Welcome to the beginning of the break up of the democratic party, ladies and gentlemen.

Good Riddance welcome to the Libertarian Party!

Maybe it's just me, but what in the world was the DNC thinking when they came up with the SD idea? It seems like another layer that waters down the publics role in the process.

Amazing how the democratic party is so out of touch with common sense and realities of the day.... They have only ONE goal in mind - and that is to control the American people....

the democratic party

Change that to "the Clintons" and I think you are on to something.

It's the win at all costs attitude that really turns people off.

WisGod talk to Danni She has been around since God made Dirt. She knows the answer to this.

Larry Mohr

Amazing how the democratic party is so out of touch with common sense and realities of the day.... They have only ONE goal in mind - and that is to control the American people....

WTF? That is all.

The super delegates are just another control over the Americal people so the DNC has absolute control...

I wonder just how legal it really is ? ?

Amazing how the democratic party is so out of touch with common sense and realities of the day.... They have only ONE goal in mind - and that is to control the American people....

Amazing how people that have no idea what they're talking about can say anything that defies common sense.

The Superdelegates were put in place to protect the Party from ANYTHING that might happen between the primaries and the convention, such as scandal, illness, whatever would make the elected nominee toxic for the general election.

How in the hell is this about controlling the people? It isn't, its about protecting the people if unforseen problems arrise that undermine the presumptive nominee before the convention and giving them an option of rechoosing so they don't have to lose the election with an unelectable nominee.

How in the hell is this about controlling the people? It isn't, its about protecting the people if unforseen problems arrise that undermine the presumptive nominee before the convention and giving them an option of rechoosing so they don't have to lose the election with an unelectable nominee.



Posted by tonyroma

If that's the case Tony, then why should they come into play if not needed? This primary being a perfect case in point.

Welcome to the beginning of the break up of the democratic party, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by taxman at 2008-02-14 09:20 AM | Reply

Win the people nominate Obama, and the party insiders tell him to move to the back of the bus so Hillary can be coronated, the Democratic party is done.

Win = When

Duh

Anton, the Clinton folk argue that democrat voters who vote for Obama are too stupid and/or are cultist who really don't know what they are doing, so it is up to the superdelegates to set them straight.

Even if Obama wins, Hillary will be the nominee

For example, see the post directly above my last post.

Wisgod...

They should only come into play AFTER the electorate has already had its say.

Reality is that neither Hillary nor Obama can win enough delegates to pass the 2025 mark because Michigan and Florida remain in stasis. The SDs more than likely WILL CONFIRM the choice of the electorate. Obama has NEVER called for them to ignore the people's votes and preferences while the Clintons are banking on having them do just that.

The article I linked to above discusses just how unpopular the Clintons are with the majority of SDs. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for Hillary in the longrun.

The super delegates are just another control over the Americal people so the DNC has absolute control...

I wonder just how legal it really is ? ?

Dude your killing me. Please stop. The S.D.s (or STDs as I call them) are a bad idea. They were intended to stop "Activist" candidates. Being like the Repubs in this regard, they try to prevent candidates like a Ron Paul by a "winner take all" system. This way the candidates will be more palatable to independents in the general election and the primary season will be shortened.... After 4 or 5 primaries this normally doesn't matter because the established candidate is in the drivers seat. Now we have B.O. who bucked the system and WILL win the Dem nomination. The systems sucks, but it works.....

Anton, the Clinton folk argue that democrat voters who vote for Obama are too stupid and/or are cultist who really don't know what they are doing, so it is up to the superdelegates to set them straight.

Posted by taxman at 2008-02-14 09:49 AM | Reply

You're exactly right. That is their attitude.

You just gotta love Hillary's tenacity. Why let a minor thing like "the rules" stand in the way of your personal ambition?

How can Clinton apologists keep defending these shitbags?

Found on the Neal Boortz web site a few minutes ago... Goes into better detail about the "Superdelegates" role....
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THESE SUPERDELEGATES

I've been getting a lot of questions about these "superdelegates." For those of you who are too lazy to do your own research, I have created a quick Boortz re-cap of the purpose of superdelegates.

Superdelegates are a way for Democrat office holders and party officials to make sure that their preferred nominee wins the nomination. These superdelegates are not awarded because of any primaries or caucuses. They are simply Democrat politicians who get a say, without having to reflect the popular vote. Call them a firewall against the dumb Democrat masses, if you will. Hey ... they know their voters.

Now the Democrat Party does not actually use the term "superdelegate," probably because it makes it look like these people have more power. Their formal designation is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates." At the 2008 Democrat Convention, superdelegates will make up about one-fifth of the total number of delegates deciding who will be the nominee.

So now the infamous question, why? The quick version goes ... back in the 1960s the Democrats changed their delegate selection process to make the nomination more responsive to the voters. This is when they started to move away from caucuses and toward primaries. But then the 1980s rolled around and Democrat party leaders felt like they weren't getting their "fair say." They felt like they knew better than the people, who were weakening the Democrat ticket. So after the 1980 election (when Ronald Reagan won) they instituted this superdelegate rule that gave these politicians a greater role in selecting their nominee. So when the 1984 election hit, Gary Hart almost claimed the nomination ... that was until almost all of the superdelegates decided that Walter Mondale was their man. And so he won the nomination.

In other words, superdelegates give Democrat party leaders more power to select the candidate they want running for president. Got it?

Now ... the question ... quickly fading into irrelevance, I might add ... is whether or not these superdelegates will step in to derail Obama and hand the nomination to Hillary. If they do, you can expect black voters to cry foul like fouls never been cried before, and then to sit on their hands in November.

What fun.

They should only come into play AFTER the electorate has already had its say.
Posted by tonyroma

The potential still exists for a SD to be more of a lobbyist, trying to extract favors from the candidates and then making a decision of who to support if Corky's article is correct.

Also, when they do this, I don't want to hear anymore whining about Republicans stealing elections.

"The super delegates are just another control over the Americal people so the DNC has absolute control...

I wonder just how legal it really is ? ?"

First of all, I agree with the sentimenet that this is unfair. Alot of these superdelegates just owe Bill a favor from the days of his presidency. The system is a slap in the face to primary voters and it is set up to encourage dynasties where one family member benefits from favors owed another.

However, what we need to remember as voters is that the DNC is not a government agency. They can choose to nominate their candidates however they see fit. We can choose to vote for their candidates or not. And candidates who don't get their nomination can still run for office. The system does not have to be fixed. The mentality of voters needs to change. If you don't like the way the Democrats or the Republicans operate, stop thinking of them as a government institutions and stop voting for them.

"Also, when they do this, I don't want to hear anymore whining about Republicans stealing elections."

There is a fundemental difference between the DNC choosing their own candidate despite what the primaries voters wanted and actually stealing the real election. The DNC is a private club that can nominate whoever it wants. Not that I've ever accused anyone of stealing the election anyway......

However, what we need to remember as voters is that the DNC is not a government agency. They can choose to nominate their candidates however they see fit.

Posted by Sully at 2008-02-14 09:59 AM | Reply

You're absolutely right. If they want to be an undemocratic, dynastic mafia that is up to them.

Do you want to vote for people like that to lead ostensibly democratic institutions?

Sooooo..... following the current Obama spin, (his, not his campaign manager as they apperntly disagree) if HRC wins the count of delegates and committed SD's by the end of the primary, by, let's say, 1 delegate, and there are still around 300- 400 SD's not yet voted, the premise put forth here is that all the rest of the SD's must vote for Clinton, including John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, whose state voted for her?

Uh-huh.

"if HRC wins the count of delegates and committed SD's by the end of the primary,"
Posted by Corky

Corky, how can there be "committed SD's" before the end of the primaries, but Kerry and Teddy have to follow thier states vote? Try making sense.

If the SD's decide, the democratic party will be worthles, evermore.

JMFJ,


Even the super-delegates are succeptible to populare pressure.

If Obama continues to build a lead, Clinton is toast regardless of the super-delegates.

Wis

The current count including committed SD's are people who have verified their support to media organizations.

Needed to Win 2 025 Democrats CNN

Obama 1,253
Clinton 1,211

According to Obama's spin, Kerry and Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton in the end because their state did so.

Which is of course, not true.

"Even if Obama wins, Hillary will be the nominee"


One way or another, I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha.

-Blondie(or Hillary)

Crow eating time for me...

I am shocked by Obama and all he has accomplished... I think he will get the nomination now whereas a few months ago I thought it was a silly dream. Good for him. Still no way in hell I'm voting for him come November, but he and his supporters should be very proud of what they've accomplished.

As to this story, if Obama beats her in the primary races and yet Clinton takes the nomination, I never want to hear again Democrats crying about counting all the votes or the 2000 eleciton or anything like that. Same goes for if you don't seat the Florida and Michigan delegates.

If that happens, would that affect your voting in the general election? Would you vote Hillary, sit it out, etc? How would that affect your feelings toward the Dem party as a whole?

Yes; No; I would go back to being a registered independent and would never campaign and/or give to the dem party or nominee, save local elections.

Even the super-delegates are succeptible to populare pressure.

If Obama continues to build a lead, Clinton is toast regardless of the super-delegates.


Of course you are right. People talk about the SDs as if they were some nefarious dark force of nature - they are DELEGATES, and they will not want to cause a problem for their own party. I'll bet they'll work something out in order avert trouble for the party, in spite of what the "they want to control Americans" fringe sorts may hope.

Uh-huh.

Posted by Corky


It's called taking the moral high-ground, Corky. Maybe it's foreign concept to you. I know it is to Howard Wolfson:


"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.


So check out the balls on this character. He openly admits that while Billary makes it seem SO important that she has the popular vote, that it doesn't matter to the CAMPAIGN whether the popular vote gets them elected.

Billary and this slime-ball can kiss my ass. They'll never get my vote.

"The current count including committed SD's are people who have verified their support to media organizations."

Corky:
Are you saying that the committed SD's only committed after their State primary was completed and only committed to the winner of their State?

As a Republican voting for McCain, I sincerely hope this happens.

Rules are rules, Double D.

Delegates are delegates. If you wanna change the rules, the middle of a primary isn't the time to do it.

The only rule SD's have is to vote the way they think is best for the Party.

Now I know the Obama spin, notwithstanding his campaign manager's forced honestly on the subject, is that SD's must vote for who has the most combined delegates, apparently even if that is by one delegate, which points out the absurdity of Obama's spin.

"You're absolutely right. If they want to be an undemocratic, dynastic mafia that is up to them.

Do you want to vote for people like that to lead ostensibly democratic institutions?"

No, I don't. I decided a long time ago that I'm not voting for Hillary regardless of who is backing her because I don't like her record. Ditto for McCain. If Obama runs for president, I'll have to do some more research to see if I want to vote for him. Right now, he is only seeking a nomination from people who I hold in very low regard, not running for president.

"Clinton takes the nomination, I never want to hear again Democrats crying about counting all the votes or the 2000 eleciton or anything like that. Same goes for if you don't seat the Florida and Michigan delegates."

I've never complained about election results but you are making an apples to oranges comparision. This is a decision made by a private club. The DNC has the right to nominate whoever it wants and we have the right not to vote for that person if we don't like it. Throwing away votes in a national election is a much more serious issue as Americans would be deprived of a very basic right.

The point being that if the combined delegate count is still close at the end of the primary, say within 50 delegates after nearly 2000 votes, the SD's are not going to be held to voting a certain way, just as if say one candidate has a only a one delegate lead.

If either candidate has a big lead, the SD's will more likely vote that way.

As a Republican voting for McCain, I sincerely hope this happens.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

It's been said that the Democrats will find a way to screwup in November. This appears to be it. Don't be a sissy Hillary, fight to the death for those SD's!

Don't be a sissy Hillary, fight to the death for those SD's!

Posted by wisgod


Only a girl would bow out now!!! Get those delegates Hil!!! Your husband was president! You've earned them!

This is primarilly directed at the likes of Rob, Wis, etc...


Why all of the abject hatred toward McCain on the far-right?

From a Conservative perspective he isn't perfect, but his politics are arguably more conservative than W's - a guy whom many far-righties relentlessly triuph.

I just don't get it.

WisGod talk to Danni She has been around since God made Dirt. She knows the answer to this.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr
* * * *

That might be the most uncomplimentary compliment I've ever seen, anywhere.

Rules are rules, Double D.


You're absolutely right Cork. Rules are rules. HOWEVER, it's hypocritical at BEST for Shillary to get up on stage, make a big stink about how she has the popular vote in order to make her fans think it means a damn to her, and for her campaign manager to let the cat out of the bag that the popular vote doesn't matter, that all she cares about is winning over the party elite.

I decided a long time ago that I'm not voting for Hillary regardless of who is backing her because I don't like her record. Ditto for McCain. If Obama runs for president, I'll have to do some more research to see if I want to vote for him. Right now, he is only seeking a nomination from people who I hold in very low regard, not running for president.
Posted by Sully at 2008-02-14 10:35 AM | Reply

There.

You and I agree on something.

Happy Valentine's Day.

And, I don't mean that in a Chris Matthews sort of way.

Why all of the abject hatred toward McCain on the far-right?


I've always liked the guy... I preferred him in 2000. The reason I wasn't high on him coming into this election was because he seemed to be DOA, and everyone thought so. I'm really happy that we're putting a moderate up and have no idea why the far right is pissed. He's in all honesty our only chance to win in what will be a very important election.

I know there is a lot of talk about Conservatives not voting, or voting for Hillary... come election day... When its McCain or Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton... they'll pull that lever 15 times each for John.

The Dem nominee must win both delegates and SD's.

This isn't rocket science.

Jeff-

It's becasue McCain isn't a total suckup to the right (alhtough he's moving in that direction). Rigthwingers like lock-step agreement and approved talking points, and McCain strays from the script.

"If that happens, would that affect your voting in the general election? Would you vote Hillary, sit it out, etc? How would that affect your feelings toward the Dem party as a whole?"


If Hillary pulls some shady crap to win, I will turn my back on the dem party. I was actually "scolded" by a friend yesterday for saying this. But i simply will NOT be complicit in such shenanigans. Lets turn the page on the Clinton machine. I'm tired of them, their divisiveness, the republicans hatred of them and the media's obsession with them. Time for a changing of the guard.


If Hillary does this--she risks the democratic party AND the country as we know it. If she is willing to sacrifice both for her own ambitions---i will do anything in my power to make sure she doesn't succeed--even if it means voting and supporting McCain. Even if it costs us the courts for 20 years. I will blame her for that outcome until the day i leave this earth.


Howard Dean better get his ass moving to avoid this nightmare scenario.

Jeff, a big part of the right's hatred of McCain is that he's the reason Push Polling really got exposed to everyone. That whole, "What if he fathered a Black baby," shit in the SC primary has stuck with Bush ever since... maybe the talkers for the right would have preferred he kept that to himself and dealt with it in house.

No matter what, I look for there to be some big sitdown with guys like limbaugh a coulter... afterwards, they'll endorse him.

This is primarilly directed at the likes of Rob, Wis, etc...


Why all of the abject hatred toward McCain on the far-right?


Jeff, I wouldn't call it hatred. I was disappointed that Fred or Mitt didn't make it. The base will rally to John if Hillary is the nominee, but IMHO, I don't know how the GOP can stop Obama.

Midi,


Sadly, I think you've nailed it.

Hey Rob--why do you insist on putting BO's middle name in there? Seems odd.

I don't know how the GOP can stop Obama.

Any negative campaigning against him will be decried as racism... same as when/if he is president... don't vote for his bills? Racist. Say he's doing a poor job? Racist. Don't clap loud enough during the State of the Union? Racist.

God I hope McCain or Hillary wins... that would make for a long 4 years...

I hear ya, Wis - and thanks for answering.

Hey Rob--why do you insist on putting BO's middle name in there? Seems odd.

Posted by __b__


Everyone calls Hillary, "Hillary Rodham Clinton," it wasn't uncommon for people to say "William Jefferson Clinton," and George W Bush is often used.

Why do people freak out so much when someone uses Obama's middle name?

PS do you think the freak out reaction is what I'm looking for? ;)

"Any negative campaigning against him will be decried as racism... same as when/if he is president... don't vote for his bills? Racist. Say he's doing a poor job? Racist. Don't clap loud enough during the State of the Union? Racist."


Obama hasn't played the race card. Only if people start pulling the muslim crap or "hussein" will the issue need to be addressed.

Any negative campaigning against him will be decried as racism... same as when/if he is president... don't vote for his bills? Racist. Say he's doing a poor job? Racist. Don't clap loud enough during the State of the Union? Racist.
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Exactly. We need more goofballs like Corky and Danni running around telling everyone how unelectable Barrack is.

Obama hasn't played the race card.

And he won't... his supporters will.

Rob, Hillary's MAIDEN NAME is Rodham. People use the "W" in GWB's name to avoid confusing him with his much more successful father. And people call William Jefferson Clinton, BILL Clinton.

So nice try.

The goal of those who use the "Hussein" name is pretty obvious.

The goal of those who use the "Hussein" name is pretty obvious.

Posted by __b__


Sure it is... but it is his name... so why shouldn't people be allowed to use it?

"And he won't... his supporters will."

Meh... The media may hype the race factor (which is getting tiresome, IMO). But unless there is a reason to invoke race, i see little reason for the overwhelming majority of his supporters to do so. But yes, there will always be a section of his base that will think that. Each party has the kooks that can never be pleased. I'll give you that.

Of course you are right. People talk about the SDs as if they were some nefarious dark force of nature - they are DELEGATES, and they will not want to cause a problem for their own party. I'll bet they'll work something out in order avert trouble for the party, in spite of what the "they want to control Americans" fringe sorts may hope.

I tend to agree, I am very confident that the SDs will simply vote in a manner consistent with the state that they are from; nearly everything I have read states this. The Democratic party isn't looking for a delegate-issue that would potentially cost them the White House.

I actually think the SD do have an important role as a "back up" to the primary process. For example, if Obama sweeps all of the remaining primaries and is a shoe in for the nomination but two weeks before the convention a scandal comes up (Gary Hart comes to mind), the SDs should step in and not nominate a guaranteed loser. Or at least this is my interpretation :-)

"Sure it is... but it is his name... so why shouldn't people be allowed to use it?"

Come on Rob, you may be an a-hole, but you're not an idiot. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to use it. I'm questioning the motive. If Hussein was the name of an uber famous leader in the USA you can be damn sure you wouldn't use it. And since we just killed a Hussein that was an evil dictator, the goal is pretty obvious.

You have lots of idiots in this country who see "Hussein" and hear "father was a muslim" and they'll think he's "just one of them damn islamofascists muslims tryin' to destroy our country!"

The goal of those who use the "Hussein" name is pretty obvious.

Posted by __b__
* * * *

Maybe. Maybe they're honoring his heritage. Maybe they're paying tribute to the big, happy, multicultural family we're all a part of. Maybe it's a celebration that someone of Islamic descent--though not of the faith--can contend for the presidency so soon after 9/11. Or maybe it's just politics.

Hillary wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham so as to distance herself as far as possible from her more successful, and also more ethnically and morally challenged husband. But as time wore on it became obvious that their moral failings came with the family, so it was back to "Clinton" when she saw some political advantage THERE.

Obama seems pretty comfortable in his own skin. If he's got a problem with his middle name and other's poking fun at it, he can start going by Huey or something. But if he doesn't seem to care, why should you?

The media may hype the race factor (which is getting tiresome, IMO).

Which I hope will be exploited by the GOP... make race an issue, and hopefully people will get tired of it and sour to Obama...

The guy honestly scares the crap out of me... the laundry list of promises the guy rattles off (without detail) can only be accomplished by jacking taxes through the roof, and I know that anyone who consistently votes against this guys bills if he is President will be called a racist. No one wants to be called that so they will bow to it, and then I might as well just write my paycheck over to Mary Q. Crackwhore every other week.

Review your posts, _B_, think real hard and I'll bet a smart fella like you will figure it out.

And since we just killed a Hussein that was an evil dictator, the goal is pretty obvious.

I honestly hadn't thought about Saddam Hussein... I just use it because I want people to think Muslim when they think of him and hopefully won't vote for him because of it.

If I had the money I would make a commercial touting John McCain's stances on fighting terrorism and contrast it with Barack Hussein Obama's. Anytime it was focusing on Obama's ridiculous "we are the world" ideas," there would be video terrorist traing camps or ahmadinijad in the background and it would for damn sure call him Barack Hussein Obama everytime... Campaign over.

If he's got a problem with his middle name and other's poking fun at it, he can start going by Huey or something.

That dude in the Britney Spears story is named Osama but he goes by Sam...

Why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama want to assimilate into our society? If he were truly American he would ask everyone to call him Barry.

"The Dem nominee must win both delegates and SD's.

This isn't rocket science."

Very true. But the difference between delegates and superdelegates is also fairly obvious as well.

Delegates' votes are somewhat earned by performing well in primaries. Superdelegates' votes are completely subjective and can be largely 'earned' through backroom dealings and the exchange of favors. This is not a subtle difference and it hasn't escaped the public.

Nobody is saying that the system hasn't already been in place for years. The problem is the perception that primary voters choose the nominee has been in place for years as well. If it is demonstrated the superdelegates (party insiders) are willing to overrule the results of the primaries, that would crush the percpetion that the nomination process is democratic and turn many people away from the party. This isn't rocket science either.

If that happens, my only regret will be that the GOP is left standing.

ROB.. I agree with you. He is very dangerous.

ROB.. I agree with you. He is very dangerous.

Posted by retnluvnit


McCain is already starting to mention how there are no specifics to his Presidential "wish list." Its going to come out that he is going to have to put taxes through the roof to accomplish them, or he'll make the mistake of saying they'll cut military funding. Then McCain will hopefully sieze the moment...

-If it is demonstrated the superdelegates (party insiders) are willing to overrule the results of the primaries

That is actually their job, their responsibility if they think it is in the best interest of the Party.

It may not be in this case, but that is precisely why they exist.

"or he'll make the mistake of saying they'll cut military funding"

He doesn't need to - the Reps just need a 527 to find a white woman Obama slept with in the past.

Que ominous voice over:
When Barack Hussein Obama is not engaging in shady land deals, he chasing your white women and selling crack cocaine...is that a president you can trust?

Oh, but Obama has faced the 'Clinton attack machine' so he has nothing to fear....right....

Word is going around here in Louisiana that Crazy Grandpa John may pick Bobby "Baby Face" Jindal as his running mate.

I very seriously doubt it, but it would be a good way to diminish Obama's ethnicity and youth favorables.

That is actually their job, their responsibility if they think it is in the best interest of the Party.

And if they go against the will of deomcratic voters they will lose their party. Barring any kind of scandal, see Gary Hart, the supers should go with the voters.

When Barack Hussein Obama is not engaging in shady land deals, he chasing your white women and selling crack cocaine...is that a president you can trust?

Posted by Jacque_Strap

You better hope a waterboarding Republican isn't in charge of the big house where Rezco is visiting.

And how many delegates compromise, "the will of the Party", in an advantage to one candidate?

200, 100, 50, 1?

Why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama want to assimilate into our society? If he were truly American he would ask everyone to call him Barry.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-02-14 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag


That's an idiotic premise even for you Rob.

"And how many delegates compromise, "the will of the Party", in an advantage to one candidate?

200, 100, 50, 1?"

If you believe in true democracy, then the answer is 1.

Don't know why your bogus "plagiarism" thread disappeared so quickly Corky. That was fun.

"That is actually their job, their responsibility if they think it is in the best interest of the Party.

It may not be in this case, but that is precisely why they exist."

True, that is the only sensible reason for them to exist. But if Obama wins a majority vote in the primaries, explaining why it is in the best interest of the party to go with someone else would be a very tough sell to people who voted for him.

"Obama hasn't played the race card. "

True, but then again, why should he....

But don't count out the "Hill".... Oh no, she won't do it directly herself, but to be sure it'll be done by her supporters - and damn well with her knowledgement...

Just wait.... Any one want to make a slight bet ? ?

-If you believe in true democracy, then the answer is 1.

You have been submersed in the Obama spin.

So, one delegate more for either candidate, and the SD MUST vote for that candidate?

Pure fiction, and not a just a little crazy.

That's an idiotic premise even for you Rob.

Posted by Reagan58


If you couldn't see that was a joke, then I truly feel sorry for you.

He doesn't need to - the Reps just need a 527 to find a white woman Obama slept with in the past.


