Domestic Terrorism: Sarah Palin Puts Democrats in the Crosshairs, Tells People to “Reload”

The Republican Party has hit a new low, and the behavior of some of their members is becoming downright frightening.

Ex-Governor (and currently holding no elected office) Sarah Palin crossed the line yesterday with a post on her Twitter account that said “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.” Her Facebook page then goes on to encourage those unhappy with the recent passing of health care reform to “...not get discouraged. Don’t get demoralized. Get organized!”

She goes on to express the desire to “ “reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector” …” commenting that when they join the ranks of the unemployed, maybe they will understand. But Palin also goes on to show a chart from Sarahpac.com listing specific democrats that she wants to target, and the chart has crosshairs – literally - on their congressional locations. With the all the references to guns – the crosshairs, the “reload” comment, and other words in her message such as “aim” and “salvo” – it is frightening in its blatant attempt to incite violence. She goes on to list them by name as follows, which reads like a proverbial “hit” list:

We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring – from Arkansas’s 2nd district, Indiana’s 8th district, and Tennessee’s 6th district – but we’ll be working to make sure that those who replace them are Commonsense Conservatives. The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. They are: Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Harry E. Mitchell (AZ-5), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), John Salazar (CO-3), Betsy Markey (CO-4). Allen Boyd (FL-2), Suzanne M. Kosmas (FL-24), Baron P. Hill (IN-9), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Charlie Wilson (OH-6), John Boccieri (OH-16), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10), John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC-5), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Alan B. Mollohan (WV-1), and Nick J. Rahall II (WV-3).


While I understand that all Americans – even those that aren’t particularly smart – have the right to free speech, that does not mean they have the right to incite hate or violence. Sarah’s message, while it may seem innocent at face value, almost seems like it was written in “code” with key words, as if she is hoping someone will take her up on the subliminal intent and make it real. Let’s be honest here, if some “normal” person made threats like Sarah Palin has done here, the FBI would be knocking on their door. Her not-so-subtle suggestions and threats are alarming and I think that not only should the FBI consider her words as real threats, but should also make an effort to make sure that the people on her list get protection.

I am greatly concerned with the amount and level of vitriol coming out of the Republican Party, which has only gotten more frequent and more caustic with the passing of the health care reform. It seems that some members of the Republican Party are only happy with the way our government works when it works to the advantage of the Republican Party alone. Party officials need to reign in - or jettison – those party extremists that are acting more like petulant, spoiled children who are having a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. Maybe for starters, Ohio voters should make sure that when Republican Leader John Boehner (R-West Chester) comes up for re-election that he is voted out of office. But, in the meantime, someone with real authority in the party should come out with a clear statement that they do not condone violence as a solution to any political disagreement. If Sarah Palin can’t remove or retract her hit list, then I expect the party to distance themselves from her. At the least, I hope the FBI comes knocking on her door for her apparent threats of violence against our elected officials. Domestic terrorism, no matter what form, cannot be tolerated.

Update January 9, 2010 - In light of the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the killing and wounding of several others at that same political event, I have have more commentary on this topic which can be found at this link: "Sarah Palin’s “Target” List: Incited Murder, or Unfortunate Coincidence?"


Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Diagnosis and Prescription for the Democratic Party

This election season, the democratic primary seems to go on and on. Some say that the lengthy primary season has been detrimental for the party, making it look disjointed. If anything, it’s made them look weak.

The problems were many. Hillary Clinton appeared to be the favorite going in, and this may have made her campaign complacent. With some states tiring of New Hampshire and Iowa always having the first say in the elections, Michigan and Florida changed their primary dates in violation with party rules and they were told their votes wouldn’t count. (Of course, the Democratic Party recently changed their mind and said they would count – for some, but not for the full delegate equivalent.) Then, the media hyped “Super Duper Tuesday” and said the election would be decided after that day – it wasn’t. Caucuses also seem to be questioned because their structure doesn’t allow easy opportunity for all voters to be represented, like other states with traditional primary voting. To make matters worse, the democrats have “superdelegates” who can decide on their own who to nominate, and many of them are taking forever to declare. As the primaries ran through the states, and it seemed that Clinton was hanging tough, the superdelegates remained on the fence, almost refusing to take a stand, seemingly fearful they wouldn’t pick the person who could beat John McCain in the fall.

The last primaries are in progress, and hopefully the superdelegates will get off the fence and make their choice, ending once and for all the dispute over who should be their party’s choice to run for president.

Some in the media are blaming Hillary Clinton for hanging on too long, wishing that she would have pulled out by now, and hoping for a unified party before the convention. Frankly, I think it is her right to hang on as long as she has a chance. I blame the superdelegates – who are supposed to be the party’s anointed wise people – for not taking a stand and making their choice sooner, essentially leading her on and causing the party division. Barack Obama has been gracious during this whole thing, but I am sure that the superdelegate issue has been frustrating for his campaign as well.

And while all this is going on, Hillary had to fend of criticisms for her husband’s campaign commentary. Hillary should have muzzled Bill long ago. Barack had to face the scrutiny of his church (now his former church) and has been blamed for every controversial comment made by guest speakers at the church. He should have cut ties with that church long ago, probably the minute that Reverend Wright became an obvious liability. Still, some in the media and pundits seem to be saying that all these negative issues would never have come out had Hillary not dropped out sooner. Those people are deluding themselves. The negativity that happened over the last few months are just a preview of what the republican campaign will be leveling at them over the next several months. I would rather it get out and be diffused NOW and get it out of the way before it can be used in home stretch of the presidential election.

Since nothing can be changed for this election, let’s think forward to the 2012 presidential election. The Democratic Party just cannot continue with this kind of mess of a primary season. They have made themselves look weak and conflicted. Here’s what I think they should do in the future:

1. Commit to having all primaries conducted over a period of four months.

2. Every presidential election season, rotate the order in which the states can hold their primaries. For example, if Iowa has voted in the first month, they vote in the last month in the next president primary. Once the party has decided the window of time in which a state can hold their primary, the state can’t move it to whatever date they want. If they do, their votes will not count, period.

3. Eliminate caucuses and allow all voters to choose their candidate by traditional voting methods, including absentee balloting.

4. Eliminate the superdelegates. In this day of non-stop media coverage, internet accessibility, and various other ways to get information about candidates, I think the American people are adult enough to be able to choose who they want representing their party in the presidential election. We don’t need an elite group of people choosing who they want to run, especially when it may be in conflict with the popular vote. By the way, if caucuses are eliminated, the whole question about whether those states delegates really represent the wishes of the people could be eliminated.

Those are my ideas. I think the Democratic Party can only blame themselves for this mess. The media can be considered collaborators in this effort by continuing to fan the flames by over-hyping primaries, making things sound like their over long before they are decided by the people.

I hope that the party hasn’t ruined its chances for this election. Here’s hoping that the party wises up before 2012.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
here.

Solving the Democratic Superdelegate Problem

It seems obvious that the Superdelegates for the Democratic Party are getting to be an issue that is causing more and more controversy with this current presidential primary.

The Republicans, who don’t use Superdelegates, seemed to have sailed easily through the primaries and are now focused on their candidate of choice.

The problem with the Democrats is that they have two strong, viable candidates. While the primaries and caucuses have Barack Obama in the lead with delegate counts, there are still several primaries to go, and many Superdelegates remain uncommitted. If there were no Superdelegates, the primary may have been resolved by now, as it’s virtually certain that Hillary Clinton will never win enough delegates at this point to win the nomination. But, we still have those pesky Superdelegates to contend with.

The solution to the Superdelegate problem is to just not have them. My opinion is for the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic Party should seriously consider eliminating Superdelegates. The other thing that both parties should consider is tightening up the primary and caucus dates so all this election brouhaha can be done over a period of two months.

Since there isn’t much we can do on those two issues this season, I think the immediate solution to the Superdelegate problem is this: For any states that have currently held primaries or caucuses, the Superdelegates tied to those states (members of the senate, congress, and state officials like governors) should declare their candidate NOW. Since their state’s voters have already spoken, I think the states’ Superdelegates should make their intentions known. In fact, if the party continues to have Superdelegates for future elections, they should consider giving the Superdelegates only 1 week after their state’s primary or caucus to commit to a candidate.

But for now, I find no reason why a Superdelegate whose state has cast their vote shouldn’t be stating who they would be voting for as well.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation. If the Democratic Party fails to act, it will split the party apart and jeopardize their chances in November.


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,here.

Choosing the Democratic Candidate: Not Over ‘til Its Over

Being an Ohio voter, I was thrilled at the recent results in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but not for reason one might think. When the media wrote off any primary voting after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and then wrote it off again after Super “Duper” Tuesday, it was great to see that there isn’t any one primary voting block has the final say in who is going to he the Democratic nominee.

It seems that Ohio,Texas, and Rhode Island did something that the media didn’t expect would happen – they prolonged the primary process. While some in the media commented that it’s the delegate count that matters, I still say that they are trying to steer the results in a way to confirm their own agendas. The Democratic candidate for the presidency is still up for grabs, despite the media's desire to make a quick choice of it. There are plenty of delegates - and those pesky Super delegates - left.

I won’t tell you how I voted in the Ohio primary, but I will tell you that I am very glad that these recent democratic primaries may mean that the decision could be made at the convention. And that sounds really exciting to me. First, it gives us more time to vet both candidates and really take a hard look at what they can offer and who is the best person for the job. Second, it could make for an interesting convention, you know, like in years past when the conventions actually meant something.

I don’t subscribe to the media’s fear mongering that seems to push for a clean Democratic choice before the convention. They are using the excuse that it will only split apart the party, and it will cause the Democrats to spend more money than necessary, putting the Republicans and John McCain in the cat-bird seat. I don’t buy it. Why? Because I don’t think a Republican can even hope to win this election anyway. Barring some sort of horrific revelation about something that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has done, there seems to be far more excitement out there about the Democratic candidates, and increasing displeasure in the Republican party, specifically the low approval rating of our current President.

I’ve talked to quite a few people over the last several weeks in all walks of life and of varying occupations, and I know of maybe only one or two people that are supporting John McCain or the Republican Party. Everyone else is either in Hillary’s camp or Barack’s camp, and the majority of those said that they would be happy to vote for either one of those two for President. I can’t recall any time in my life where there seems to be so much animosity for the Republican Party and so much love for the Democratic Party. And I know of many Republicans who have crossed over to the Democratic side, which could effectively stunt the chances for a Republican to win.

So the media’s reports of the closure in selecting a Democratic candidate were premature and misleading. My suggestion is the media and the pundits need to take a chill pill, realize it’s never over ‘til it’s over, and relax and go with the flow.


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
here.

Superdelegates: A Cause for Concern?

I thought I was very attentive to things having to do with elections, but why is it this year I feel like I am just hearing about the Democratic “Superdelegate”? They’ve been around since 1980, put in place to recognize the input of party leaders and key party officials for the party Presidential primary.

Maybe it never mattered to be because we haven’t had a Democratic primary that hasn’t really seemed to be a close race until recently.

Wikipedia explains that “Superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as "all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee." There is an exception, however, for otherwise qualified individuals who endorse another party’s candidate for President; they lose their superdelegate status….The 2008 Democratic National Convention will have approximately 796 superdelegates….”

Wow. That’s a lot of “bonus” votes, which in my opinion can have a huge impact on who gets to run for President for the Democratic Party.

What really scares me is seeing the name Dennis Kucinich on the list of Ohio Superdelegates. After all, he is a congressman (well, maybe not for long if his opponent dethrones him in the upcoming election) so I suppose he qualifies as a Superdelegate. But, Dennis overstayed his welcome in his own bid for President, and frankly I’m not sure I have any confidence that he can be objective in representing what’s best for the party. And there are several others that make me feel the same way.

Even more frightening is that once the people have spoken in their respective state primaries, these Superdelegates can still vote however they want in order to chose the party’s candidate. As they are considered unpledged delegates, unlike delegates pledged by the vote of the people in the primaries, these delegates don’t have to follow any one’s opinions but their own.

I’ve already written about my discomfort with the Electoral College. The “Superdelegate” issue makes me even more concerned that the people are not the ones who really have the power to elect their own President.

How did this happen? How did we get so far away from the people themselves being able to choose? I sense that since this Democratic primary is going to be so close that the Superdelegates will be choosing who will represent the Democratic party, and however they go, there will be a huge block of people that will be very unhappy with the choice. Maybe this is the only fair way to broker a virtual tiebreaker. It does concern me that there have been reports that the presidential candidates are already lobbying the Superdelegates in order to gain their pledge. I can only imagine the political wheeling and dealing going on.

I’m still going to the polls, and voting for whom I think is the best candidate. I would like my candidate to go all the way, of course, but I won’t be crazed if he or she doesn’t. Still, I find myself wondering again if there isn’t a better way for the peoples’ voices to be heard, and the winners to be a real reflection of the popular votes. I suppose all we can do is…wait and see!


Check out my blog home page for the latest information, HERE!