Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:58 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:30 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/17/murkowski-wins-election-write-candidate-ap-projects/?test=latestnews

Quote:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski has become the first Senate candidate in more than 50 years to win a write-in campaign.

Murkowski emerged victorious after a painstaking, two-week count of write-in ballots showed she has overtaken over tea party rival Joe Miller.

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:41 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Has Miller conceded?

If this is true, it's a disaster. This will inspire other sore losers to run independent, splitting the vote (most of them won't win, just enable the democrats to win)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:50 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
I'm sorry but some fingers have to be pointed at Palin. This wasn't Miller vs Murkowski, it was Palin vs Murkiowski the family rematch.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:19 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
Did anyone else read the interview Murkowski gave saying IHO, Palin was not "intellcetually curious enough" to be president and that she didn't believe Palin liked to govern....OUCH!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
Wendero wrote:
Has Miller conceded?

If this is true, it's a disaster. This will inspire other sore losers to run independent, splitting the vote (most of them won't win, just enable the democrats to win)

No word that I know of from Joe.

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:24 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:32 pm
Posts: 670
Location: Mansfield Center, CT
Likes: 17
Liked: 12
I saw a "tease" earlier on Cavuto, Miller is going to be on and have reaction to the Murkowski "win".

Joe's on now!

_________________
The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution is a miracle; their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world.
James Madison, September 1829


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:36 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:32 pm
Posts: 670
Location: Mansfield Center, CT
Likes: 17
Liked: 12
He is not conceding. He said that "we may want a recount" . He said that as it stands now, there is less than a 1% difference and he wants all the military votes counted. Also, he said that the state may not have been in compliance in getting out the ballots to the military. They are looking at everything. He has no plans to watch her (Murkowski) announcement tonight.

_________________
The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution is a miracle; their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world.
James Madison, September 1829


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:39 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:27 pm
Posts: 1575
Location: Clearwater, FL
Likes: 3
Liked: 4
Iowans Rock wrote:
I'm sorry but some fingers have to be pointed at Palin. This wasn't Miller vs Murkowski, it was Palin vs Murkiowski the family rematch.


Miller should have dropped out then, if that it a fact. Blame only falls on two parties Joe Miller, and the Alaska residents that voted for her.

I think Miller though he had this in the bag and didn't do what was necessary to discredit this lady and her candidacy as a whole.

_________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
~~ Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
Quote:
Has Miller conceded?

Not yet.

Quote:
I'm sorry but some fingers have to be pointed at Palin. This wasn't Miller vs Murkowski, it was Palin vs Murkiowski the family rematch.


Actually, I think this was a Miller vs Murkowski race. Miller was leading by good margin after the primaries but he lost because of misstatements (that the AK press ate up) and poor calculations on how to deal with the Alaska press that sided strong with Murkowski. Also, the race turned into a Murkowski vs. Miller race and the Democrat in the race was marginalized. If Miller has made it more him vs. the Dem then I think that might have helped but as it is, he focused on Murkowski which made it a two person race and the moderate Dems abandoned their own and voted for Murkowski who is far from conservative over Miller.

Quote:
I think Miller though he had this in the bag and didn't do what was necessary to discredit this lady and her candidacy as a whole.


Murkowski won because she got large financial backing from Alaska companies with government contracts. Joe couldn't compete with that money. They did heavy education in rural areas and among workers that they would lose their jobs if Washington downsized. They said Miller would cut the funding for their gov. funded projects. The tactic worked.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
tdavisjr wrote:
Iowans Rock wrote:
I'm sorry but some fingers have to be pointed at Palin. This wasn't Miller vs Murkowski, it was Palin vs Murkiowski the family rematch.


Miller should have dropped out then, if that it a fact. Blame only falls on two parties Joe Miller, and the Alaska residents that voted for her.

I think Miller though he had this in the bag and didn't do what was necessary to discredit this lady and her candidacy as a whole.



Surely you mean Murkowski should have stayed out after having lost the primary to Miller.

When a candidate such as Murkowski uses such unethical means to win, it is hard for a non-establishment candidate to overcome big money and entrenched political power. This scenario is so very similar to one we experienced here in Kansas years ago that it had to be taken from the same playbook. Establishment and reliance on earmarks. Liberals uniting with a RINO to pull off a campaign against a fellow Republican. Millions of dollars pumped in from outside to advertise the write-in campaign. Threats of lost revenue if the conservative wins. Rumors that the new guy running is too conservative, a wacko. Digging up the slightest infraction and publicizing it with the help of a liberal news media.

No, this is dirty politics. Palin talked about the good ole boy government in Alaska, and we are seeing it. Murkowki, I think, and her supporters were out to put Palin in her place, too, for supporting Miller.

Conservatives can eventually overcome in these races, but they need to build up from the grassroots by running for the small jobs, winning more seats in the precinct committees, and keep trying. They have a lot to learn, yes, and a lot to educate the people of Alaska about. And hopefully, Alaska can work on getting away from such a dependence on the federal government.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:50 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
If we didn't have the 17th amendment, this never would have happened. Woo hoo the people really spoke in Alaska.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:14 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:59 am
Posts: 3061
Location: Lawrenceville, GA
Likes: 15
Liked: 37
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 2010 elections for both sides. A lesson for us Conservatives is very important. We can't just sit around and complain about the way things are. It's not enough for us to even go vote. We have to become members of the party at the local level. We must get involved in the party and in greater numbers to eventually overthrow the establishment, to become the establishment. If we don't, these things will keep happening to us. I hope this has woken up Conservatives in Alaska enough for them to get this message. the results of this past election should have woken us all up to the fact that if we don't take over the Republican establishment, The Conservative nominees that we work so hard for, will continue to be kneecapped by the GOP establishment who will do anything to keep power, including lose elections. .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:30 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Actually I think the disfunction of Alaskan politics is more a reflection of the limits of human nature rather than the flaws in existing or longed for systems.

What Murkowski pulled off is quite remarkable and while she seems very unattractive to me as a candidate for high office from my vantage point, so does Palin, and so did Miller by the end. A victory acheived by 90,000 write-in votes is a very unlikely model for tyranny or tricked voters. Clearly there was "buyers remorse" after the surprise primary win by Miller and most of the "blame" for his loss has to be laid at the feet of the candidate which were too often in his mouth.

While I'm irritating folks I might as well say something about the 17th Amendment. It has become something of an article of faith that the 17th Amendment harmed both states rights and Constitutionalism is some political circles.

While that argument can be made, I get the distinct impression that few folks have any understanding as to why the difficult, time consuming, and super-majoritarian process of a Constitutional Amendment was thought wise at the time. The process of selecting Senators had been a lightning rod for disfunctional political currents for better than 50 years by the time the 17th passed. Did it solve those problems? Somewhat. Did it come with trade-off and unintended consequences? Yes. As did the 13th, 14th, and 15th in their effort to deal with slavery and its legacy. As did the 16th in its effort to adjust tax policy to a new industrial economy of hired wage earners no longer centered on individual farmers producing products and thus paying excise. You get the idea.

Pre- 17th Amendment Senate fights literally involved bloodshed and shootings in legislative chambers. Bribery was rampant and legislative business frequently ground to a halt for months or years due to the discord and stalemates.

Here is a little window into the events of that era provided by the Senate Historian:

Quote:
Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.



http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... nators.htm

As long as we have humans and we have power at stake - there will be conflict.

So to borrow and adapt from Churchill who said, "Democracy (and the direct election of Senators) is the worst form of government in the world, excepting all others."

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:09 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
Southern Doc wrote:
While that argument can be made, I get the distinct impression that few folks have any understanding as to why the difficult, time consuming, and super-majoritarian process of a Constitutional Amendment was thought wise at the time. The process of selecting Senators had been a lightning rod for disfunctional political currents for better than 50 years by the time the 17th passed. Did it solve those problems? Somewhat. Did it come with trade-off and unintended consequences? Yes. As did the 13th, 14th, and 15th in their effort to deal with slavery and its legacy. As did the 16th in its effort to adjust tax policy to a new industrial economy of hired wage earners no longer centered on individual farmers producing products and thus paying excise. You get the idea.

Pre- 17th Amendment Senate fights literally involved bloodshed and shootings in legislative chambers. Bribery was rampant and legislative business frequently ground to a halt for months or years due to the discord and stalemates.

Thought wise at the time? It depends on whose definition of wisdom you use. The progressives at the time would have claimed it was more wise to let the people decide. Such a populist message would have been easy to sell, right? Especially with the help of sympathetic progressive media tycoons. It's always easier to choose the path of mob rule than it is to choose the rule of law. Whatever problems the state legislatures had with electing their senators should have been dealt with on their own. My opinion is that these instances of bribery and bloodshed you cite should not be used to justify the perversion of the framers' intentions. The Federalists also had a difficult, time consuming battle, which they won, and whose victory was overturned by 'democracy'.
My view is that this experiment has lasted a century, and we are clearly worse off for it. The federal government has grown out of control - and all because our modern senators only care about being popular and getting re-elected.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
BDBopper wrote:
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 2010 elections for both sides. A lesson for us Conservatives is very important. We can't just sit around and complain about the way things are. It's not enough for us to even go vote. We have to become members of the party at the local level. We must get involved in the party and in greater numbers to eventually overthrow the establishment, to become the establishment. If we don't, these things will keep happening to us. I hope this has woken up Conservatives in Alaska enough for them to get this message. the results of this past election should have woken us all up to the fact that if we don't take over the Republican establishment, The Conservative nominees that we work so hard for, will continue to be kneecapped by the GOP establishment who will do anything to keep power, including lose elections. .


Amen, Brian. I couldn't have said it better. (Or as well.)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:53 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
It's always easier to choose the path of mob rule than it is to choose the rule of law. Whatever problems the state legislatures had with electing their senators should have been dealt with on their own. My opinion is that these instances of bribery and bloodshed you cite should not be used to justify the perversion of the framers' intentions. The Federalists also had a difficult, time consuming battle, which they won, and whose victory was overturned by 'democracy'.
My view is that this experiment has lasted a century, and we are clearly worse off for it. The federal government has grown out of control - and all because our modern senators only care about being popular and getting re-elected.


How is changing the Constitution through Constitutional means (which require 3/4 of the states to concur) "mob rule" and not the "rule of law?"

The "framers" were quite explicit that any workable and enduring Constitution would have to contain a functioning method of legislatively driven amendment lest the "mob" resort to revolution, the executive to dictatorship in their name, or the courts to judicial tyranny. All of these three would be usurpations but the Amendment process is the "framers' intent." Repeatly during the ratification process the framers appealed to the amendment process contained in the proposed Constitution to win over critics who questioned the wisdom of various aspects (some like Patrick Henry with incredible prophetic insight).

Instances of bloodshed and bribery were precisely among the justifications for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed the failed Articles. On what other basis is their sufficient basis to "alter or abolish" an existing political covenant? Technically the whole Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a runaway Amendment process. The delegates were only supposed to act under the Amendment process of the Articles which required unanimous agreement. The Convention jettisoned that provision early and required just 9 states for ratification. That was the SINGLE BIGGEST blow against state's rights and the first framer's (the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation) intent.

The framers acted brilliantly in the crafting of a series of political compromises and balances that both addressed their current crisis (which was largely financial by the way) and built mechanisms for ongoing political settlement.

They also intentionally kicked some cans down the road - to be settled later - like slavery - which equired at least the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to address.

The history of the Amendment process is not one of the Constitution's decline but of its vitality. The framers never intended for their document to be considered infallible or inviolate. The document itself contains year specific "sunset" language on the slave trade. The framers themselves overwhelming supported the first Ten Amendments to their Philadelphia effort to balance and address political interests. In their lifetime they also overwhelming supported a radical change in the method of selecting Presidents (12th Amendment) because they discovered that the original process had placed too much faith in the ability of the national legislature to swiftly and peacefully agree on a candidate. Elegant in theory, the original framer's intent was shown impractical is real world operation. They adjusted.

I for one do not think every amendment has been wise. The District of Columbia should not have a say like a state in Presidential elections and callow youth under the age of 21 lack the wisdom to vote IMO. But the highest law of the land says otherwise because "We The People" executed our collective judgment and sovereignty under the systems of the most successful Constitution in history.

None of these Amendments happened as conspiracy and coup. The Amendments to the Constitution are the very definition of "the rule of law" over the rule of the "mob."

If you wish its repeal you have every right to convince 3/4 of the state legislatures by petition, speach, press, assembly, and even in churches, to do so. That is your right under the 1st Amendment as it was for those who used those same rights to propose and pass the 17th Amendment.

I suggest you first consider what would follow such a repeal.

As I understand the argument coming out of Alaska, folk think that Murkowski was able to use the good ole boy system of Alaskan politics to manipulate the voters into backing the old guard.

How would the Legislature of Alaska have been more resistant to manipulation by a good ole boy clique than the voting public? And if they are, why, since they are the product of the votes of the same allegedly manipulated mob of Alaskan voters.

Miller lost because he was a bad candidate (which is all the more amazing considering how bad Murkowski is).

The Republic is not in jeopardy due to the 17th Amendment any more than it is placed at risk by the 15th, 19th or 21st.

"We The People" is always what places self-government at risk.

"We The People," including through the Amendment process, is also what can, and has preserved the Republic.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:17 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
One thing no one has mentioned is the effect on Native Alaskans on the results. I read somewhere that Murkowski is really, really popular among the Native people. If they are anything like the Native Americans in the continental U.S. they are registered Democrats or independents. If that's true then they didn't help select Miller but they did help select Murkowski. I would imagine that was just one of many factors that allowed her to win. I still think that the best way to send the message that running as an independent after losing a primary isn't allowed is to take away all of her committee positions.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
juditupp wrote:
One thing no one has mentioned is the effect on Native Alaskans on the results. I read somewhere that Murkowski is really, really popular among the Native people. If they are anything like the Native Americans in the continental U.S. they are registered Democrats or independents. If that's true then they didn't help select Miller but they did help select Murkowski. I would imagine that was just one of many factors that allowed her to win. I still think that the best way to send the message that running as an independent after losing a primary isn't allowed is to take away all of her committee positions.


That's my main concern. Why do we have primaries, anyway, if the loser can enter the general race again, change their party designation, and then return to office as a Republican with leadership positions intact?

The people have their opportunity to vote, in a legal, orderly way, for the candidate for a particular party. That should be "it" for the losing candidate. If you lose the race in a primary, and no one can prove there was fraud or miscounts that caused your loss, you, as an honorable candidate, are to give congratulations to the winner. You congratulate the winner and concede. You may even endorse or support that winner in the general election.

But Murkowski has done a circle around the end game. Grabbed the ball after the time ran out, and somehow convinced the people and the referees to add time to her clock. She also convinced the home team to root for her, even when she scored for the opposing team. Probably gave out free tee shirts or tickets or beers. This may not be the best analogy, but this kind of unfair, dirty game makes many people hate politics and discourages honest people who play by the rules from running.

In most close races, the liberal will call him or herself the victor before the votes are all counted. They will try to keep the votes of the military from being counted and won't care whether ballots were even sent and received by them.

Murkowski is a liberal. Not a true Republican. Why else would V.P. Joe Biden call to congratulate her? She took advantage of her "advantage" as an appointee by her father of the position of senator. Then, she took advantage of the establishment, the money, and used the media to present lies about Miller. Yet this is considered legal???

The Tea Party (more correctly, disenchanted Americans) have protested about politics as usual. i am frankly glad. But we still obviously have a ways to go. I hope that Miller will be able to pull this win off, or at least be able to point out the flaws in the election system. But it is doubtful. Usually, liberals and people who live for win-at-any-cost-and-say-it's-just-politics have a strange way of coming up with votes. In the back of car trunks somewhere. And they have a way of making promises of kick-backs or government funding, in order to buy votes.

I say, let's not give up, just because the Republicans fielded some less experienced conservatives this time around and lost those seats because of being less established and funded. We are learning. Winning over 60 of the contested seats in the House is not peanuts! But my next goal is helping the Senate become Republican conservative.

And to elect an outstanding President in 2012. Huckabee 2012! :pompom

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:25 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
Southern Doc wrote:
Quote:
It's always easier to choose the path of mob rule than it is to choose the rule of law. Whatever problems the state legislatures had with electing their senators should have been dealt with on their own. My opinion is that these instances of bribery and bloodshed you cite should not be used to justify the perversion of the framers' intentions. The Federalists also had a difficult, time consuming battle, which they won, and whose victory was overturned by 'democracy'.
My view is that this experiment has lasted a century, and we are clearly worse off for it. The federal government has grown out of control - and all because our modern senators only care about being popular and getting re-elected.


How is changing the Constitution through Constitutional means (which require 3/4 of the states to concur) "mob rule" and not the "rule of law?"

The "framers" were quite explicit that any workable and enduring Constitution would have to contain a functioning method of legislatively driven amendment lest the "mob" resort to revolution, the executive to dictatorship in their name, or the courts to judicial tyranny. All of these three would be usurpations but the Amendment process is the "framers' intent." Repeatly during the ratification process the framers appealed to the amendment process contained in the proposed Constitution to win over critics who questioned the wisdom of various aspects (some like Patrick Henry with incredible prophetic insight).

Instances of bloodshed and bribery were precisely among the justifications for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed the failed Articles. On what other basis is their sufficient basis to "alter or abolish" an existing political covenant? Technically the whole Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a runaway Amendment process. The delegates were only supposed to act under the Amendment process of the Articles which required unanimous agreement. The Convention jettisoned that provision early and required just 9 states for ratification. That was the SINGLE BIGGEST blow against state's rights and the first framer's (the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation) intent.

The framers acted brilliantly in the crafting of a series of political compromises and balances that both addressed their current crisis (which was largely financial by the way) and built mechanisms for ongoing political settlement....

I for one do not think every amendment has been wise. The District of Columbia should not have a say like a state in Presidential elections and callow youth under the age of 21 lack the wisdom to vote IMO. But the highest law of the land says otherwise because "We The People" executed our collective judgment and sovereignty under the systems of the most successful Constitution in history.

None of these Amendments happened as conspiracy and coup. The Amendments to the Constitution are the very definition of "the rule of law" over the rule of the "mob."

If you wish its repeal you have every right to convince 3/4 of the state legislatures by petition, speach, press, assembly, and even in churches, to do so. That is your right under the 1st Amendment as it was for those who used those same rights to propose and pass the 17th Amendment.

I suggest you first consider what would follow such a repeal.

As I understand the argument coming out of Alaska, folk think that Murkowski was able to use the good ole boy system of Alaskan politics to manipulate the voters into backing the old guard.

How would the Legislature of Alaska have been more resistant to manipulation by a good ole boy clique than the voting public? And if they are, why, since they are the product of the votes of the same allegedly manipulated mob of Alaskan voters.

Miller lost because he was a bad candidate (which is all the more amazing considering how bad Murkowski is).

The Republic is not in jeopardy due to the 17th Amendment any more than it is placed at risk by the 15th, 19th or 21st.

"We The People" is always what places self-government at risk.

"We The People," including through the Amendment process, is also what can, and has preserved the Republic.
My argument is not against the process of amending the Constitution. What I am condemning is the treachery
of the men who proposed the change, and the weakness and weak-mindedness of the men who followed them. I used the phrase "rule of law" incorrectly perhaps. If you look at the sliding scale of freedom, going from tyranny on the bottom, and a republic at the top, I believe this change knocked us down a notch toward false democracy (and by degree tyranny) and not up.

I don't expect the amendment to be repealed anytime soon, unless we somehow get a constitutional convention.

On the matter of Murkowski's victory, I think it has less to do with the good ole boy system and more to do with the citizenry going with name recognition and a case of the gimmies.

Maybe the legislature would have chosen LM too. I'm naive sometimes, and I try to have faith in the honor of elected officials, more especially at the local level. But state legislators can be gotten rid of pretty quick if they made a lousy choice.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:30 am 
Offline
*** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Michigan
Likes: 7
Liked: 115
I disagree with the comment that if a candidate loses in the primary, then they shouldn't be allowed to run in the general election. We don't like what happened in Alaska, but the voters wanted Murkowski. They want to keep the money flowing to Alaska. That's their choice. During another occasion, we were on the other end of this. Anyone remember Connecticut and Liebermann? He lost the primary to Ned Lamont, but won the general election in a 3-way race, much like Murkowski did. Democrats were enraged, but the system is what it is.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY