Posted on 01/30/2014 3:14:12 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
If this stupid feminist actually runs and wins at age 32 I will know this country has really had it.
I think Henry Waxman portrayed the pig in the first Amityville Horror.
I hope she runs and forever loses that seat to the republicans.
A Republican didn’t even run in the 2012 election against Waxman.
In 2010 one did and lost 67/32.
So Fluky girl’s big challenge would be winning the primary.
The fall election is a D lock no matter who’s running.
Instead of kissing babies, what will get kissed?
Fluke would have to get a nose job in order to take
his place, have her nostrils enlarged, although I
suppose jeweled nose rings would open them up and
be an accessory at the same time.
Guess Henry doesn't have much use for term limits.
And isn't it amazing how much "real legislative success" Ted Cruz has had as a freshman senator.
BWAAAHAAA!
I would say that seat is out of range for victory (37% Romney) so it doesn’t really matter what “we” do, Fluke would be running against other rats. Several seasoned politicians may enter, I sincerely doubt she’ll (how long has she been in Cali? A few months?) end up on top. If one wants to minimize her already slim chances it would probably be best not to give her any attention and thus another 15 minutes of fame.
With the rat vote likely split there’s a good chance a Republican could make the runoff (stupid new system in Cali, open all party primary with the top 2 candidates regardless of party and regardless of whether one of them tops 50% making the November ballot), but they would be almost certain to lose it.
The rub is, Waxman faced an Indie in 2012 (The only Republican, a guy off the street, got a measly 15% in the primary) not sure on the guy’s ideology probably center-left like everyone who complains about “partisanship” (still that’s appreciably more conservative than Waxman or Fluke). Waxman won by only 8 points.
So a technical non-democrat (who would be almost certain to vote more liberal than not and caucus with the rats like Angus King) could make the runoff and win. Worth exploring? A serious Republican might not even run.
What do you think Pete? Far from your neck of the woods but this is right in your wheelhouse.
I would say that of 435 House races this is one that shouldn’t concern us too much. There could even be a bright side to this witch winning, high profile idiots in safe rat seat can help us win swing seats.
Odds are though a rat state legislator (just as liberal as Fluke and in all likelihood an adulterer) will take it and any effort by our side to effect the outcome would amount to nothing.
If like 5 prominent Dems run (and they might), we might as well get two Republicans (and only two) to run, and hope they finish 1-2 with like 15% each while the 5 Dems split 70% of the vote evenly. It worked in CA-31 in 2012, when Gary Miller and another Republican made the run-off while 4 Democrats split 60% of the vote.
http://www.billbloomfield.com/support-students-over-special-interests/
“Schools should also end “last in, first out” policies for tenure and layoffs, which often force schools to keep bad teachers and fire good ones simply because of seniority. These reforms would give districts and schools the power to improve their teaching staff.”
Bloomfield is the independent businessman who lost to Waxman in 2012 and he is running again.
Just what we need, one liar replaced by another.
Miller CA-31 is D+5
Waxman CA-33 is D+11
I like this new system ... for California, but really leaves wide open the opportunities for treachery. I wonder what the NOV ballot looks like in terms of party lines?
In open seats with a high partisan imbalance, you have two candidates of the same party on the general election ballot. Pretty nice for someone who is on the wrong side of an imbalanced district: the choice of the lesser evil is better than no choice at all. I know a lot of Republicans who were very happy to be able to vote for Brad Sherman over Howard Berman, that’s for sure, rather than the sacrificial lamb the Republicans usually offered against him.
i guess my question was: who appeared on the ballot on the same line as Obama and who appeared on the same line as Romney?
(in traditional western philosophy, there is no such thing as a “lesser evil.” If Sherman was Berman’s opponent and was an improvement, that is not evil.)
All democrats are evil. In the case of Berman and Sherman I failed to see much distinction and both of them are definitely very liberal socialists and thus evil. You can say voting for whichever is slightly less liberal or less of a douchebag (sound like Berman may be the bigger d-bag) is not an "evil act" (if I lived there I would have divined which was "better" and voted for him) but the men are both evil without question so it's not at all improper to refer to one as "the lesser evil".
Anyway if Bloomfield (who it turns out is a former RINO who may still be a RINO running without label to increase his chances) runs again it may be the smart play to back him.
The new Cali system hasn't hurt us so far, helped reelect Miller who would have been dead meat. I think conservatives preferred the GOP State Senator opponent he had and democrats did too because Miller was the incumbent and had corruption issues yet he still won runoff, weird.
I fear it could hurt in the future though. If a Republican seat ever gets a RINO versus conservative runoff the RINO wins automatically. Heaven forbid a statewide race gets a rat/rat runoff thus robbing decent people of their constitutional right to have a half a chance to elect a statewide official in Cali. p
u may think one of the persons is the “lesser evil” but we are talking about the idea that voting for the person is an “evil”.
If “voting for the person” is evil, or a lesser evil than “voting for the other person”, it is illicit to do so. But, of course, it is not a “lesser evil”.
I think that it’s impossible to declare that the California jungle primary hasn’t hurt us. The fact that such abominable system is used may be enough to dissuade a good Republican candidate (particularly a conservative) from running, since the system benefits RINOs and eliminates the possibility of the Greens taking votes from the RATs and allowing a Republican to win with a plurality. And even if we assume that the people who ended up running were the only ones who would have run, and that those that made the runoff would have been the nominees, I still think that the system has hurt us, either by allowing a RINO to make the runoff instead of a more solid Republican who would have won a partisan primary, or by excluding all of those leftist minor parties (whonunder the old system often combined to get 5%+) from the general-election ballot. There’s no way that Kamala Harris would have been elected AG if there were Green, Socialist, etc. candidates on the general-election ballot, and in congressional races Bilbray and Lungren probably would have survived (Bono would have had a chance as well) and maybe Vann, Gill and Strickland would have won in pluralities (with Strickland having the best shot at it).
Regarding how we should not “choose a lesser evil,” you are correct. But it still is legitimate to make a choice that reduces or limits an evil, since by doing so we are choosing a good. Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life explained this perfectly in the context of abortion and voting:
8. Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”
What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?
First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.
But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer — in the case described above — is yes.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support “abortion rights” equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.
Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
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.
