Vorticity Advection

You think Bush and Cheney are bad about retribution? You think the Valerie Plame scandal was something? Check out some of the crap old Rudy pulled during his tenure as mayor of NYC:

After AIDS activists with Housing Works loudly challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group’s application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers.

“There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.

If the American voters choose Rudy as our next President, or even if he’s vice-President (see Cheney), civil liberties will be an endangered species.

Mike Huckabee wants to get rid of part of the First Amendment of the Constitution:

“I believe it is a lot easier to change the Constitution than it is to change the Word of the Living God. And that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other, and how we treat the family.”

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously Mr. Huckabee doesn’t mean any “God” but the Protestant Christian version. Thus by amending the Constitution, Mr. Huckabee would be nullifying one part of the First Amendment. What would be next? Freedom of Speech? Press?

I’m happy about last night’s results in New Hampshire. It restores some faith in the voting public that they didn’t migrate to the polls like lemmings and just vote how Iowa voted. I’m even more happy that all the media gurus are currently in a state of befuddlement. They don’t have their golden boy (or girl, as the case may be) to predict as the choice that the rest of us should vote for because, by golly, 0.5% of the voters in America say so.

Lou Dobbs says it quite well:

Many of our political savants and pundits took one in the teeth last night. I couldn’t be happier about last night’s surprising results, and not because I favor one candidate or another. I’m just glad the so-called experts in the national media were wrong about their premature assumptions that the Democratic and Republican nominations for president were a done deal.

It appears my concerns about a cascade were misplaced. Good for America!

Considering the Iowa caucus results, and the mass-media’s never-ending talking-headism over it, wonder if we’ll now see a cascade effect for Obama and Huckabee?

Considering the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses (caucusi?), I decided to see how this procedure works. One thing is certain, it’s not just another primary.

To put it simply, each precinct has it’s own “caucus,” or mini-convention, for each party. People gather at a central location, a school, church, etc., and then discuss their choice of candidate.

For the Republicans, they take a straw poll then dole out the representatives much like electoral delegates. This is similar to a normal primary election, however it’s done in one huge gathering.

For the Democrats, it’s much different. There is an open discussion about what candidates are “viable,” then they do a show of hands vote. Candidates who receive under 15% of the vote are eliminated, then delegates are distributed to those who are above 15%.

This is why the Republican results look more like a traditional primary result, while the Democrat results are so high for the top 3, and so low for the rest.

I was listening to NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” one day just before Christmas. The episode was asking Iowa voters to call in and state who they are supporting and why. The first caller was an African-American woman who stated that she was (justly) offended at being typecast as an Obama supporter simply because of her race. I promptly thought “Good for her! She’s making her own decision and not taking the easy way out!”

But I spoke too soon.  When asked who she was voting for, she said “Well I was supporting John Edwards…, but I don’t want to waste my vote, so I’m voting for Hillary Clinton.”

Excuse me? “Waste my vote?”

I immediately yelled at the radio “You idiot!” The whole purpose of an election is to express one’s own opinion of who they feel is the best candidate. One who shares the same views as the voter.

No matter who I vote for, even if I’m the only voter for that candidate, I’ll never consider my vote “wasted.”