Worked against Ford in the Tennessee Senate race...

If they find one it would be curtains for Barry.

Pure fiction, and not a just a little crazy.

You got something against democracy?

At this point, I think, if Hillary goes on to grab away the Dem nomination, chalk up a victory for McCain and the GOP.

That's an idiotic premise even for you Rob.

Posted by Reagan58
* * *

LOL. Why do you lefties claim a monopoly on irony and sarcasm? Are you really so uptight that you can't recognize a sarcastic post anymore?

Get a life. Every time you post something dumb like that, you just keep Rob's juices flowing. Retards.

"You have been submersed in the Obama spin."

I'm reasonably certain that the concept that in a true democracy the one with the most votes from the electorate wins predates Barack Obama.

The concept that a select few can override the will of the people is better known as an oligarchy, I believe.

John may pick Bobby "Baby Face" Jindal as his running mate.

Great... McCain's legacy will be that the White House will stink of curry for the next 40 years. Fantastic.

Reagan, that also was a joke. In reality I think McCain would be wise to at least consider it.

Every time you post something dumb like that, you just keep Rob's juices flowing.

Was that a pussy insult... bastard!

As a Republican voting for McCain, I sincerely hope this happens.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

hate to say this rob.. but im there with ya. Im an independant and Obama ain't got "the stuff" to fix iraq and america following in the footsteps of the chimp.

like i said earlier.. just because you can master microsoft flight don't mean your ready for lead chair in the space shuttle

The concept that a select few can override the will of the people is better known as an oligarchy, I believe.

No, it's known in the DNC as "super-delegate".

If Hillary does this--she risks the democratic party AND the country as we know it. If she is willing to sacrifice both for her own ambitions---i will do anything in my power to make sure she doesn't succeed--even if it means voting and supporting McCain. Even if it costs us the courts for 20 years. I will blame her for that outcome until the day i leave this earth.


Howard Dean better get his ass moving to avoid this nightmare scenario.

Posted by __b__

this is what I love about Dems.. they are willing to set themselves on fire and become irrelevant to prove a point to no one who gives a fuck.

ideologically these two are the same..actually bam bam is more far left than hillary.

No, it's known in the DNC as "super-delegate".

Posted by cookfish

the obamidiots dont read the party rules before starting a campaign and then dont like them when it creates a problem for clenching the nomination. boo fucking hoo

if this goes to convention you lose november..

-The concept that a select few can override the will of the people is better known as an oligarchy, I believe.

Uh-huh.

Sooooo.... if no candidate reaches the magic number, but one candidate is one delegate ahead, that candidate automatically wins because SD's must vote for that candidate?

So, SD's are a rubber stamp with no purpose to exist?

Have another sip.

So, SD's are a rubber stamp with no purpose to exist?

No, they are there for those situations in '84 when Gary Hart screwed up. Barring any screw up on Obama's part, if he wins the majority of the delegates then the party should back him.

Have another sip

Keep on suckling that sour milk off Hillary's teat.

Rob, Bobby is a good guy and I like the ethics reform package he is forcing through in the special legislative session.

I'd never heard of him before your post... had to google him and check out his wiki page...

Can't wait for the grape squishy machine in the Lincoln Memorial...

Why do people freak out so much when someone uses Obama's middle name?

PS do you think the freak out reaction is what I'm looking for? ;)

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Nice spin, for an elephant.

You're not as obtuse as you often appear to be.

So, SD's are a rubber stamp with no purpose to exist

Posted by Corky


Not sure where you're getting that inference from.

Fact is you libs are right. Whenever I hear the name "Hussein", I think of Saddam. And whenever I hear the name "Obama", I think of Osama Bin Laden. And when I hear the name "Barack", I think of "Ack Ack"--antiaircraft cannons that would bring down Allied bombers over Germany.

So maybe when the Dems start running candidates that don't conjure up images of carnage and death, we can be more deferential to your choices.

He was known as Barry in school and, I believe, still is to friends and family.

Why are jokes banned when talking about Hussein? I don't get it... It couldn't have been more obvious that this:

"Why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama want to assimilate into our society? If he were truly American he would ask everyone to call him Barry."

Was a joke.

"So maybe when the Dems start running candidates that don't conjure up images of carnage and death, we can be more deferential to your choices."

The candidate runs him or herself.

"Why are jokes banned when talking about Hussein? I don't get it..."

Who said jokes are banned?

Jumping to ridiculous conclusions still, I see.

Who said jokes are banned?

Whenever someone makes a joke about Obama, someone has to come out and call the joker a: bigot, racists, idiot, homophobe...

Word is going around here in Louisiana that Crazy Grandpa John may pick Bobby "Baby Face" Jindal as his running mate.

Yes, the Repubs need at least one person on the ticket who has a detectable pulse! And someone who can comb his own hair in the morning!

"...dont read the party rules before starting a campaign and then dont like them when it creates a problem for clenching the nomination."

Oh, you mean like the rules that said Florida and Michigan delegates will not count?

Boo fucking hoo.

By the way, I think you mean "clinching". Clenching is what Hillary has been doing with her teeth since the cloak of inevitability began slipping away.

"Clenching is what Hillary has been doing with her teeth"

No wonder Bill went elsewhere for a BJ.

"So maybe when the Dems start running candidates that don't conjure up images of carnage and death, we can be more deferential to your choices."

Wow, not only does this person need to be a christian, experienced, well spoken, clean record, etc.---their NAME must conjure an image of rainbows and unicorns?


Wow. You righties are more nuts than i thought. Funny though.

"someone who can comb his own hair in the morning!"

That was just mean.

Next we'll have Wolfowitz licking his comb again.

I think McCain can thank his captors for that condition.

Can he thank his captors also for his affinity for cowering to everything George Bush? 2004 SC primary, flip-flop stance on torture, voting for bloated Bush budgets, immigration reform to name a few examples.

"someone who can comb his own hair in the morning!"

That was just mean.

It was meant as a joke in the same vein as Rob's. Just showing that mean-spirited humor can go both ways! I'm sure Rob will see the humor in it unless he is more thin-skinned than he would like us to believe!

sure Rob will see the humor in it unless he is more thin-skinned than he would like us to believe!

Posted by realpatriot


yeah, I saw it as the typical shock humor that I like... I gave it a laugh...

"Clinton Counts on Superdelegates"

Better count on another one less..

"Christine 'Roz' Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, announced today that she is switching her support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama...

Samuels cited Obama's ability to unite the country..."

I am a registered Indy with Dem leanings. If I get a wiff of delagates deciding this thing contrary to the popular vote, i will vote GOP, its as simple as that. I will not stand for any shenanigans.

I am a registered Indy with Dem leanings.

LOL... How many times do we have to hear this?

I swear there isn't one Democrat member of this entire board... nuttin' but indies!

"I swear there isn't one Democrat member of this entire board... nuttin' but indies!"

I hereby confess to being an actual Democrat. Now off to the Post Office to mail my absentee ballot for the Dem. Primary.

I am a Democrat and an Obama supporter. If the superdelegates overturn the vote of the people, in either direction, I will not vote in November, for that candidate. They are playing with fire and, if not careful, the superdelegates will burn the Democratic Party to the ground!

If the superdelegates overturn the vote of the people, in either direction, I will not vote in November, for that candidate.

GO HILLARY!!! GO!!! GO!!! GO!!! GO!!!

What if its really close? Say Obama leads her by only a 100 or so democrats, but the SDs pick Clinton?

Would you still be as pissed?

What if its really close? Say Obama leads her by only a 100 or so democrats, but the SDs pick Clinton?

I would say that is the most likely scenario because of the way Dems apportion delegates. It will be difficult for either candidate to build up a substantial lead in pledged delegates. If the rank and file choose Hillary and the SD's hand it to Obama, count me out! If the rank and file choose Obama, same thing!

If the party brass don't want the people to choose a candidate, don't hold primaries. Just put your
man or woman up for election in the general election. I will just choose not to be a participant.

And for those of you Republicans savoring this moment...you have the same problem in your party. It just has yet to manifest itself. Your day is coming, though!

And for those of you Republicans savoring this moment...

We have plenty of problems in the GOP but superdelegates is not one of them.

In general, I find the GOP primary system a lot fairer then that of the democrats though both parties could come up with better systems.

The whole "super delegates" thing creeps me out and just serves to institutionalize the cronyism and back-room party politics in choosing a presidential candidate that was supposed to be done away with when the current binding primary system was implemented in 1972.



And the Democrats fascination with Caucuses in which people are forced to reveal their vote publicly also seems wrong and forces party members to choose between peer pressure and voting their conscience on who they think would make the best President.

I know that the Republicans have caucuses, but I believe most, if not all, are done by secret ballots and don't force a person to reveal who they are voting for like the dems do.


Both parties should make changes when it comes to open primaries and proportional distribution - I think each state should be "winner take all" and not proportional since that most closely resembles the actual presidential election. And having an "open" primary which allows non-party voters to elect the party's candidates seems to defeat the entire purpose of a political party to begin with. Only the party's members should be allowed to have a vote in the process.

Hey look, fat Mark Penn is tied to Exelon as well:

www.huffingtonpost.com

Clinton co-sponsors a bill in their favor and fat boy took their cash.

How can the Clinton camp be so stupid?

''We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,'' Mrs. Clinton said. ''We have mass communications, we have mobility through transportation means to knit our country together that was not conceived of at the time of the founders' proposals about how we elect our presidents. I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people.''

"I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed." -Hillary 2000.

Isn't she priceless?

The "Solution" Candidate, as she calls herself today.

You voters are so damn stupid. If the two parties gave a choice between Hitler and Stalin you would vote for one of the two before voting third party. The Demopublican oligarchs are counting on it.

"If the two parties gave a choice between Hitler and Stalin you would vote for one of the two before voting third party. "

So I take it you're voting for a third party, Ray? If not, this statement is hypocritical bullshit.

She just lost one super-delegate, Congressman John Lewis, to Obama.

Have you been consulting Miss Cleo Reilly? I said nothing about myself. I don't vote. The statement was directed at those who insist on voting.

"I don't vote."

Yes, you would rather sit on your ass attacking those who actually do something.

"I don't vote."

Then shut the fuck up.

"I am a Democrat and an Obama supporter. If the superdelegates overturn the vote of the people, in either direction, I will not vote in November, for that candidate."

While I understand you feelings I still think it is dumb to allow a Republican to appoint possibly up to 3 SC justices, continue a war bankrupting the country, etc. etc. just because you don't like the fact that the nomination process is not to your liking. WE should remember that this election is more than a contest between Clinton and Obama....it is about the future of the country. REmember, we are going to have to live with the consequences.

While I understand you feelings I still think it is dumb to allow a Republican to appoint possibly up to 3 SC justices, continue a war bankrupting the country, etc. etc. just because you don't like the fact that the nomination process is not to your liking. WE should remember that this election is more than a contest between Clinton and Obama....it is about the future of the country. REmember, we are going to have to live with the consequences.

Posted by danni at 2008-02-


great post and I say that because my vote will be cancelling yours out.....now if I can figure out how to cancell out larrys and commen and others I will be in business....no seriously...


you are absolutely right and I will NOT stand IDLLY by and let a liberal appoint maybe three judges that will affect this country for 30 years. I also want a VETO PEN in the white house to counter an apparent dem majority in congress before entitlement make up 75 to 80 % of the budget
and if a dem wins, not long after that alqada will be celebrating in the streetd of bagdad and at the same time liberal dems will be celebrating that very thing becaue they will have seen to it that they were right about iraq.......we must not put a dem in the white house because it will mean the defeat in iraq of american troops.......and all we have to do is sit and wait and we will see the truth just like we see now in iraq and thats why dems are so ready to do anything to get in there and show all of us that harry reid was right when he said this war is lost..........and what a way to support those troops risking and giving their lives for our safety......I have always given libs the benefit of the doubt about troop support but if you support the defeat of america in iraq)i.e. a dem president, then all of those bets are off.

and my previous points are why I will hold my nose and vote for mccain,because even though when some issues came up he was square on the left..such as gang of 14, immigration, feingold and the latest with kennedy is it......even though those are problems, his election will not bring about the defeat of our troops and he will have a veto pen out and ready and he will,hopefully appoint judges in the mind of roberts and scalia and alito.......and thereby help to save the republic from the abyss of liberalism.
and now I await another of life's little truths.
one is that if there is only one other group playing golf on the coures, they will ALWAYS BE holding you up right in front of you....(golfers, am I right?)
and this truth.....after these two posts there will be little more than name calling and insults and typical liberal regurgitation.......

as to the real sunject..
isnt it typical that its the dems who are supposed to be and call themsleves the guardians of the poor and the disenfranchised and all about diversity and 'FEELINGS'.......its so typical that they are the ones who have an UPPER RULING CLASS of delegates who might be selecting the nominee and it very well could be the OPPOSITE OF THE WILL OF THE DEMOCRAT PEOPLE........but does that matter...hell no.....only thing that matters is a return to power.......

