“Non Partisan” Primary in California
 

Not silly as some say but could lead to a one party system I will be watching this one.

Could end up with some interesting opponents in the fall.

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/06/0...mary-is-silly/



Barney

Hey Barney, I've had my brains in the pickling jar as you know of late. I have to say I haven't paid much attention to this latest wrinkle in California elections.
I've pretty much been a sceptic of our initiative led style of governance. I'll even admit to being a bit rude to the signature gatherers outside most big box retailers. Yeah, those poor schmoes are paid a buck a signature and I don't begrudge it unless they miss the obvious signs that I'm not interested in signing any of their dozens of wacked out propostions. It really isn't the representational democracy that I learned about in jr. high is how I feel.
Anyhow, sorry for rambling off track in this fashion and thanks for the heads up.

I only talk to them if they're good looking women. I had one college environmentalist follow me across the parking lot telling me about the significance of her cause. The poor girl was disheartened when I climb into my SUV.

For some inter-party dissent to enjoy this time around check out the Colorado US Senate race where Obama's gone all out for Bennet and Bill Clinton has weighed in for Romanoff. The same thing is playing out in New Jersey with Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell. This president is still weakening and it's getting more obvious that Bill Clinton seems to be positioning his bets on a post Obama political landscape being in place at the end of 2012.

Keep dreaming mezz.

last night on PBS Newshour Clinton endorsed Obama highly and said that while Mitt was a good businessman and had been a governor his policies would be a disaster.

Wow, that sure is an odd outlook even for a rightie blog.
Things look pretty good and there were 7 total ballots ballots for all the parties at my polling station, with the independent redistricting and all, I say it looks real good for the real people of California.
So what if people have to compromise and actually work to get elected? This old school partisan redistrict-to-keep-your-seat is all over and the ballots are on equal footing, a good thing that should be given a chance IMO.
And voting is accessible for all citizens too. :)

Carl

Oh, yeah in Nov. the top two will be a Dem and a Rep.

Even if it were a dem and a dem in November, do you think Obama would win?

I assume you did read the thread and do know that the Presidential primary is not affected by this is any way, so no, I am not going to write in anybody.


Carl

It's been looking more an more like Bill has some deep seated issues with Obama. Perhaps those stem from the Obama campaign pulling the race card on Hillary in the 2008 primary. Bill can get mighty bristly when people start implying he might be racist when he's spent a political career building up a reputation that he was anything but. Mr. Clinton does not forget. Plus he's a balanced budget type of guy and I cannot imagine him actually being on board with Obama's runaway train spending spree policies.

In any event Clinton has to tow the line enough to not invoke the wrath of the Democratic party and pay the political consequences (like Ted Kennedy did when he got blamed for going against Carter). He's looking forward to a post-Obama democratic party again and hoping for another Clinton to run in 2016. I believe he's got some real distaste for Obama and he's been jabbing at him here and there where he can. Clinton does not expect Obama to win in November and he wants to be on the fence enough to step into the power vacuum within the dem party when Obama falls hard.

Ask yourself where is Hillary during this campaign. She's awol. That is certainly no accident. The Obama - Clinton relationship is tenuous at best. Watch for it to be over come November if (when) Obama loses.

Why? He only drew 900 people in Racine.

Oh, my! That was clever!

John

Reminds me of back in the primaries. Me and a repub were tag teaming this gal who set up her Ron Paul booth in front of the local post office, complete with a big poster of the President with a hitler moustache. I started off with, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself, have you ever read a history book? How dare you?" The repub called her a wack job in need of a tar an' feathering.
We commiserated a little walking back to our cars with him saying "If some don't like the Prez vote him out but leave that Nazi shit out of it." I laughingly asked him how did he like the primary sideshow? He said," I'm not voting Democratic if that's where you're going with this." I told him you can't blame a liberal for trying... :rolleyes:

Seriously? I'd think it would be highly irregular if a Sec'y of State, any Sec'y of State, for any President, were to be found out on the campaign trail. I don't recall Condi Rice, James Baker, Maddy Albright or Larry Eagleberger on the campaign trail at any point. Maybe the Sunday AM talking head shows, but that's about it.

