IMHO: Phew.

July 18, 2006 10:24 PM

NewsFilter: Restoring faith in the electoral process (a little bit at a time): "An upbeat Reed told a crowd of a few dozen cheering supporters that, although his candidacy had ended, his conservative message will live on." [CNN] Ralph Reed loses the election for Georgia lieutenant governor (56% to 44% at the writing of this bit). Apparently a few people in Georgia read GQ. Or maybe MetaFilter. Or the news, too, I suppose.
posted by scblackman (42 comments total)

I was watching the results come in. Nice to see him bite the dust.
posted by delmoi at 10:36 PM on July 18, 2006

Heck with this race; what I want to hear is that Cynthia McKinney lost. Did she?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:30 PM on July 18, 2006

Steven, with 98% of precincts reporting, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney leads the Democratic primary for the Fourth District of Georgia with 46.9% of the votes compared to Commissioner Henry C. Johnson, Jr.'s 44.5%.
posted by RichardP at 11:46 PM on July 18, 2006

So it's a runoff, eh? I guess there's still hope.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:51 PM on July 18, 2006

Yes. I should have been clearer. Since no candidate received a majority of the votes in the Democratic primary a runoff will be held on August 8th.
posted by RichardP at 11:54 PM on July 18, 2006

I was watching the results come in. Nice to see him bite the dust.

He didn't bite the dust, delmoi, he was 6% away from a mandate.
posted by hoborg at 11:58 PM on July 18, 2006

He didn't bite the dust, delmoi, he was 6% away from a mandate.

Actually it was a 12% difference, which is pretty much a crushing defeat.

So it's a runoff, eh? I guess there's still hope.

Yes, it's a runoff. And I hope she wins. Any politician who smacks a cop is a politician who deserves re-election. And not only that, I think her haircut looks good. So there.
posted by delmoi at 12:25 AM on July 19, 2006

Looks like the big bearded white guy in the sky has made his choice. A deific thumbs down for Ralphie!
posted by ronin21 at 12:40 AM on July 19, 2006

he was 6% away from a mandate.

I see that the effort to redefine "mandate" continues. Or was that attempted humor?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:55 AM on July 19, 2006

So one Republican beats another in a Republican primary, and this restores your faith in the electoral process? Is the bar set that low now?
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:59 AM on July 19, 2006 [2 favorites]

So one Republican beats another in a Republican primary, and this restores your faith in the electoral process? Is the bar set that low now?

What he said...
posted by hwestiii at 4:20 AM on July 19, 2006

He didn't even get past the primary... when a guy like Reed can't even get fellow Republicans to vote for him, I think that's a positive step.
posted by clevershark at 4:31 AM on July 19, 2006

You don't have to register by party in Georgia. You can vote in one primary or the other. You just have to pick one. So . . . People who usually or typically would have voted in the Democratic primary may well have turned out to vote against Reed as well.
posted by raysmj at 4:50 AM on July 19, 2006

Ralph Reed belongs in jail along with his pal Abramoff.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 4:56 AM on July 19, 2006

Ralph Reed belongs in hell along with his pal Lay.
posted by scottreynen at 5:29 AM on July 19, 2006

And the guy Reed lost to is so much better? I really don't know but *clapping* because Reed lost is not good enough.

A. Gore wrote me a letter yesterday, I was touched actually. He wanted me to give money to the Dems for the upcoming election. It even included a bumper sticker which read "Had Enough? Vote Democrate in 2006"
That's not a good enough strategy; we'll mess up less?

My faith in the system still bleeds...
posted by fluffycreature at 5:53 AM on July 19, 2006

...Republican state senators banded together to sign a petition declaring that Reed should drop out of the race...

Yet he still managed to pull 44%.
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:55 AM on July 19, 2006

From the GQ link:

The morning begins with a prayer in Jason’s Deli, a strip-mall joint in Atlanta, and we all bow our heads and say amen. We—me, the Atlanta reporter, and all the Buck Springs Republicans—stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the fine a cappella rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner,”

Let me break it out for you:

The morning begins with:
- "a prayer...we all bow our heads and say amen"
- "We...stand for the Pledge of Allegiance..."
- "and the fine a cappella rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner,”

Is anyone else sickened by theis patriotic pandering?

Why not cut to the chase and begin with a Two Minutes Hate at the stroke of thirteen?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:39 AM on July 19, 2006

Never underestimate the subtle power of the crossover vote.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:47 AM on July 19, 2006

And the guy Reed lost to is so much better? I really don't know but *clapping* because Reed lost is not good enough.

You're right. It's not enough. Now that the primaries are over, every decent canadite for Governor and Lt. Governor is out of the picture. We're down to having a choice between:

1) Republican conservative idiot
2) Democratic conservative idiot

The whole state of Georgia is screwed.
posted by triolus at 6:58 AM on July 19, 2006

"restoring faith in the electoral system" will not be possible with the current crop of electronic voting machines. These machines have, for practical purposes, no security. They cannot be audited. Therefore the results cannot be proven. How can one have faith in this process? Oh, I forgot - in America "faith" means you have to turn your mind off and believe whatever you're told to believe.
posted by dinsdale at 8:13 AM on July 19, 2006

"Had Enough? Vote Democrat in 2006"
That's not a good enough strategy

It's kept Tony Blair in power for 9 years.
posted by biffa at 8:17 AM on July 19, 2006

"It's not about faith it's about will"
posted by dinsdale at 8:48 AM on July 19, 2006

posted by specialk420 at 8:51 AM on July 19, 2006

Is anyone else sickened by theis patriotic pandering?

Why not cut to the chase and begin with a Two Minutes Hate at the stroke of thirteen?

Huh? People freely exercising their religious freedom and singing the national anthem. How is this bad?
posted by gyc at 9:06 AM on July 19, 2006

gyc,

The operative word is PANDERING (meaning not sincere, as in "support the troops by supporting Dear Leader").

Also, Reed is about religious freedom as much as I am about lovin' me some GWB.
posted by nofundy at 9:14 AM on July 19, 2006

Any politician who smacks a cop is a politician who deserves re-election.

Sigh.

Like, wow, can I be all hip and anti-Establishment like you?

I realize some cops seem like they deserve to be smacked sometimes, but it's not really okay to do so. That's why we have these funny little notions like "the rule of law." Ms. McKinney F'd up and should've been prosecuted for her misbehavior. Moreover, smacking cops and getting away with it does not send a helpful message to constituents or to the law-enforcement community, many members of whom do not deserve to be smacked by politicians or anyone else.

OTOH, if you really believe what you posted, go smack a cop yourself (generously assuming you've got the stones). Be sure to tell him or her it's OK, since a Congresswoman did it, so obviously you approve. Next, post an FPP to tell us all about the ensuing hilarity.
posted by pax digita at 9:36 AM on July 19, 2006

RichardP writes "with 98% of precincts reporting, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney leads the Democratic primary for the Fourth District of Georgia with 46.9% of the votes"

The primary voters must feel incredibly disenfranchized to keep voting for McKinney. She's nuttier than squirrel poop, and it's not even a secret. I'm guessing that a lot of her support must have come from Republicans deciding to vote in the Dem primary.
posted by clevershark at 10:29 AM on July 19, 2006

most incumbents get reelected without much problem (over 80 percent i believe)...it's not like McKinney kisses and hugs Bush, after all. I like her, and wish we had more outspoken and strong women in
DC, instead of triangulating and pandering wimps.
posted by amberglow at 10:35 AM on July 19, 2006

Reed and Abramoff and Norquist should share a cell.
posted by bardic at 11:26 AM on July 19, 2006

amberglow, in 2004, it was 99% in the House, and 96% in the Senate. This article gives reasons.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:31 AM on July 19, 2006

"restoring faith in the electoral system" will not be possible with the current crop of electronic voting machines. These machines have, for practical purposes, no security. They cannot be audited.

Do you think every machine in every district is a diebold touchscreen without a papertrail? Because if you belive that, you're wrong. There are many diffrent types of voting machines, some of which are worse then others, and most of which leave a paper trail.
posted by delmoi at 11:35 AM on July 19, 2006

Diebold/ES&S also manufacture central tabulating machines, which have received very little attention, despite being the more cost-effective target for any potential election thieves.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:39 AM on July 19, 2006

I realize some cops seem like they deserve to be smacked sometimes, but it's not really okay to do so. That's why we have these funny little notions like "the rule of law." Ms. McKinney F'd up and should've been prosecuted for her misbehavior.

How do you know that? Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? McKinney was never convicted of anything, in fact she was never charged. The law says she's innocent. If you really believed in the "Rule of Law" you wouldn't be making those statements.

Obviously you believe in something else, perhaps "Rule of authority" or "Rule of Cop." That's not something I believe in, nor do I see any reason why it would be a good idea. If some random person grabs you, and you instinctively swat at them have you committed a crime? Most people would say no, yet many people feel that if the random person is a police officer it should be a crime, even if you didn't know it was a cop at the time. But that has nothing to do with the Rule of Law, and everything to do with blind deference to authority.

Obviously, if McKinney had been a normal person (such as myself) things would have been different. But she was a congressperson, and so things were different.

But like I said, you don't care about the "rule of law" you're worried about "sending messages". Well here's a message, cops in this country think their above the law, and they need to be put in their place.
posted by delmoi at 11:53 AM on July 19, 2006

thanks Kirth--i knew it was high, but that's absurd. It's a job for life now, it seems.

and what delmoi said--she was innocent and no charges were ever filed.
posted by amberglow at 12:02 PM on July 19, 2006

in 2004, it was 99% in the House, and 96% in the Senate. This article gives reasons.

It's more complicated than that, for reasons that tie into the game theory and movies thread. A lot of it hinges on equilibrium behavior.

The causality is complex and often backwards. It's not so much that challengers do poorly because they lack money and recognition, it's that challengers who will inevitably do poorly can't get much money and so can't get name recognition. Most challengers would still lose if you gave them the entire GDP of Britain as their campaign fund, because they're terrible candidates for their district and have next to no political skills.

What are the good potential challengers (sitting state legislators, mayors of relevant cities, etc) doing? They have enough good sense not to waste their time on a bad gamble, and are waiting for better odds when the incumbent retires or screws up somehow (which isn't likely, but does happen).

At the same, it's not at all uncommon for incumbents who have screwed up to just retire rather than face what's likely to be a tough race.

An additional bit of fun is a selection effect. It's very difficult to beat an incumbent or to win and open-seat election. But every single person in the House has done so; it is populated exclusively by electoral bad-asses.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:09 PM on July 19, 2006

He must have not bribed the folks at Diebold enough.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 1:53 PM on July 19, 2006

If you really believed in the "Rule of Law" you wouldn't be making those statements.

Straw man, and quite poorly reasoned at that: If one of us has problems with the "Rule of Law," which one of us thinks smacking cops is salutary, and which one thinks it's a bad idea that's ultimately prejudicial to normal, mature respect for duly constituted authority? Who's really pissin' on the idea of "Rule of Law" here?

And irrelevant to boot: McKinney didn't deny she'd slapped the Capitol policeman, there were witnesses, and she apologized to him.

If you want to try out that "Rule of Law" thing, though, like I said, try hitting a cop yourself, since you think it's a civic virtue. (I'd say "go on, I dare you," but I'm trying to be the grown-up here.) Have one of your buds video the whole incident and put it on YouTube. It'll make for a great FPP.
posted by pax digita at 3:02 PM on July 19, 2006

I'm sitting here thinking I never lost faith in it; I mean after all, I'm reading this on my monitor. Then I realized it wasn't the electrical process. Sorry.
posted by sluglicker at 4:07 PM on July 19, 2006

And irrelevant to boot: McKinney didn't deny she'd slapped the Capitol policeman, there were witnesses, and she apologized to him.

She didn't confirm or deny. And what do her public statements have to do with her guilt? It's always a bad idea for a person under investigation to discuss the topic under investigation. Unlike you, the grand jury heard all the available evidence and declined to indict. To argue her guilt based on one-sided news reports is preposterous. She's not guilty, it's as simple as that.

To deny that fact is to deny the rule of law and replace it with some sort of, well I don't know what but it ain't the rule of law.

What you fail to understand is, police are not the law. They must operate within the confines of it, and frequently they break it, without ever facing any consequences. This is a problem.

As for your daring me to go hit a cop: well, I have a dare for you: Go find a cop and tell him about whatever it is you're smoking.
posted by delmoi at 12:32 AM on July 20, 2006

I'm smoking pipe tobacco. I'm wondering what it is that you smoke if you're the sort of person who advocates smacking cops. For a third time: Follow your own advice -- go get yourself in front of a cop and play "show and tell" with your smoking materials, and have a nice day!

If you ever need a cop to come to your aid, would you want one to help you, based on what you've typed? Do you think you would morally deserve the help? I'm wondering if you or someone you care about has been mistreated by a cop, and if so, I'm genuinely sorry, but I ask you to reconsider what you posted above.

I'm quite aware that some cops are badge-heavy -- frankly, some of them are stupid bullies who stick together, cover for each other, and are practically untouchable. (I've had a couple basically threaten and browbeat me instead of listening to me -- kind of like what happens all too often here in the blue). I'm also aware that most of them aren't necessarily being jerks but being consistent. They're charged not with interpreting law but with enforcing it -- even unpopular and nonsensical laws that they may not personally agree with, believe it or not.

I think you'd really benefit from befriending some law-enforcement personnel to the point that you're on a first-name basis with them, or maybe settle for reading some of Joseph Wambaugh's LAPD novels. Believe it or not, cops are people too. They have a terribly difficult job. They don't protect society from bad people; they protect society from itself. Because they're human beings, some of them bear the heightened power and responsibility of their positions decently and even nobly, and others are just plain jerks -- or even dangerous. I'm sure it's those latter sorts you're thinking of, but you're tarring them all with a mighty broad brush, plus you're being pretty snotty toward me for disagreeing with you. Sorry if the "all hip and anti-Establishment" barb ticked you off, by the way.

As a juror several times over, I'm quite aware of "guilty," in the narrow legal sense you mean, and the distinction of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "yeah, he/she/I/you/they did it." I read as much as I could from both points of view about the McKinney incident, and it sounds to me like the woman majorly lost her cool and screwed up, then got all defensive and self-righteous about it at first, and finally realized she'd messed up badly. But if it had gone to trial and I'd been a juror, I might've been hard-pressed to vote "guilty" even though I thought she probably was. I've been in that exact position before: Once I had to vote "not guilty" and let an armed robber get off on a mistrial because I thought the prosecution's evidence just plain sucked.

So -- look through my posts. Did I ever say she was "guilty"? No, delmoi, but you did, hence me calling "straw man" (as opposed to some ruder phrases). I'm sorry Ms. McKinney lost her cool, and I sympathize with her apparent victim's mentality -- it's not an easy thing to be a black woman in a society that seems to give white men all the power -- but it's just not OK to go hitting cops, and it's really sad that people think it's cool to say it.

In closing, I'll attempt to finish a major derail by somewhat addressing the FPP's theme: It's hard to restore faith in the electoral process when people come to MeFi to argue in favor of having politicians commit assault against law-enforcement personnel. That's really not a plank I'd like to see on anybody's platform. In all seriousness: Would you?
posted by pax digita at 1:52 PM on July 20, 2006

He didn't bite the dust, delmoi, he was 6% away from a mandate. [me]

Actually it was a 12% difference, which is pretty much a crushing defeat. [delmoi]

it was a 12% difference, but if 6% had cast their vote the other way, it would have been tied. So 6 and some change.
posted by hoborg at 2:46 PM on July 20, 2006