Lieberman stripped of a superdelegate vote he never should have had

There's already some buzz (0.00 / 0)

that if Clinton and Obama are headed to a brokered Convention, and the Super Delegates swing it her way, that the rest of the party is going to revolt. Worst case scenario for the Dems would be that Obama's base stays home in disgust, and McCain wins.

Makes that final primary day in Montana look all the more interesting, eh!  

---

by: JC @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 18:50:15 PM UTC

Drowning in hypocracy (0.00 / 0)

So let me get this straight.

You go ape-shite because the Bohlinger doesn't get to vote in the MT GOP Caucus despite the fact that there were avenues for him to do so that he could - and was invited to - have taken advantage of.  The basis for his exclusion as a Republican Office Holder is that is that he's not an elected Republican Office Holder (he ran and won in a Democrat primary, and then ran and won as a Democrat in the general).

But when your party actively strips someone who caucuses with them of that vote - when they would otherwise have had it - you cheer...

The only thing you are consistent about, Jay, is that Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but when that consistency causes you to sacrifice your own credibility who exactly do you think that you are hurting?

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 20:55:51 PM UTC

uh... (4.00 / 1)

Actually, Lieberman is not a Democrat. Bohlinger is a Republican. Just check the little letters behind their names. Lieberman always gets an "i."

Besides, we're talking superdelegates here, not the right to participate in a primary or caucus. I find the whole superdelegate thing to be odious -- and that good Democrats are out-representated by these machine votes is bad enough, but that they're given to people who aren't in the party? Ugh.

But thanks for stopping by and, as usual, obfuscating.  

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 21:36:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

Oh Jay...

1) Bohlinger calls himself a Republican, but he ran in a Democrat Primary and was elected to a Democrat administration.  But that's not the issue because Bohlinger could have voted on Tuesday if he'd spent 5 minutes doing the research.

2) Lieberman wasn't stripped of his super delegate vote because he's not a registered Independent (i.e. not a Democrat).  He caucuses with the Democrats and Sen. Jeffords used to get a vote for exactly that reason.  No, Lieberman was stripped of his vote because he endorsed a Republican.  It's the "Zell Miller Rule"; look it up.

3) If you're going to be consistent, Bohlinger has endorsed many a Democrat.  So your criticism of the Republican Party - in the interest of consistency - should be that they would have even considered letting Bohlinger be involved at all, not that they didn't break the rules for him.

4) I don't mean to "obscure" anything; I can see why facts would make things a bit confusing for you and the fantasy world you've constructed to support your liberalism.

5) I guess "credibility" is short-slang for my amazement at the fact that your mind is capable of holding so many contradicting notions.  I guess it's a compliment of your intellectual pluralism.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 21:55:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a difference. (4.00 / 1)

You guys hate Bohlinger because he's fiscally conservative but socially moderate.  There is no room in your party for anyone close to the middle anymore.

Lieberman isn't in the middle.  He's more conservative than John McCain.  He's a hawk and one of the only 'Democrats' to continue supporting a global war of fear that is alienating all of our allies and continues to undermine the security of our nation.

Bohlinger isn't conservative enough but he ain't no hippy.  He actually believes in public schools and human rights, which is so un-Republican these days.  Crazy!  Lieberman is just plain wrong and more and more Republicans are coming around to that way of thinking.

---

by: Kilgore @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 22:07:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you hate Baucus more than Lieberman? (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman is more liberal than Max Baucus, Kilgore.  

http://nationaljournal.com/vot...

I assume you're pushing for a Democrat opponents in the primary this year right??  Who are you hoping will primary against Max this year?

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:01:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trotsky, obviously (4.00 / 1)

Yes, that's it.  I'm hoping for Trotsky.

Is that what you want to hear, pissant?  Quit being a fool.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:17:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, everyone knows how much I like Baucus. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Kilgore @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:30:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's a "Democrat" primary? (0.00 / 0)

I looked it up, and there's no such adjective.

Last I checked Bohlinger wasn't a superdelegate. I would never argue for any GOPer to have more say than any other -- thus the disdain for your little closed caucus -- but superdelegates are just that. And Lieberman -- again -- is not a Democrat; why should he have more weight in selecting the Democratic nominee than me or any other Democratic voter? I don't care if he caucuses with the Democrats. (I don't think Saunders should have a superdelegate vote, either. But then I don't think anyone should have a superdelegate vote.)

I certainly wouldn't forbid Lieberman from attending the convention or talking to Democrats...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 22:53:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democrat (adj): having to do with the Democrat Party. (0.00 / 0)

You're splitting hairs Jay - a vote is a vote is a vote is a vote.  Sure a superdelegate's vote has more influence in the big picture but the issue isn't the nuance of who's vote is more important.

The issue is why you are using different and opposing philosophical standards when condemning Republicans and praising Democrats.  You criticize Republicans for creating an "ideological purity screen" (which they really didn't) while you praise Democrats for doing the same exact thing.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:16:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You really don't know (0.00 / 0)

You're splitting hairs Jay - a vote is a vote is a vote is a vote.  Sure a superdelegate's vote has more influence in the big picture but the issue isn't the nuance of who's vote is more important.

You don't understand the first thing about Democratic party super-delegates, do you?  They can have vastly more influence than a simple delegate or party voter.  That you are too clueless to understand how that sits within the Democratic party doesn't speak well of your intelligence.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:20:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And, since you don't know English, either (0.00 / 0)

'Democrat' is a noun, not an adjective.  'Democratic' is an adjective.  It appears that you are dimly aware of that, but can't quite grasp the distinction.  Notice, in the last sentence, 'dimly' is an adjective.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoops, my bad (0.00 / 0)

'dimly' is an adverb.  To call you dim, now that would have been an adjective.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:28:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like Democracy... (0.00 / 0)

I don't particularly like Democrats so I am correcting an error in the English language.  If Republican is a noun and an adjective, Democrat should be to.  Republicans are democratic you see.

Wulfgar, I always know I'm doing well when I argue with a Democrat because they start calling me names to cover up for the fact that they don't understand my point.  Let me politely recommend that you examine the second paragraph in the post you just quoted.  I actually put that paragraph there for a reason beyond forcing your computer to show the text on your monitor requiring more energy and contributing to global warming.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:30:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I like Democracy"? (0.00 / 0)

??

This from a man defending his little closed caucus -- 625 Montanans decided on behalf of all the state's Republican voters who should be president! And you couldn't even do that right!

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:11:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Civics 101 (0.00 / 0)

Jay, you should know this buddy.  625 Montanans were elected from their communities by Republicans in those communities.  Those 625 then vote to elect 25 delegates to vote for the Republican nominee for President on behalf of the entire state of Montana (or at least the Republicans).  Yes, how terrible that each Montanan doesn't get to vote for the President for themselves.  At least they'll be able to join Democrats and do it in November, eh?

Nope.

Once there is a candidate, Montana's voters will go to the polls - not to vote for and elect the President, but to elect 3 (just 3) Electoral College Electors who will be the only people from Montana that actually vote for the President.

625 to represent one party sure is a lot more Democratic than 3 to represent all parties.  So the righteous indignation - that "625 Montanans decided on behalf of the state's Republican voters" - is indicative of nothing but your ignorance of basic American civics.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:51:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

??? (0.00 / 0)

Dude. Er. The caucus-goers weren't elected. Unless you're pretending that party precinct captains are elected.

I'm not a fan of the EC, either, BTW.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:45:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrongo! (0.00 / 0)

Claiming something as a philosophical standard doesn't establish it as such.  I call you names because you assume instead of argue.  The distinction ungrasped would be yours.  The 'names' are justified because you don't get something as simple as that.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 00:06:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Splitting hairs"??? (0.00 / 0)

Again, I'm all for Lieberman voting in CT's primary -- or even offering to be a delegate for his preferred candidate (tho' it's McCain). I think that his getting a superdelegate vote is wrong. A man who's a self-proclaimed independent of a party he himself created...gets about 100X more say in the nomination of the party's candidate?

It's an indictment of the system, one that favors preferred establishment insiders over voters, the base. Kind of like your caucus.

Look, you can whine and pirouette with all the tricks so characteristic of your kind's odious moral relevancy, but demanding more power to the people in nominating presidential candidates by opposing the superdelegate system is in no way equivalent to frisking for ideological purity at the door of a closed caucus.

There's no hypocrisy here, there's no inconsistency here, try as you might to create some.  

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:21:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MTSentinel, (0.00 / 0)

Obfuscation is in the eye of the beholder.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 00:03:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

I suppose you're right.  For example, if someone preached to me about advanced mathematics - something for which I have no background and am not able to understand - I would be able to accuse them of "obfuscation".

Comprehension and obfuscation are tightly married - depending on the audience.  Well articulated.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:09:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comprehension and obfuscation are tightly married (0.00 / 0)

Wrong again

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:20:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Lieberman registered as a Democrat in his CT home town this year (0.00 / 0)

The rest of his family registered as Unaffiliate.

Larkspur

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 22:28:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS (0.00 / 0)

Why are you so obsessed about my "credibility"? I didn't know I had any to lose. I'm just some schmoe with a website.

And, BTW, I slam Democrats all the time.

But then you prefer Senators who stand by slave labor and forced abortions out of "principle." That's your kind of credible, honorable man.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 21:39:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You really have to stop falling for their crap (0.00 / 0)

MTSentinel accuses you of grave hypocrisy, and then weakens his charge to 'inconsistency'. Face it Jay, they have nothing left but their obsession with you.  They demand of you what they've no ability to show from themselves, and no reason for them to show it.  You're 'inconsistent' in their eyes?  So f***ing what?

There is very little similar between Bohlinger's situation and Lie-berman's.

Bohlinger - ran for state office not as a Democrat but as a Republican on a bi-partisan ticket.  He won that office in the same year that the state voted overwhelmingly for a Republican for President.  He's never been rejected for office by the Republican party.

Lie-berman - ran for US Senate as a Democrat.  The Democrats of CT said "no thank you", and sent him packing.  He then ran for Senate as an Independant, and won a narrow victory on a bi-partisan vote.  So he can call himself a communist if he wants, but the Democrats of CT said he was not one of theirs.

Bohlinger - Has never claimed to be other than an elected Republican official.  He should have been recognized as such when it came time for the state party to choose an endorsement for the Republican candidate for President of the country.  In other words, when it comes to electing the President of the US, he acts like a good party member and citizen.

Lie-berman - continues to claim that he's a Democrat and consistently votes against the party in the Senate.  Refuses to work with party leadership unless they capitulate to Republican will.  Has already endorsed a Republican for President.  In other words, he has no goddamned place at all being given preferential decision making power in the choosing of the Democratic party's representative for President.

Now, one of these situations is not like the other.  One of these men is not like the other.  So much for the pathetic  sturm und drang over 'consistency'.  If MTSentinel wants consistency, let him take his Metamucil and vote for Romney.  But pay him no nevermind in demanding righteousness if he has no moral ground on which to stand. That goes double for Budge who hasn't the moral will to even take a stand, other than promote his cowardice as bravely not choosing.

Oh, and all the Montana Republicans who think Lie-berman is all that and a bag of chips, please vote for the guy.  Go right ahead.  (Maybe if a few more of you worshipers of consistency had done that we wouldn't be facing trillions of dollars of debt ...)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:11:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's play definitions (0.00 / 0)

Hypocrisy is acting inconsistently.  But for the connotative meaning, they might as well be synonyms.  The thing is, either Jay is aware of his inconsistency (and therefore a hypocrite) or he is ignorant of his inconsistency (and therefore well... ignorant).  See how that works?

Bohlinger was never "refused" by the Republican Party because he never ran in a Republican Primary.  He ran in the Democrat Primary.  You catch that?  I'm pretty sure if he ran in the Republican Primary there's be a resounding "No thank you" to latch onto for  the right.

Bohlinger has also endorsed a Democrat by joining him on his Democrat ticket.  Even so, he could have voted had he just followed the rules that everyone else abided.  Just sayin' Wulfie, there's some inconsistency here.  Hypocrisy or ignorance: you tell me.

Oh, and my ground isn't moral or righteous.  It's based on reason - the fundamental source of argument.  I trace my ground to Aristotle, Toulman, Perelman, Ken Burke - basically the epistemological foundations of the human condition.  I'd never get into a moral argument with an unarmed opponent!

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:46:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's build a straw man, MTSentinel (0.00 / 0)

Hypocrisy is not inconsistency. It is pretense. A synonym would be deceit.

Jay may be inconsistent, which is to say, to be human. But to be inconsistent is not to be ignorant. More obfuscation.

Arguments based on flawed reason, MTSentinel, nevertheless lead to inappropriate and flawed moral, righteous conclusions. Thus began the decline and decay of the Republican party.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 00:16:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um... (0.00 / 0)

Show me an example of hypocrisy that does not involve inconsistency and I will never post here again.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:14:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One can be (0.00 / 0)

consistently hypocritical, therefore if you post here again, you will prove my point, which is being deceitful of your true intentions, which are to obfuscate.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:29:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No... (0.00 / 0)

Being "consistently hypocritical" would, in matter of fact be consistent so you are correct - if I had said that hypocrisy was exclusively inconsistent.  However, the "hypocritical" part of being consistently hypocritical would by definition mean that you are being consistently inconsistent which would of course involve inconsistency.  [Rim shot]

But, I will give you big points for cleverness!  I had to think about that one for a minute.  If only Jay or Wulfgar were as clever as you they'd probably avoid making themselves such easy targets!

---

by: MTSentinel @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:31:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong again, as always (0.00 / 0)

Hypocrisy is acting inconsistently.  But for the connotative meaning, they might as well be synonyms.

No they aren't.  Taking a different route to work everyday doesn't make one a hypocrite, now does it.  The 'inconsistency' you find dire is your problem and your issue.  Scream about it all you like.

Bohlinger was never "refused" by the Republican Party because he never ran in a Republican Primary.  He ran in the Democrat Primary.  You catch that?  I'm pretty sure if he ran in the Republican Primary there's be a resounding "No thank you" to latch onto for  the right.

He never ran for office as a Republican?  Are you sure, or just dimly narrow?

Bohlinger has also endorsed a Democrat by joining him on his Democrat ticket.

Did he endorse a Republican for President while claiming to be a Democrat enabled with extraordinary powers to nominate a Democratic candidate?  Did he?  Of course not.  One of these things is really not like the other, is it ... or do I have to spell it out for you?  Wait, I already did and you still don't get it.  You must suck at that learning thingy that humans do.

Just sayin' Wulfie, there's some inconsistency here.  Hypocrisy or ignorance: you tell me.

I see.  According to MTSentinel, inconsistency = hypocrisy or inconsistency = ignorance.  So, going pee at 5:00 instead of 6:00 is either hypocritical or ignorant.  Good to know that.  (Don't pretend you understand reason when you misuse it so.  It's truly offensive to those of us who think.)

Just sayin' Wulfie

"Wulfie" used as a diminuative.  And in defense of "Wulfie" is MTSentinal:

I always know I'm doing well when I argue with a (moron) because they start calling me names to cover up for the fact that they don't understand

So much for the moral high ground and lack of hypocrisy.

Oh, and my ground isn't moral or righteous.  It's based on reason - the fundamental source of argument.  I trace my ground to Aristotle, Toulman, Perelman, Ken Burke - basically the epistemological foundations of the human condition.

And yet you've shown absolutely no connection whatsoever to any of those arguments coming from any of those men.  You're bullshitting, obviously, and think that name-dropping will intimidate your opponent?  Are you Dave Budge? Really, you haven't established any reasoned ground at all. You have presented no epistemology save accusation.  If you want to throw around names, kindly show how they apply.  But guess what, kitten?  I been there, done that and really got the t-shirt, as well as the diploma.  You got something to argue, do it.  Quit bluffing.

I'd never get into a moral argument with an unarmed opponent!

Well now that we've established that you're a liar, I think Jay can breathe easier knowing that you haven't the balls to  stalk him except online.    

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 00:35:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to mention (0.00 / 0)

that Leiberman was the achilles heel of Gore's presidency bid. Strike three, he's out.

The whole disaffection by Rebublicans of Bohlinger's vice-governorship is more a comment on the lip service they give to bipartisanship in general, than on the superdelegate issue. Montana republicans, for the most part, just don't believe in bipartisanship, or those who partake in it.  

---

by: JC @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 23:52:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They sure don't JC. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Kilgore @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:34:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need to pressure super-delegates (0.00 / 0)

I, too, am worried that establishment super-delegates will steal the nomination for Clinton.  Super-delegates stole it for Humphrey in 1968.  They stole it for Mondale in 1984.  Hillary and Bill have been courting super-delegates by having their surrogates make contributions to their campaigns and by doing a lot of schmoozing with them.

At our Jefferson-Jackson dinner in March, I'd like to have us Beaverhead Democrats conduct an advisory caucus.  (I haven't brought up the idea with other here yet.) It would be good to let our super-delegates know that if they vote contrary to the wishes of a majority of rank-and-file Democrats, they'll lose our support.

Maybe something like this could happen at all the JJ dinners?

Of course, who knows, maybe Hillary is more popular in Beaverhead than Obama.  I doubt it, but it's possible.

---

by: Turner @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 21:00:24 PM UTC