Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
20M francs is all it would take? Huh. Sounds like ol' OBL is down to the coins found in his caveside couch.

I hope someone has let W know - just with this year's $100B supplemental budget request, he spends this in a couple of hours in Iraq alone and still can't get OBL.

Boy, somebody's going to look bad!

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I hope someone has let W know - just with this year's $100B supplemental budget request, he spends this in a couple of hours in Iraq alone and still can't get OBL.

Boy, somebody's going to look bad!

The point is that the Pakistanis are supposed to be using it to squelch the terrorist roaches in their own land but are not. Bhutto had the money to squelch it but decided she'd rather squire it away in a bank account in Switzerland and let the fanatics fester and breed as is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The Bhuttos and their Party hid (in Geneva) over 20 million in Swiss francs gleaned from bribes, money launduring and drug dealing. I don't know how much 20 mill Swiss Francs gets you in Pakistani Rupees but my bet is: a lot. And enough for the central government to buy control of those provinces as well as Bin Laden's head on a big shish kabob.

I agree with you that the Bhuttos are corrupt, though I would have thought their take was more than SFr 20 m. But I certainly don't think that's enough for the central government to buy control of those provinces. Pakistan -- and the British before them -- would pay a lot more for the privilege.

[Not Bob]

Dear Republicans:

If you have Penske on your Secret Santa GWGGH list, you might consider this fine item. (Uh, he doesn't have a nut allergy, does he?)



In the Spirit of Bipartisan Love,

Not Bob

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• The Republican Party of Virginia wants voters in the Feb. 12 GOP presidential primary to sign a pledge that they will support the party's nominee.
  
  The state Board of Elections approved the request yesterday.
  
  Those who wish to cast a ballot in the Republican presidential primary will have to sign a statement that says, "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Paul Waldman sees this as an effort to tell GOP voters what to do in the general election, but I think it's more an effort to ensure that moderates don't vote in the primary. Spanky, what do you think?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• The Republican Party of Virginia wants voters in the Feb. 12 GOP presidential primary to sign a pledge that they will support the party's nominee.
  
  The state Board of Elections approved the request yesterday.
  
  Those who wish to cast a ballot in the Republican presidential primary will have to sign a statement that says, "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Paul Waldman sees this as an effort to tell GOP voters what to do in the general election, but I think it's more an effort to ensure that moderates don't vote in the primary. Spanky, what do you think?

some primaries are open to all, some only to registered Rs or Ds, correct? Like in Michigan I can vote for Dennis K. to try to mess you guys up. If Va is like that, it might be to try to keep Ds out. And really, it is directed at the extreme rightwingers, not the moderates. Tehy want the snakehandlers to stay on board, even when a guy who doesn't speak in tongues gets nominated.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
some primaries are open to all, some only to registered Rs or Ds, correct? Like in Michigan I can vote for Dennis K. to try to mess you guys up. If Va is like that, it might be to try to keep Ds out.

According to this, Virginia had an open primary two years ago, so you may be right. Doesn't make it any less odious, though.

And really, it is directed at the extreme rightwingers, not the moderates. Tehy want the snakehandlers to stay on board, even when a guy who doesn't speak in tongues gets nominated.

Sir, I am impressed with the way you so quickly reverse direction. Just a second ago, I found myself agreeing with you that this was aimed at Democrats, and now -- perhaps because you sensed my impending agreement -- you say it is directed at the wingers. Bravo.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop

• The Republican Party of Virginia wants voters in the Feb. 12 GOP presidential primary to sign a pledge that they will support the party's nominee.
  
  The state Board of Elections approved the request yesterday.
  
  Those who wish to cast a ballot in the Republican presidential primary will have to sign a statement that says, "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Paul Waldman sees this as an effort to tell GOP voters what to do in the general election, but I think it's more an effort to ensure that moderates don't vote in the primary. Spanky, what do you think?

Why should primaries be open to anyone but people in the party?

Should I be able to walk in and vote for Edwards, just to fuck with Hillary?*


*Note: This is a hypothetical point. Most Republicans, like myself, have far better things to do than waste their time on such shenanigans - Contrast, many Democrats, who, as teachers, journalists, unemployed students and municipal workers (collectively, "loafers"), have not only plenty of time to waste, but walk off the job at the drop of a hat if able to skew an election.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• The Republican Party of Virginia wants voters in the Feb. 12 GOP presidential primary to sign a pledge that they will support the party's nominee.
  
  The state Board of Elections approved the request yesterday.
  
  Those who wish to cast a ballot in the Republican presidential primary will have to sign a statement that says, "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Paul Waldman sees this as an effort to tell GOP voters what to do in the general election, but I think it's more an effort to ensure that moderates don't vote in the primary. Spanky, what do you think?

I'm looking forward to their enforcement measures. Secret ballots, schmecret ballots.

Why do the Republicans hate America?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why should primaries be open to anyone but people in the party?

Should I be able to walk in and vote for Edwards, just to fuck with Hillary?*


*Note: This is a hypothetical point. Most Republicans, like myself, have far better things to do than waste their time on such shenanigans - Contrast, many Democrats, who, as teachers, journalists, unemployed students and municipal workers (collectively, "loafers"), have not only plenty of time to waste, but walk off the job at the drop of a hat if able to skew an election.

If the Republicans want some kind of a loyalty oath before letting someone in the voting booth that is indeed their problem.

It is the linking of the loyalty oath to how they will vote in a secret, general election that I find odious. It's true, the constitution doesn't protect the secrecy of the ballot - this isn't a constitutional issue. But ballot secrecy is one of those basic Democratic protections we've become accustomed to.

What happens when Pat Robertson starts challenging voters to figure out their true intent? What questions does he ask when he has them on the stand?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• The Republican Party of Virginia wants voters in the Feb. 12 GOP presidential primary to sign a pledge that they will support the party's nominee.
  
  The state Board of Elections approved the request yesterday.
  
  Those who wish to cast a ballot in the Republican presidential primary will have to sign a statement that says, "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Paul Waldman sees this as an effort to tell GOP voters what to do in the general election, but I think it's more an effort to ensure that moderates don't vote in the primary. Spanky, what do you think?

That can't possibly be binding, and is therefore bullshit. I would sign something that stupid, knowing it was an out-and-out lie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why should primaries be open to anyone but people in the party?

I think parties can opt to pick their candidate at a convention instead of through a primary, which would satisfy the associational concern you are raising. If they're going to use the governmental electoral apparatus, why can't the government establish laws about who gets to participate?

I'm sure there is caselaw on this, since neither party likes open primaries.

eta: Indeed, the Fourth Circuit appears to have addressed this recently. Here is a brief from the Va. Attorney General in the case, and it says (in part):

• Virginia allows political parties to choose their own method of nominating candidates. Virginia also expects that political parties generally will run and fund the costs of their nomination process.[2] However, at the request of the party, Virginia will provide a state-run and state-funded open primary. See Virginia Code § 24.2-530. Although political parties may have a closed primary if the parties administer and fund it, there is no provision for a state-run or state-funded closed primary. The choices as to the method of nomination and/or whether to take advantage of the State’s offer of a state-run and state-funded open primary are left entirely to the party. No party is required to do anything.

Curiously, footnote 2 says:

• 2 To be sure, a party’s nomination process, even when conducted and funded entirely by the party rather than by the State, amounts to state action. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 663-63 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 472-74 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

Apparently you take issue with those decisions.

Should I be able to walk in and vote for Edwards, just to fuck with Hillary?*


*Note: This is a hypothetical point. Most Republicans, like myself, have far better things to do than waste their time on such shenanigans - Contrast, many Democrats, who, as teachers, journalists, unemployed students and municipal workers (collectively, "loafers"), have not only plenty of time to waste, but walk off the job at the drop of a hat if able to skew an election.

We'll file this under Paranoid Republican Electoral Fraud Myths, but the folder is getting overstuffed.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That can't possibly be binding, and is therefore bullshit. I would sign something that stupid, knowing it was an out-and-out lie.

Sure you would. But what if you thought that lying was a sin and you'd be punished for it in the afterlife? Or, like Slave, that Santa sees everything you do and won't bring you a hockey stick for Christmas? These are Republicans we're talking about.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think parties can opt to pick their candidate at a convention instead of through a primary, which would satisfy the associational concern you are raising. If they're going to use the governmental electoral apparatus, why can't the government establish laws about who gets to participate?

I'm sure there is caselaw on this, since neither party likes open primaries.



We'll file this under Paranoid Republican Electoral Fraud Myths, but the folder is getting overstuffed.

Some state's opt for primaries open to all, some opt for primaries open to all voters registered in a party and all unenrolled voters, some opt for closed primaries. The closed primary states often let you register for a party at the polls. Generally, each state party can decide whether to participate in the primaries established by the legislature or can opt out and select their nominees and their delegates other ways.

Most state parties allocate their Presidential delegates a number of ways; they can use both a primary and a caucus if they choose - the rules are very flexible. And most parties seem to want the insiders picking some delegates.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ironweed
Sure you would. But what if you thought that lying was a sin and you'd be punished for it in the afterlife? Or, like Slave, that Santa sees everything you do and won't bring you a hockey stick for Christmas? These are Republicans we're talking about.

If Ty is right and it's aimed at moderate Rs, it'll be OK. They're usually the fiscal conservatives/social liberals.