Status check on POTUS: Article from November, 2008

Here is an article from Investor's Business Daily from November 10, 2008.  Read it in its entirety, and it will make you think:

A Checklist Of Obama's Many Promises

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came so fast and furious in the latter part of the campaign, you'd be excused for not keeping up. So as a public service, we've put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his "Blueprint for Change," his campaign speeches and advertisements. Clip it. Save it. And see how he did in four years.

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing."

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

• Provide a $500 "make work pay" tax credit to small businesses.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

Labor

• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court's pay discrimination ruling.

• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — to make it easier for unions to organize.

• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.

• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.

National security

• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.

• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.

• No more homeless veterans.

• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

• Finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists.

Social Security

• Work in a "bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations."

• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.

• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.

Education

• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.

Spending

• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

• Slash earmarks.

Health care

• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.

• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

American Thinker on the President's first two years

Read the original here.
Obama's First Two Years a Disaster for America

March 16, 2011 By Chad Stafko^[1]

Recall the euphoria that surrounded Barack Obama during the 2008 election season and after he was inaugurated as the 44^th President of the United States.  Life was going to be blue skies and rainbows, or at least we were told, with hope and change on the way.  The American people would be better off and so would our nation with Obama in control.  After a little more than two years as the President, those blue skies have turned gray with not the slightest hint of a rainbow.

Some professed that with Barack Obama as President, the staples of life would become affordable if not altogether free.  Surely you remember Peggy Joseph^[2] who said, at a Barack Obama campaign event in August 2008, that she would not have to worry about paying for her gas and mortgage.  Consider what has happened to those staples of life during the Obama presidency.

As of March 14, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.57/gallon.  When Obama took office in January 2009, the price was $1.81/gallon.  That represents more than a 90% increase in just over two years.
To put that in perspective, assume you have a 40 mile round trip commute to work, your car gets 20 miles per gallon and that prices remain the same going forward.  Relative to January 2009, you are paying about $18 more per week and about $72 more per month at the pump.
The pertinent question we might ask is, "What has President Obama done in the past two years to limit the rise of oil and gasoline prices, if anything?"  The answer is...nothing.  If anything, his policies have contributed towards rising prices.  Recall the moratorium he enacted on oil drilling following the BP oil spill that further limited the supply of the commodity from our own waters.  His failure to support drilling in ANWR and his overt allegiance to the anti-drilling environmental fringe has also directly contributed to less supply of oil and therefore higher oil prices.

Ms. Joseph also looked forward to Obama paying her mortgage.  Well, many Americans don't have to worry about a mortgage anymore, as they've had their houses foreclosed.  In 2009^[3], a record 2,824,674 foreclosurestook place, while 2,872,892 foreclosures occurred in 2010^[4].   In other words, 5.7 million families have lost their homes, but at least they're not up all night wondering how they will pay their mortgage.

It just wasn't supposed to be this way, at least in the eyes of the 53% of voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama.  After all, President Obama's policies^[5] were going to reignite the economy and keep the unemploymentrate below 8% at least that is what we were told, thereby making those aforementioned mortgages affordable.  The opposite has occurred. 

In December 2008, President Bush's final full month in office, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.3%.  From that point until December 2010, a period in which Obama benefited from accommodative Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, the unemployment rate rose to 10.1% at one time and remained at or above 9.5% from July 2009 until November 2010. 
This resulted despite unprecedented government spending labeled as "economic stimulus."

What happened?  Instead of a surge in America's economic growth, we've seen a surge in America's deficit.  Under the direction of President Obama, the United States has seen its deficit increase^[6] by more than $3 trillion or by nearly $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Then there was the promise^[7] of "When there's a bill that ends up on my desk, as President, you, the public, will have five days to look online to find out what's in it before I sign it...." Again, the reality has been the complete opposite. 

Rewind to March 2010, when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in reference to the ObamaCare bill, said^[8], "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."  Really?  I thought that 2,700 page bill would be posted on the Internet for all to view for five days.  Instead, it was rushed through and pushed down our throats, despite most Americans not in favor of it.  Again, Obama failed to deliver, as he has time after time.

We are now just after the halfway point of the Obama presidency.  Based on the facts, we are no better off as a nation than we were when Obama took office.  The average American citizen has failed to see an improvement in his or her lifestyle versus two years ago.  This is a presidency, up to this point, that has been an absolute disaster for our nation and our people.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached atstafko@msn.com^[9]

What's your priority?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq;_ylt=Atnmhg9ECt5u1Etu6f1zOfWs0NUE

In the attached news article, McCain points out the truism that removing troops from Iraq is less important than reducing casualties. Who would disagree that our primary goal in terms of troop levels should be minimization of casualties? He goes on to point out that withdrawing them is his goal but he doesn’t want to do it in a way that puts more of them at risk.

Two prominent Democrats disagree with this assertion: Joe Biden and Harry Reid. This is a time when having a VP nominee to go out and slam them would be great. This is the perfect time where someone should go out and say:

“Joe Biden and Harry Reid are simply echoing the irresponsible line from Barack Obama: that retreat from Iraq is more important than keeping American troops and Iraqi civilians safe. Apparently, having their Presidential nominee state that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to get American troops home is not good enough for the Democrats. They now need other Democratic leaders to say that not only is genocide acceptable but sharp increases in American casualties is acceptable as long as we remove troops. This is unacceptable and naïve.

“The Democrats have been complaining for some time that people question their patriotism. When they come out and say such despicable garbage, when they say flat out that exiting Iraq is more important than keeping our troops safe, how can they not expect people to question their patriotism? Maybe they think that abandoning an ally begging for assistance to be patriotic. Maybe they think that putting civilians in the way of genocide is patriotic. Maybe they think that cutting off funding for troops in the field to make a political point is patriotic. Maybe they think that putting soldiers at needless risk for political gain is patriotic. Maybe they think that increasing American casualties is patriotic. I believe that most Americans would disagree.

“Let me be very, very clear on the topic. Joe Biden and Harry Reid should be deeply ashamed of themselves for their statements today indicating that safeguarding our troops should not be our top priority. The troops in the field of battle deserve better than to have their civilian leaders come out in public and say that their safety is not of tantamount priority.”

Sen. Barack Obama says he clinched the nomination

BARACK OBAMA: Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled; millions of voices have been heard.

And how many were not heard ?

And because of what you said, because you decided that change must come to Washington, because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest, because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey…

Anyone else having a Qui-Gon Jinn vs. Yoda moment? "We must bring balance to the force..." "But the good guys are overwhelmingly winning....wait....."

(APPLAUSE)

… a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.

Because of you, tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to thank — I want to thank all those in Montana and South Dakota who stood up for change today. I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign, through the good days and the bad, from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls.

Didn't Obama lose S. Dakota? Is he thanking the minority or is he thanking the majority who voted for Hillary? Or is he thanking them because in his mind he won it all?

And, tonight, I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.

At this defining moment, at this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for office.

I have not just competed with them as rivals. I've learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

Oh crap....these are the leaders?

And that is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

She has made history not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

Vince Foster has no comment...

I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota, and I congratulate her on the race that she has run throughout this contest.

(APPLAUSE)

We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago, what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady, what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency: an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.

That wasn't my impression of why Hillary gets up in the morning.

And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory.

Thank you...so is he pre-blaming it on her when that plan crumbles or when the plan succeeds and health care crumbles? Why is everyone so blindly lunging towards universal health care when there are so many examples how it DOESN'T work?

(APPLAUSE)

When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.

Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I'll say one thing, the Republicans are better off from Obama vs. Clinton :)

(APPLAUSE)

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well, I say that, because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time.

1. I can feel the unity among the Democrats
2. Aren't there Americans who cast their first ballot in every election? It happens when people turn 18....Obama-mania not withstanding...

(APPLAUSE)

There are independents and Republicans who understand this election isn't just about a change of party in Washington, but also about the need to change Washington.

There are young people, and African-Americans, and Hispanic- Americans, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

Umm...nothing about Asians?

(APPLAUSE)

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that…

(APPLAUSE)

You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing.

We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say: Let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

A future of running, hiding, surrendering, and sucking more than post-bastille France? Oh, don't forget pandering to dictators. No offense France.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically.