ONE thing is sure......to all of us political sluts, the dem convention and lead up will be much more fun to watch........and hers hoping they will have a convention JUST LIKE 1968.......lets see what happened then??????? oh yeah we got richard nixon.......and that ,fr
friends, is a whole 'nother' story, isnt it?

Bushlovertwo-

As a fellow republican, I wholeheartedly disagree. Your viewpoint is precisely what has driven so many of us away from this neo-con administration. Neo-cons expand governmental authority to solve every problem...supposedly spending us into prosperity and security. Social conservatism has become all about using the federal government to impose morality. Economic conservatives are split between status-quo and the fair-tax crowd.

Now we get a presidential nominee who believes in liberal domestic spending, open borders, insanely expensive and end-less military solutions to distinctly political problems, and "free trade" which defies its name in nearly every way.

Good luck in November. I'll be voting for Obama with half of my republican friends. He'll get obstructed on the domestic spending, and he'll end the unnecessary and useless foreign spending. And that's the best case scenario considering how badly Bush has blackened our party's core values.

OH MY GOD.........would you just look at this.....

reasoned and polite discourse on a politcal subject..
I am so.....sniff, sniff, proud of you guys...
oh wait a min. that will change when our usual suspects arive on the thread.

(dammit, I promised that I would try and help with some of the puncuation.....damn.....there it goes again.....oh shit, and again,
HELP IM USING ELIPSES AND I CANT STOP!!!!!!!!

kevin,
maybe the difference is that you are a republican and I am a conservative or at least I try to be conservative over republican party ideas.
and I was wondering the other day what the country would look like with obama as president and it MAY have had a better look to it than one with hillary as pres.....and of course with blowjob billy running around looking up the skirts of the maids and interns.
OH SHIT......did I just say that? the obama part, the part about bill is being kind.

"Is reducing "foreign spending" code for pulling out of Iraq?"

Among other things. Re-allocate resources so we can fight a fight that makes sense and gets us somewhere other than having to do another regime change or fighting entities we helped build in the first place. So how about we call it short-sighted military action?

"Who do you trust more to nominate SCOTUS judges?"

Honestly, I'll take a Sandra Day O'Conner over the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito block which is essentially a rubber stamp for republican policy. My view is that ideologues rarely, if ever, actually adhere to ideology. Anyone with legal experience can decide on a position ahead of time, and justify it after the fact with an ideological argument.

If a democratic presidency means another vote for the Souter or Breyer block on the court, I wouldn't mind nearly as much as another apparent "originalist" who is anything but when circumstances dictate.

"Given all the promises by Obama, do you really think our domestic spending would drop?"

He can merely introduce legislation in congress. Any promises equate to that, nothing more without 60% support in congress. Do you honestly believe that after getting spanked twice in a row, that republicans will roll over when given a chance to prove they really are the party of restraint again? They will fall back on two things in hopes of winning in 2010: lower domestic spending, and lower taxes.

"I don't have strong dislike for McCain. Maybe frustration. He's right on some issues, yet seems to pander to the left to "get things done." Sometimes, 'getting things done' is worse than doing nothing."

Exactly my point. We've had the worst of both worlds for too long now.

"maybe the difference is that you are a republican and I am a conservative or at least I try to be conservative over republican party ideas."

No Bushlover,

The difference is that I am a true conservative and haven't re-defined the term in the last 20 years to suit my short-term desires. Neo-conservatives who are for expanded federal authority, open borders and preemptive wars are ANYTHING but conservative. Don't fool yourself. Look up the platform of your party prior to Bush to see what real conservatism looked like.

" Do you think voting Obama (and Obama winning) moves the ball closer to conservativism scoring a touchdown or liberalism scoring a touchdown?"

How about the it moves the ball closer to AMERICA scoring a touchdown?!

Why is it always party, party, party to you people??

Does anyone care about what's best for America, rather than what's best for their frickin' party??

Geez

"Serious question, then, KEV. Do you think voting Obama (and Obama winning) moves the ball closer to conservativism scoring a touchdown or liberalism scoring a touchdown?"

Neither. I don't presume to know. I gave you a rationale earlier that was honest. Asking me to play a partisan guessing game is useless. I don't care which party wins. I just care how their enacted policies affect my life. That's where it should start and end. Screw partisanship for its own sake. There are 300M people and only two parties...its a fool's game to get hell-bent for one or the other into perpetuity when contexts undoubtedly change.

kevin....with all due respect, you are not coming across as a conservative or repubican. you simply cant tellus that you would have another oconnor on the court and you will vote for obama and then tell us you are conservative. Is there a new sect of conservative because what you are describing isnt what I see as conservative.
if you want to vote for obama,have at it but I dont think you are a conservative and believe some of the things you have talked about.
AGAIN, I will be a noseholder come election time. I HATE THAT but its the best thing to do in my opinion.
a third party candidate in this country even after john anderson and ross perot is STILL a waiste of my vote and thats sort of a shame, isnt it?

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.....
drum roll please..........RRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


I am sure you are all awaiting this announcement with baited breath......lisa,just bad breath,..

ONCE AGAIN>.....ITS MARGARITA TIME IN TEXAS...

YYEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


have a good one and keep it in your pants and for sure dont take any wooden nipples........




hasta laredo........

".lisa,just bad breath"

No worries. I don't stand close enough to you when you talk to smell you.

"kevin....with all due respect, you are not coming across as a conservative or repubican. you simply cant tellus that you would have another oconnor on the court and you will vote for obama and then tell us you are conservative. Is there a new sect of conservative because what you are describing isnt what I see as conservative.
if you want to vote for obama,have at it but I dont think you are a conservative and believe some of the things you have talked about."

Dismissing things out of hand without actually understanding them is not exactly due diligence. If you want to take two circumstantial positions I've stated, and claim they mean I am not a conservative in completely different contexts, then you obviously could care less.

No one cares what you or Bush or anyone else considers "conservative". It means what it means. It doesn't require absolute obedience to any candidate in a two party system where there are thousands of issues. Being a conservative is not about being a parrot. It is about believing the government should be minimalist and not obtrusive. Period.

Who I vote for at a moment in time, or who I respect as a life-long appointee to the highest court are highly circumstantial questions that, for me, require much more thought than what side of the current ideological fence they claim to fall on. Looking to how their actions affect your life, and then reconciling those with your beliefs about the role of government is a better approach by far than what you support...attaching labels and running with them even where they don't fit.

The difference is that I am a true conservative - Kevin 23

attaching labels and running with them even where they don't fit. - kevin23

Kevin, you gave yourself the label of a "true conservative". And to the extent that you sound like one of those Ron Paul ideologues, then you are.

Are you also "pro-life" as all "true conservates" are? And if so, how do you reconcile that with your support for Obama?

"Kevin, you gave yourself the label of a "true conservative".

Kevin:

Don't pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain. He gave himself the label of "moderate" until he was called out on it, then conviniently changed it to "moderate conservative". He's also changed his handle about 4 times after he was caught lying.

A true cameleon, that one is!!!

Bowa-

What's your point re: labels? I called myself a true conservative to distinguish from neo-conservative. I also went to great lengths to explain the divisions in the ideology. Did you miss that part out of convenience or did you not understand it?

"Are you also "pro-life" as all "true conservates" are? And if so, how do you reconcile that with your support for Obama?"

No. Being pro-life would force me to advocate the federal government dictate morality to the people through expanded governmental authority. That is not conservative, it is more liberal than anything in its approach. And that is exactly the point. If you are going to pidgin hole someone, make sure you know what you are really saying. Calling Bush a conservative is hilarious to me.

Lisa-

I appreciate your insight. It makes perfect sense now.

" Your vision of a utopian America differs from mine."

I'll say!!

My vessel is which ever I feel is better suited for America...not party based.

Huge difference!

Stay party loyal, Oohrah. It's done us soooo well the past 7 years, hasn't it??

Oh wait..you'll say yes.

Never mind.

No. Being pro-life would force me to advocate the federal government dictate morality to the people through expanded governmental authority.

Then you are not a "true conservative".
Based on what you've said on this thread you sound mostly like a "libertarian" except of course where it concerns recognizing the rights of the unborn.

Kevin, the "triad" of traditional conservatives is:

1) Pro-life
2) Fiscally conservative, believing that less government is the best government and favoring empowering state and local governemnts over the Federal.
3) Overall, a more isolationist foreign policy.

Calling Bush a conservative is hilarious to me.

I agree with that. But who said Bush was a conservative? His "compassionate conservatism" was always a pro-life, pro-business, pro- advancing democracy ideology wrapped around a belief that the federal government could solve all the nation's ills.

Bowa-

True conservatism has changed to suit short term desires. I've said this over and over. Read to comprehend please.

Your definition is wrong. Conservatism is about small government and personal responsibility. Bringing moral policing into the mix came later. Conservatism existed long before the Roe v. Wade debate. Go beyond the current partisan definitions to find what is "true".

"But who said Bush was a conservative? "

All of the conservative douchebags; the National Review, Robert Novak, Fred Barnes, Glen Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

At least, that's what they said when Bush was popular.

Now they're running away from him like rats abandoning a sinking ship.

"Overall, a more isolationist foreign policy."

No. Non-interventionist is the correct word. Protectionism was and is a populist idea.

" Specifically when and why were you once a Republican backer?"

I voted for George H. Bush.

And it was because I thought him to be what America needed at the time. It had nothing to do with party.

"If the Iraq war issue is your primary source of heartburn, say so."

It's that, the lies that were told to garner support for it, the "dictatorship" that Bush insists on...as long as HE'S the dictator or course!! It's the way this administration has crossed over the legal line to wiretap, it's the way Bush has abused his power, disregarding our constitution, it's the way the republican party handled the last election, it's the way all republicans stood beside Bush stating he has their full support...right up till their own jobs were on the line of course then one by one they all jumped ship....so many reasons, so little time.

Your last sentence was just too pathetic to even comment on. As I said, I don't belong to any party but I will say...I haven't seen a dark side as dark as the current administration has displayed.

I respect McCain for his service to this country, but I do not respect him as a man. He showed no backbone where standing up to Bush was concerned when the crap was spewed about him, just as I have no respect for Kerry having no backbone either.

When you can't stand up for yourself, you should never be entrusted to stand up for this country as her leader.

Obviously, you would fail.

Lisa, you sound like my kind of lady!

Who are you supporting in Nov? What do you think of Ron Paul?

No. Non-interventionist is the correct word. Protectionism was and is a populist idea.

I disagree Kevin. Isolationism better describes the desire for traditional conservatives to abandon allies, hamper free trade, and weaken our ability to defend and protect our strategic and economic interests around the world.

You're full of shit, Bowa. Both traditional conservatives and paleo-conservatives don't believe in being the world's policeman. That's not the same as being willing to "abandon allies" or "weaken our ability," bla bla bla.

"Isolationism better describes the desire for traditional conservatives to abandon allies, hamper free trade, and weaken our ability to defend and protect our strategic and economic interests around the world."

They distrusted alliances. Conservatives were opposing the big stick diplomacy. They were opposing Wilson's grand plans for world parcel-ship and domination which brought about the second world war. They were opposing entering the second world war until we got hit. True, they ended up opposing integration and the social and religious conservatives took a whole new approach starting after Vietnam. But Reagan (at least publicly...I grant the truth was not pretty) was not about regime-change and puppet governments so much as it was still containment. After the Soviet Union fell, I'd argue everything fell apart. The war on drugs, the interventionist foreign policies, the religious right wanting to define things like "life" and "marriage". That's crazy to me. Leave people alone until its a common threat outweighing the liberty. And taking into account that a perfectly good system (civil liability) exists which screws someone without ruining their life.

I hope that provides better context for you.