So now Hillary wants us to count the Electoral College votes that would be had from her wins vs. Obama’s. She wants this new facade in place for the super delegates to look at, so they won’t move to Obama’s side.
It’s a façade of straws, twisted in so many ways that the gust of one more win by Obama in any of the upcoming states will, like the big bad wolf, blow it down.
Then what? Will we be asked by her campaign to count only those states that were in the Union before 1865 or other such nonsense?
Her campaign’s desperate premise is based on the notion that Obama, as the party’s nominee, would not win any of the states in a general election that she has won.
With the last gasps of redo’s in Florida & Michigan in the rearview mirror, it’s really time for the fantasy to stop, for the what ifs of a divisive campaign to give it up and shut it down – it’s not going to happen.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
On The Democrats Primary Problems
Why?
Why are the Democrats at this juncture in the primary process, a place where “super” delegates are being treated as if they are political eggs or sperm to be frozen in place until such time that they are removed from refrigeration, thawed and inserted into the political world, perhaps only in Denver during the month of August? Is it because the party’s surrogate Mommy & Daddy are still fighting with each other and are refusing to let them move?
As far as I can see, the real mommies and daddies (the voters) have been letting the political world know what they want done with their “supers” in an ongoing fashion with the results of the primaries and caucuses. The “supers” should be broken down in direct proportion to the popular votes cast in their respective contests. This may make some declared “super” supporters uncomfortable, no doubt, having to take a side not entirely comfortable – but too bad, your elected or appointed position that entitled you to the “super” designation is, at its’ root, subservient to the voters. This includes the Howard Deans, Nancy Pelosis, etc of the party.
For that portion of the votes that have gone to candidates no longer in the race and their proportional delegate count – follow the lead of Iowa and reconvene at the county level and allow those delegates to move to the remaining candidates.
Notice is hereby given to all the supposed Type “A” personalities that are running this party throughout the country – you all agreed about penalizing Florida & Michigan for their early primaries – stick to it. They don’t count at the convention. If that causes a problem, then it’s between the voters in those states and their state party- some of whom make up their state “supers”.
Deduct the total of delegates (“super” and pledged) from Florida & Michigan from the 2,025 needed for nomination and make the result the required number for nomination. No re-do’s or reruns, no “yeah, but’s”, none of that.
I believe this would be consistent with the two campaigns, the same campaigns that signed off last year on the agreement that these two states would not count if they moved up their primaries – which of course they did.
When it comes to the kids, even a divorcing Mommy & Daddy must be consistent, lest the children win by playing one off against the other.
Why are the Democrats at this juncture in the primary process, a place where “super” delegates are being treated as if they are political eggs or sperm to be frozen in place until such time that they are removed from refrigeration, thawed and inserted into the political world, perhaps only in Denver during the month of August? Is it because the party’s surrogate Mommy & Daddy are still fighting with each other and are refusing to let them move?
As far as I can see, the real mommies and daddies (the voters) have been letting the political world know what they want done with their “supers” in an ongoing fashion with the results of the primaries and caucuses. The “supers” should be broken down in direct proportion to the popular votes cast in their respective contests. This may make some declared “super” supporters uncomfortable, no doubt, having to take a side not entirely comfortable – but too bad, your elected or appointed position that entitled you to the “super” designation is, at its’ root, subservient to the voters. This includes the Howard Deans, Nancy Pelosis, etc of the party.
For that portion of the votes that have gone to candidates no longer in the race and their proportional delegate count – follow the lead of Iowa and reconvene at the county level and allow those delegates to move to the remaining candidates.
Notice is hereby given to all the supposed Type “A” personalities that are running this party throughout the country – you all agreed about penalizing Florida & Michigan for their early primaries – stick to it. They don’t count at the convention. If that causes a problem, then it’s between the voters in those states and their state party- some of whom make up their state “supers”.
Deduct the total of delegates (“super” and pledged) from Florida & Michigan from the 2,025 needed for nomination and make the result the required number for nomination. No re-do’s or reruns, no “yeah, but’s”, none of that.
I believe this would be consistent with the two campaigns, the same campaigns that signed off last year on the agreement that these two states would not count if they moved up their primaries – which of course they did.
When it comes to the kids, even a divorcing Mommy & Daddy must be consistent, lest the children win by playing one off against the other.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Your Town's Upcoming Budget
An editorial cartoon in the Asbury Park Press today:
As to our State Senator Joe Kyrillos' legislative efforts to force the mergers of smaller municipalities by some type of state committee, I can see that, whether it is through their planning and zoning boards or "areas in need of redevelopment" efforts, it would also not be an unexpected development that there might be an upturn in the efforts of some towns that find themselves close to that 10,000 population marker to increase the size of the residential population to meet that figure by the next census (2010). To do so could probably insure that these towns would not to be subject to any future independent state commission’s recommendation of a forced merger with another municipality.
Page 6 of the governor’s recent 2009 budget summary had the following:
“The budget will also include a reduction in the level of aid to municipalities. The budget will provide over $1.8 billion in aid to municipalities, a decrease of approximately $190 million, which represents less than 10% of the amount provided in the current year.
A portion of the reduction in municipal aid will be targeted to those municipalities with
populations of less than 10,000. This group of towns will be given priority standing in
the awarding of the $32 million in grants from a state fund that encourages consolidation
and shared services.”
Similar state monies to cover the cost of surveys for these smaller municipalities were made available in the current 2008 state budget to see what, if any, municipal services or departments could be consolidated with surrounding towns.
My guess is that not to many municipalities sought any of these funds, that very few surveys were done and that consolidation of any kind is something that will be given lip service to rather than being acted on in any meaningful way.
Residents of any town facing any proposed municipal tax increase should rightfully expect that their elected local officials requested and used the state's 2008 survey funds last year, that the surveys have been done and as a result of these findings that all operating expenses that could be saved have been saved before any new taxes be considered for a municipal 2008 budget this year. Copies of all municipal surveys should be made available to their residents so that a more complete understanding can be had by all.
“The budget will also include a reduction in the level of aid to municipalities. The budget will provide over $1.8 billion in aid to municipalities, a decrease of approximately $190 million, which represents less than 10% of the amount provided in the current year.
A portion of the reduction in municipal aid will be targeted to those municipalities with
populations of less than 10,000. This group of towns will be given priority standing in
the awarding of the $32 million in grants from a state fund that encourages consolidation
and shared services.”
Similar state monies to cover the cost of surveys for these smaller municipalities were made available in the current 2008 state budget to see what, if any, municipal services or departments could be consolidated with surrounding towns.
My guess is that not to many municipalities sought any of these funds, that very few surveys were done and that consolidation of any kind is something that will be given lip service to rather than being acted on in any meaningful way.
Residents of any town facing any proposed municipal tax increase should rightfully expect that their elected local officials requested and used the state's 2008 survey funds last year, that the surveys have been done and as a result of these findings that all operating expenses that could be saved have been saved before any new taxes be considered for a municipal 2008 budget this year. Copies of all municipal surveys should be made available to their residents so that a more complete understanding can be had by all.
If these residents find that nothing in the way of surveys have been done in this past year, then it is clear that the question of "Why Not?" be asked of these local officials as they bemoan these latest state cuts in local aid. The state has been withdrawing aid from municipalities in recent years in a variety of ways, including the areas of pension funding for municipal employees and extraordinary aid.
With much of the local costs being based on contractual obligations, it is long past the time that shared services be done. To not have this information as to what areas within which this could be achieved, garnered from already completed surveys, at hand at this time is inexcusable, especially when the state had money sitting there to pay for it this past year. The residents see, on a daily basis, that the costs of living in NJ are going up and they expect their local officials to have noticed this too and respond accordingly.
As to our State Senator Joe Kyrillos' legislative efforts to force the mergers of smaller municipalities by some type of state committee, I can see that, whether it is through their planning and zoning boards or "areas in need of redevelopment" efforts, it would also not be an unexpected development that there might be an upturn in the efforts of some towns that find themselves close to that 10,000 population marker to increase the size of the residential population to meet that figure by the next census (2010). To do so could probably insure that these towns would not to be subject to any future independent state commission’s recommendation of a forced merger with another municipality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
