Thursday, May 29, 2008

Clinton Supporters Pressure Swing District Superdelegates; Will Support Their Republican Opponents.

I have stayed away from this subject because, frankly, it sickens me. But here in Texas we have a group of feminist supporters of Hillary Clinton who are so strident in their support of their candidate, that they openly threaten to vote for John McCain should Barack Obama be, as they say, be “forced on them” by the DNC.

That or support a write-in candidate.

But now they, as reported in a blog by Linda Starr, are openly threatening not to support local superdelegates Nick Lampson (TX 22) and Charles Gonzalez (TX 20) and will support and vote for their Republican opponents. Says she:

“I’ve been contacting the HRC supporters and contributors, all of whom previously supported Nick Lampson in his bid to take Tom Delay’s old seat. These women are so incensed because they say Lampson could never have won without their volunteer help and financial assistance and they will vote Republican, if Obama is made the nominee because their own representative defied them.”

I just have to object here. On several levels.

First, I just want to point out that a lefty Democrat would never support a Republican candidate in anything. Starr, on her various blog appearances, seems to align herself with the left. So I have to say that either this is just so much huff and bluster, and an empty threat, or Starr or her sisters are not Democrats anymore.

In fact, Starr in this same blog piece mentions that she is “starting a new national women’s party for the specific purpose of electing women”. So that’s how you get a true majority: form a splinter group.

Second, need I point out that Starr and others of her ilk are saying that they intend to vote for a resolute anti-choice presidential candidate? I need to ask which one of the “feminist issues” surpasses the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have a child? And it isn’t just a four-year thing when they can have Hillary as president in 2012. When they help to elect McCain president this November, they will usher in an era when Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Justice John Paul Stevens, a pro-choice justice who turns a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court to a 4-5 minority whenever an abortion case comes before it, has made no bones about the fact that he wants to retire. He’s battling poor health, but clearly is hanging on in order to preserve women’s abortion rights.

With McCain in office, there goes a woman’s right to choose, and we are back to the bad old days of backroom botched abortions.

And third, I am suspicious why Starr lumps Lampson’s district, CD 22, with Gonzalez’ CD 20. This is again a new metric, I think. Boy, am I getting tired of new metrics.

While I don’t know how Charlie Gonzalez’ district went in the primary as far as the presidential race, I think that it’s safe to assume from its large Hispanic population that it went for Clinton. Gonzalez, however, has endorsed Barack Obama. Now that would irritate me, also. If my congressman was endorsing the candidate that my district did not support in the primary, I would be righteously irate. But how, pray tell, are these supposedly Democratic women hoping to bring Republican Robert Litoff (who has no campaign fund to speak of) a victory in November in a congressional district so heavily Democratic that Republicans did not bother to oppose Gonzalez in ’06, and he trounced his Republican opponent 65% to 32% in ’04?

Are they using some new metric to back up their threat?

Contrast that to Nick Lampson’s CD 22. Now Nick’s district IS a swing district and everyone knows it. Nick’s own votes in several key areas bear witness to the fact that he is trying to play to both sides of the aisle. But from the quote above, it would seem like Lampson has also gone the way of Charlie Gonzalez and thrown in with the Obama camp.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I heard it from the man’s own lips. He will remain uncommitted in this presidential dust up. I, and everyone else I know, assume that he will make his choice known when the winner is a foregone conclusion.

But now, here we have all these irate women gnashing their teeth at how Lampson needs to vote with his constituents. I quote:

“My whole point, if the superdelegates are willing to defy their constituents and vote for Obama for whatever reason, they are no longer representing their constituents interests (women’s suffrage), their constituents primary votes, or their will.”

Now MY whole point is this: if Nick Lampson were to bow to the will of his constituents he would now be supporting Barack Obama for President. I did the math. I did the grunt work and added up each and every vote in every precinct in CD 22. I reported on it here, here, and here. But for those of you who have Comcast as an ISP and don’t want to start another pageload, I’ll repeat myself. CD 22 snakes through parts of 4 counties (courtesy of Tom DeLay). Here are the county totals and the total totals.

Fort Bend County: 25,812 for Obama, 18,209 for Clinton
Harris County: 13,650 for Obama, 17,501 for Clinton
Brazoria County: 7,170 for Obama, 4,948 for Clinton
Galveston County: 5,440 for Obama, 4,814 for Clinton

CD 22 Totals: 52,072 for Obama (53.4%), 45,472 for Clinton (46.6%)

So I just have to ask: what metric allows Linda Starr to come to the conclusion that Nick Lampson would “defy” his constituents if he casts his super vote for Barack Obama?

Is it the metric that says if he doesn’t bend to the minority will they will be royally “pissed off” (her words)?. Well, OK, that’s fine. Be pissed off. Be angry that Barack Obama has the majority of delegates and seems to be inevitable.

Yell and scream.

Then, at the end, in the fall, let passions subside and let self-interest, logic, and, yes, party loyalty prevail. No true Democrat wants John McCain to be president. No feminist wants Roe v. Wade overturned. And most Americans want to put an end to the war in Iraq next year.

Yes, be angry. But then do as many of us who have a bone to pick with some of our Democratic candidates do.

Vote a straight Democratic ticket.


Earl said...

Hal, I pointed out in the comments on that blog that Obama won in 22, gave them your figures, in fact. Linda Starr replied with some convoluted logic and basically steamrolled over me, as if Primary votes can be as "rigged" as caucus votes. Well, it's an OPEN PRIMARY, what did they expect us to do, NOT "count every vote?"

The latest nutjob on there is calling for Bill and Hillary to run a Third Party effort. Trouble with that is, which they WON'T admit, that it's too late in the calendar. The Texas deadline for ballot petitions just passed, for one. And some states have "sore loser laws" to keep Primary losers from running in the General Election.

I think a new word will be added to the political lexicon soon: "Clinton Republicans." They're already complaining that the Democratic Party has become a Marxist Cult or whatever. Oh yeah, and they want those DARNED KIDS to get the Hell off their lawns!

Anonymous said...

I don't know Linda Starr or any of her ilk but it seems to me that this strategy will do as much for women's rights as George Bush has done for foreign policy.

Fancy Pants said...

Great post.

Am adding you to my Google Reader.

Anonymous said...

Linda Starr has lots in common with George Bush with one being a lot of hot air.
Early on she supported another candidate and was screeching that she would never support Clinton or Obama. I'm not sure what brought her onboard the Clinton campaign... a sense of self-importance I suspect.

Recently I have seen posts by her where she claimed to have taken on George Bush and won. I have no idea why she took him on or what she won. That's just what she posted.

Also reading a group just yesterday I see where one of the members was some kind of p*ssed off because someone had added her name to a petition without her permission. That's good old Linda for you, trying to make it look like she has more support than she really has.
Hmmmmmmm.... another George Bush trait??

In one email she sent out she announced that(paraphrasing) "I know that I am making an impression because Hillary is using all my talking points in recent speeches". That comment was a real rib tickler.

The good news is that Starr p*sses off more people than she impresses!

Perhaps she should stick to what she does best & go back to bragging about her big boobs.

aburgin4peace said...

So Linda Starr has finally found a way to pop off her mouth other than just spamming people--she has a blog. I thought she was a dangerous kook when she was spamming me and I haven't changed my opinion. This new campaign of hers is all about HER. Period.

The Big O said...

Since Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, John McCain will be the next president whether these folks walk or not.

We will do everything we can to defeat the Democrat since we want John McCain to bring the Republican Party back to sanity.

We would keep our mouth shut instead of going after Obama if we thought the Democratic Party had any chance of waking up and nominating a winner. But, they won't. Loser Obama will be the nominee, so we are piling on.

Hal said...

Hey O:

Now how are you gonna do that when your candidate echoes every Bushite plan and program? Of late, it seems your man doesn't even have a strong grasp of the facts in Iraq, and even mimics W's habit of not coming clean when the true facts are placed in front of him.

Americans have HAD ENOUGH of all that. I think you and your friends are going to be surprised this fall. I ascribe to the "Refrigerator Theory" recently evoked in the Clinton campaign: "Democrats could nominate a refrigerator and it wouldn't matter."

Hal said...

Hey O:

Now how are you gonna do that when your candidate echoes every Bushite plan and program? Of late, it seems your man doesn't even have a strong grasp of the facts in Iraq, and even mimics W's habit of not coming clean when the true facts are placed in front of him.

Americans have HAD ENOUGH of all that. I think you and your friends are going to be surprised this fall. I ascribe to the "Refrigerator Theory" recently evoked in the Clinton campaign: "Democrats could nominate a refrigerator and it wouldn't matter."

Mark Bankston said...

Oh my god Hal! Did you look at that webpage your last commenter posted?

It features "news" articles with titles like: "Barack Hussein Obama getting Nigger-ish with Hip Hop Artist"

It contains lines like: "Barack Hussein Obama has officially lost his mind along with most of black America!" It calls him "The Great Mulatto hype." And then it gets nasty.

I love these kind of daily reminders that I am on the side of hope, dynamism and positivity. And the other side...Well, the adjectives aren't as flattering.

I take a perverse sense of pride in knowing that our political movement has caused the nation's racists to quake with fear and anxiety.

Hal said...

Yes, Mark, I previewed the site and got that queasy feeling you get when you come upon or confront pure unadulterated evil.

At first I was going to reject the comment for just that reason. But then I reasoned that if this is the face of McCain's base, let the light shine on it brightly and hotly.

And I got that feeling again that this thing is going to be a blow out in November.