Democrats Taking no Chances With That Democracy Thing
July 26th, 2008 at 01:48am Mark Noonan
Geesh - all hail the Great Guiding Light Barack Obama, our Leader and Teacher….’cause if you don’t, you’re out…
Wisconsin Democrats have ousted a delegate to their national convention for saying she would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party’s administrative committee voted Friday to strip Debra Bartoshevich of her status as a delegate to the Denver convention.
Bartoshevich was elected as a pledged delegate for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But after Clinton dropped out of the race, Bartoshevich told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel she would support McCain.
Bartoshevich says she made the comments during an emotional time and she hasn’t made up her mind.
But the party says she violated rules requiring delegates to support its nominee.
Don’t try to convince her to support you, just force her out so that you can have complete unanimity, because we know how leftists hate deviationists and other Trotskyite wreckers. In our great task of defeating the forces of McCainite counter-revolution, there can be no room for those who are weak - to the wall with such traitors to the proletariat!
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
26 Comments Add your own
1. debra bartoshevich | Toge&hellip | July 26th, 2008 at 2:16 am
[…] candidate, she might vote for McCain. …Hillary Democrats United - http://beadseller.us/Blog|||Democrats Taking no Chances With That Democracy ThingJohn McCain. The Wisconsin Democratic Party’s administrative committee voted Friday to strip Debra […]
2. debra bartoshevich | Hope&hellip | July 26th, 2008 at 2:16 am
[…] candidate, she might vote for McCain. …Hillary Democrats United - http://beadseller.us/Blog|||Democrats Taking no Chances With That Democracy ThingJohn McCain. The Wisconsin Democratic Party’s administrative committee voted Friday to strip Debra […]
3. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Mark,
What does that say about your own state party, which is doing everything it can to keep Ron Paul supporters from going to the National Convention?
4. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
kmg,
I am not finding the articles where Paul supporters are not being allowed to attend the GOP convention, can you help me out?.
Actually, Paul has spoken about holding his own convention, giving those supporters a larger venue to voice their opinions.
have a nice day
neocon
5. Retired Spook | July 26th, 2008 at 9:19 am
neo,
I’m guessing, like much of what is posted here by our resident Lefties, kmg’s remark was either made up out of whole cloth or cut and pasted from some Leftist web site. I also did a search for “Ron Paul supporters barred from GOP Convention”, and those were the only sources of such speculation. Now if Ron Paul were a democrat, I wouldn’t have too much trouble believing it.
6. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Spook,
The level of dishonesty that the left is willing to put forth to further their agenda is very hard to combat, especially considering a largely apathetic populace.
Obama’s false claim of his involvement with the Senate Banking committee, is just one egregious example. And he is their idol.
But what do we know Spook? We’re just typical white people.
neocon
7. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Too many links put it in moderation…
Neocon,
I didn’t say they weren’t being allowed to attend. I said the state party is trying to prevent them from attending.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/ron-paul-supporters-buck-nevada-state-gop-convention/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-becker/nevada-ron-paul-supporter_b_108788.html
8. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
More links…
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/18/nevada-gop-cancels-convention-opts-for-conference-call/
http://rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/NEWS19/807220338
9. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
kmg,
It appears that Paul supporters are circumventing the states process, the following from one of your links:
“Terhune filed suit Monday in Washoe District Court to force the state party to submit to the Republican National Committee the list of 31 national delegates elected at an insurgent state convention in June. The Nevada Republican Party has refused to recognize that convention as legitimate.”
And bears zero resemblance to an already selected delgate being shunned because of her lack of loyalty to Obama.
Nice try though
next
neocon
10. the_lefty_fool RETURNS | July 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
How many pro-Obama supporters will we see at the republican convention?
11. William Teach | July 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Interesting. Rather then address what Cheese State (um, cheese) Dems are doing, the libs just deflect away. Typical.
12. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
kmg,
Some Paul supporters are trying to use an obscure Party rule to essentially overturn the Nevada caucus result (which went for Romney with only small numbers for Paul) and send a slate of Paul supporters to Minnesota when they should be Romney suporters now committed to McCain. They are essentially trying to do a “smoke filled room” deal which is entirely out of character with Paul’s public face but well in keeping with the rather kooky nature of his hard core supporters.
Now, how about this lady who’s been entirely kicked out essentially for just expressing an anti-Obama position.
13. Rana Quijotesca | July 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Um… I thought that Parties chose delegates who would vote for their party if their state is won… I’m pretty sure that’s how the electoral college works… yeesh…
14. Rana Quijotesca | July 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Also, as an aside, the Electoral College is one of those things that were built in to our elections process that defends against “mob rule.” Actually it serves to weaken the power of large cities (liberal strongholds) and strengthen rural areas (conservative strongholds)–You should love the way the electoral college works, despite how anti-democratic it is in nature and how much you guys seem to want a pure democracy in this country…
15. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Rana,
Hey, we’re the Republican party - which pre-supposes various curbs on pure democracy…the Democratic party, though…that is for direct will of the people, isn’t it?
16. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
neocon,
The process was first circumvented by the state party when they adjourned the convention. The insurgent convention was not the first shot fired.
17. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Mark,
The Wisconsin Democratic Party rules state that delegates to the national convention must pledge to support the nominee. She violated the rules, so I don’t have a problem with her being replaced as a delegate. Likewise, I don’t have a problem with your state party shutting out the Paul supporters since your party’s nominee has been decided. You apparently have a problem with one case, but not the other.
Now, you say the Paul supporters are using an obscure rule to overturn the will of the voters. A rule is a rule, no matter how obscure. How comfortable are you with your party nominating their delegates via teleconference? Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like a “smoke-filled room?”
18. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
kmg,
In the emotional aftermath of a hard-fought loss, a Hillary supporter blurted out her anger and frustration…and in Democrat-think, to offend Comrade Obama is the worst of all crimes, so out she goes.
If you can’t see the terrible nature of this - this disgusting imposition of ideological purity even when it might have been just an honest, heartfelt mistake…well, if that is the case, then I’m sorry for you.
19. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Mark,
Had to fix this for you…
In the emotional aftermath of a hard-fought loss, Ron Paul supporters tried to make their voices heard…and in Republican-think, to offend Comrade McCain is the worst of all crimes, so out they go.
Save your pity, at least I’m consistent.
20. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
kmg,
Consistent? In the sense that you will consistently ignore anything wrong on your side of the aisle. In that, yes, you are very consistent.
We’re not stopping a pledged Ron Paul delegate from taking her seat - we’re just working to stop people from reversing a decision long made. There are no “do overs” in elections - once done is done once and for all. If Paul’s people wanted to have a large section of the Nevada delegation, then they should have worked harder back in January.
What the Democrats are doing is kicking out a person who expressed the “wrong” opinion.
Very, very large different. Heck, just on the lack of forgiveness, this is a horrible act.
21. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
She won’t pledge to support the nominee, so the party, by their rules, has the right to replace her with an alternate. You think it is shameful for the democrats to do this, but IOKIYAR. This incident and the Nevada Convention are two sides of the same coin. I’m not faulting either party. I know you disagree, but that’s the way I see it.
22. phnx | July 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
What does the electoral college have to do with how state parties run?
23. kmg | July 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Rana,
You are thinking of Presidential Electors, not delegates. Electors for the Electoral College are chosen by each party to cast their electoral college votes if their candidate wins the state in the general election (exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which have proportional allocation of electoral votes). They are entirely separate from delegates to the national conventions.
24. Faceplant | July 27th, 2008 at 6:38 am
I admire you fake outrage, but for some reason it doesn’t seem so outragous to expect democratic delegates to do their job. That job would be to select the DEMOCRATIC nominee to the presidency of the United States. That would be why they vote in the DEMOCRATIC primary, and are a delegate to the DEMOCRATIC convention.
Man you guys will try and create a controvercy out of the most innocous things.
25. Faceplant | July 27th, 2008 at 6:48 am
“If you can’t see the terrible nature of this - this disgusting imposition of ideological purity”
Oh, please, Marky. Spare me your ridiculous hypocracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html
The Albuquerque Journal reported on Friday that people seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans — contributors or volunteers — were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying “I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States.” The form warns that signers “are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush.”
Let’s see your outrage at this disgusting imposition of ideological purity, and then I might believe that you are something other than a complete phony.
26. phnx | July 27th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Faceplant,
I have no idea as to the truth of the Albyquerque Journal report. From personal experience with getting tickets to such events, I am highly suspicious of the accuracy. I have never had to identify myself, sign any papers, or pledge my loyalty to anything or anyone any time I have asked for tickets. From what I have seen these events have been pretty much open to the public.
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed