More Alaska Drama

[Beavah 205]

What a dingbat. It's of a piece with the interminable legal struggles in Minnesota last election. Tie up the election winner and keep 'em from taking a seat to represent their state just out of spite.

 

What's interestin' is DeMint and the Republican leadership funding the bizarro legal challenges in this case. Have they no shame?

 

Serve 'em right if Murkowski jumped ship and caucused with the Democrats.

 

I want a new party to vote for that is actually honorable.

 

B

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Will that judge be considered a judicial activist? Legislating from the bench, or a true patriot, protecting the rights of downtrodden?

[Beavah 205]

Nah, Gern, da judge has to hear the case which is brought before him, eh?

 

This judge mostly did the right thing, and turfed it back to the state courts, with just long enough a restraining order (over the weekend) to give Miller a chance to file.

 

Essentially it was a polite version of a "this is a state court matter, you idiot" ruling.

 

B

 

[packsaddle 753]

So Beavah, or anyone, what happened to the Republican Party? There was Eisenhower, and then possibly Goldwater. But after the LBJ debacle, Nixon seems to have been a turning point. Or was it somewhere else? Strom Thurmond? I can't quite find a place in time where Republicans decided to go the way they've gone. The closest thing to it that I can spot is Lee Atwater as the strategist, and ultimately mentor for Karl Rove, and South Carolina from which it seems to have originated and to which it returned in 2000 only to be carried forward by McCain/Palin. I'm going to have to take a closer look at this - here's a snippet:

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwJYfTC9Hw&feature=related(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten 10]

But Beavah,

Yes, this is a state matter and should be heard in state court. But this was a federal judge issuing the restraining order. He has no jurisdiction to do so here. That was activism wasn't it? If Miller screwed up and filed in the wrong venue, too bad, so sad. He should have just denied hearing it.

[packsaddle 753]

And in state court, indeed he did file:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/23/5515131-2010-miller-files-suit-in-state-court

 

[gwd-scouter 11]

So, Murkowski won the write in campaign even if some folks didn't spell her name quite correctly. Still, voter intent...right? Haven't we heard for so many months about how the "people" have spoken, the "people" want this, polls say...etc.

 

Seems to me that what Americans want is only important to politicians when Americans want the same thing as said politician.

[Woapalanne 11]

I still think the following change makes sense: There should be a "None of the Above" on the ballot. And if nobody gots 50%+1, then EVERY party would have to go back and field a new candidate. Chaos at first, but then they would figure out they need to field candidates the people actually want.

 

(Edited to correct a stoopid typo.....)(This message has been edited by Woapalanne)

[scoutingagain 20]

Well some states are talking about experimenting with open primaries. By that I mean everyone is on the same ballot in the primary. Then the top two participate in a runoff. The two major parties are dead set against this approach because it virtually eliminates the two party system. An independant candidate has much more of a chance in an open primary where there might be a field of 6 -8 candidates.

 

But I like the "None of the above" option. It might provide some humilty.

 

SA

[gwd-scouter 11]

Our choices in SC for Senator were Jim DeMint and Alvin Greene. Some choice, huh? There was also a Green Party candidate on the ballot. None of the Above would have been a very nice option.