In this case,there's a war on, tensions with Syria, Iran, the Ruskies... I'd think her dance card is pretty full.

So for you Californians how well did the primary fair in your districts with the new system?



Barney

So, do you think that bipartisanship is still possible in foreign policy?

Regards,

D-Ray

I'm not sure what you're getting at counselor. My comment was a simple observation that a Sec'y of State is typically not out campaigning during an election cycle.

I was acknowledging your astute comment, and expanding on it. You seemed to suggest that the Sec'y of State is unlikely to be used as a strictly political operative. As a nation, we have a history of tempering our differences when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. I was wondering out loud if, in this particularly divisive time, our pols are capable of cooperating in even that narrow area.

It does seem that in the her current role, Hillary has gained respect from those within both parties. She is much less of a polarizing figure now than when she was running for office.

Regards,

D-Ray

I seem to think she would of been a great President ......



Barney

And may be yet. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see her run again in 2016 after Obama's second term.

John

I wonder if starting one's presidency at age 69 is pushing the envelope. Aside from that, it would be near impossible for anyone to match her resume.

Regards,

D-Ray

One can only hope!



Barney

In the '90s I liked Bill but didn't much care for Hillary. That has changed. Something tells me if she had won the presidency in '08, we wouldn't even be facing the possibilty of a Romney presidency this time.

I don't like to admit it (about Hillary) but I think you're right.

I don't agree. She would have aligned so many people that the opposite would likely have been the case.

I never liked Bill, and disliked Hillary intensely.

Now I kinda like Bill and have a great respect for Hillary.

There was a suggestion that sshe run as VP this fall and make Biden Secretary of State.

Your memory and mine are quite opposite on this. The best examples that I can think of where our differences in dealing with the rest of the world were rolled out and put on display are during the most critical times: times of war. Think Vietnam, The Gulf Wars, etc.

That would be a plus for Obama.

I'd go for that!





Barney

Don't you guys unnerstand that Biden is the reason no one has tried to put a round in the Prez?;)

I would expect that the position of Secretary of State is considerably more important functionally than the position of VP. With the job that Hillary has done in that capacity, it wouldn't make sense to shuffle the lineup. The job of VP becomes more important only upon a tragic occurrence.

Moreover, in this political climate, the identity of Obama's running mate will not make a whit of difference.

Regards,

D-Ray

Time will tell if a jolt of electricity is needed to Obama's campaign. In order to turn out the electorate masses in the fall.



Barney

IMHO any change in the running mate would be more negative than positive, unless something like a health issue with Biden would force the change. Then there is the issue of statesmanship. With Hillary doing a good job, would it be good for the country to take her out of that position?

Regards,

D-Ray

She would have been a far better choice than Obama. I do not agree with a number of her positions, but she is worthy of respect. In fact, I'd prefer her over McCain.

Even Obama realizes the necessity of keeping Biden away from an arena where mispeaking can be significant.

Even though he's a gaffe machine, I kinda like Biden. He's one of the more unscripted political figures we have. He's far more of a benign presence than Cheney.

My sentiments exactly.

My understanding is that she is taking herself out of that position because she is exhausted. So the VP position would be quite restful.

Biden was the only one who made sense on Afghanistan with his suggestion of a federation with three states, Kurd, Sunni and Shia because they sure as hell cannot get along with each other.

I like him too and think he should stay right where he is. So should Sec. Clinton.

Apparently, one of Biden's unrealized dreams is to be Secretary of State and some pundits have speculated that he and Clinton might trade jobs. Can you imagine that? Biden having to parse all his words and"The Big Dog" hanging around the White House again?

John