Khaotic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:01 AM
Original message |
FL Hillary Supporter: We Need Someone Who Will Break the Rules |
|
I was listening to Bill Press last week and he was doing a segment on whether Florida or Michigan should count.
Many Florida and Michigan Democrats were calling in, pretty much all were Hillary supporters.
It struck me how one in particular made her case by saying that we needed someone who could get the job done, someone who wasn't afraid to "break the rules."
What? This is the fundamental case here.
In both Florida and Michigan, the DNC said they wouldn't seat the delegates if the state went forward with moving up their elections. They did it anyway. Both Obama and Edwards stepped back and respected their party's decision and didn't campaign in either state.
So ... we have the rule breaker Hillary. A title that's embraced by the Florida caller to the Bill Press Show.
My thoughts ... we have a fucking rule breaker in the White House already, we don't need another one.
Why would we want more signing statements, etc.? The NYTimes article on accumulation of executive powers said she would think about reversing some of them. Think about some of them.
Thoughts on embracing "rule breaking"?
|
Hepburn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:03 AM
Response to Original message |
1. When my son was a wee child, one of the things that I taught him was... |
|
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 10:05 AM by Hepburn
...that when we act, we are responsible for the consequences of our actions. Seems real simple to me ~~ the rules were broken...the consequences are as they were set forth when the rule was made.
What is there to discuss???
|
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The best indication of future behavior is past behavior. |
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message |
3. We have had over seven years of 'rule breaking' |
|
It might just do us some good for a RULE OBSERVING President for a change.
If the rules need breaking, and sometimes that is the case, CHANGE the rules, but this retro-active shit doesn't fly for state primaries or telecoms either.
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Ugh. Yes, we really need another person above the law. |
|
I don't want to blame Clinton for what a caller said, but that's some screwed up thinking.
The statement about thinking about maybe reversing some of the powers ... maybe I shouldn't comment without seeing the direct quote, but yes, it pisses me off.
|
Khaotic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. New York Times, Oct. 24, 2007 |
|
Headline: Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/us/politics/24dems.html?fta=yHad another thread going on Executive Power at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4461938Good blog on Obama and Executive Power at: http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=492Every time you hear her shriek about seating FL & MI you KNOW she's about rule breaking and about saying and doing ANYTHING to go to the White House.
|
cooolandrew
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message |
5. The fact the caller called it rule breaking shows they know it's wrong. |
|
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 10:15 AM by cooolandrew
|
guruoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-18-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message |
6. If what you say is correct, then the DNC changed the rules when they sat delegates. |
|
"In both Florida and Michigan, the DNC said they wouldn't seat the delegates if the state went forward with moving up their elections. They did it anyway."
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |