just like the Moonbats do on the left!” I mean, when can our ‘kooks’ be ‘kooks’ again safely?
I’ll point out that the definition of ‘kook’ is expanding quite a bit in 2008 on the right.
The anti-homosexual/pro-family lobby are kooks. 1st amendment apologists (anti-McCain Feingold) are kooks. Anti-amnesty types are kooks. Gun owners are kooks. Small government types are kooks too. Anti-regulation types are kooks. The evangelicals apparently are legitimate kooks (Huckabee? Please. I saw a quote in the WSJ about some 40 year old that essentially votes any way his pastor tells him to.)
The further left the party drifts, the more kooks seem to pile up on the right.
I guess I still want to know why we just can’t come to recognize that the party has in fact split. There’s not going to be any less dangerous time to do this, and it’s not like we aren’t going to stay home. We just won’t be voting for President, donating to the party, etc.
We won’t be volunteering, defending the McCain as a candidate to liberals (how does one defend a liberal to liberals, except perhaps to say, “He’s just less suicidal than your liberals”.)
If Republicans don’t like it, then they can build a better platform and attract better candidates.
One thing I think both parties will agree with, and that is that never has the process for choosing who is going to be the Leader of the Free World rendered less qualified people than in 2008.
Establishment Republicans, with John McCain as their leader, look pretty ridiculous telling me that John McCain is the best guy they could find to 1) protect the country, 2) defend the Constitution, and 3) protect citizens from their own government.
Boiled down, that’s exactly what conservatives expect, right? Those three things? Against that basic test, McCain’s the best they could do, and good enough for me to endorse enthusiastically?
I choose to fire them as my appointed agents in this particular fight. I haven’t filled the position, but I’m taking applications now. If the country dies in the meantime, I can tell you I will bear NO RESPONSIBILITY in it against the backdrop of what MY PARTY has perpetrated on its own as my representative for the last 16 years.