(APPLAUSE)

I honor, we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.

1. Passive aggressive much?
2. What accomplishments? He still hasn't named any?

(APPLAUSE)

My differences with him — my differences with him are not personal. They are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign, because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

I voted for George Bush twice. I'm sold. Thanks Barack, I'm set for McCain :)

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college, policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

How much of that mountain of debt is a lack of personal fiscal responsibility??

It's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

Safer than a policy of genocide and turning the United States into a giant vi-jay-jay

So I'll say this: There are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new, but "change" is not one of them.

(APPLAUSE)

"Change" is not one of them, because change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

I'm not even going to bother with that

(APPLAUSE)

I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

Or he is ignoring General Petraeus...?

(APPLAUSE)

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but we — but start leaving we must.

Careful genocide....as opposed to careless genocide? I suppose if you are going to let an entire people get wiped out you don't want to leave any stragglers...

It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will second strengthening the military and better benefits for the VA. Since the government did such a crappy job, how about privatizing it?

(APPLAUSE)

It's time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

1. A group that has no allegiance to a land is not restrained in said land...Just because the NY Times won't call it AQI, even when AQI says we're AQI, doesn't make it not AQI...
2. How are you going to fight terrorists if you won't fight terrorists? I'm going to start calling him Obama the Ostrich.
3. I vomited in my mouth a little.
4. I thought he was ok with genocide? Or is only genocide by disease he will fight. I suppose you can't negotiate without preconditions with a virus or a bacterium.
5. What is change? The threats are change? Rallying is change? Is it just that he is changing his mind on what he said before?

Change, Minnesota, is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy: tough, direct diplomacy, where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.

Tough, direct, diplomacy where the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know that they can have what ever they want without preconditions with a legitimized discussion with the president. Hell, maybe I should become a dictator...I don't even need to be "Terrible" or "Magnificent" or even "Corrupt"...all I need to hit is petty, and I can have an audience with the US. Hmm...I'll need to do something to get above "Apathetic", and I'll need to work on my oppression skills. And my nunchuk skills...

(APPLAUSE)

We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That's what the American people demand. That's what change is.

Umm...let's see....Invaded Europe, Nuked Japan, Invaded Cuba....All Obama is willing to invade is my bank account... If that's what the demand is, can someone check on how many US Soldiers were killed in combat actions directed by each of those Presidents?

(APPLAUSE)

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.

So why is he taking away my George Bush given tax break?? I am middle-class! I'm not one of the uber-wealthy like Sean & Tanya with their mansions (oh wait...), their fleet of expensive cars (oh wait...), their entourage of servants, all minorities of course (oh wait...), their champagne dreams and caviar wishes (well...they might have those) ;)

(APPLAUSE)

It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.

Umm...riding a boom that was already in motion? Why didn't I think of that....Obama you are s-a-m-r-t-er than me...

(APPLAUSE)

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Kind of like when Obama came to Detroit (oh wait...) a suburb is close enough, right? It was close enough for Michael Moore since he grew up in Flint....right?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy.

Am I healthy and wealthy? I need that on a T-Shirt!

She needs us to pass health care right now, a plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Isn't his plan post-procedure insurance? How will that bring down premiums? How will it be cheaper if he bankrupts the insurance companies?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators.

Then LET US DRILL HERE! What was Obama's vote for ANWR?????

That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Hmm...so let's see, all auto workers lose their jobs, corporation workers lose their jobs, oil company workers lose their jobs. I guess it won't matter since there will be no cars made for the no oil people can't afford. What's the millions of new jobs...unemployment line place holder?

(APPLAUSE)

And maybe if John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.

How about instead of an army of new teachers, we give America a division of qualified teachers? How about that? And no offense, but I get annoyed when people start talking about privilege vs. rights. I have the right to free speech and bear arms and due process. I don't have the right to go to college. I'm sorry, in a perfect world everyone would get to go to college. But in reality, 1. college is not for everyone. 2. It's not a right, billions of people in the world do not get to go to college. By calling it a right, you set up the expectation that the metaphorical I gets to go to college for free without working for it. College is 1. a privilege you have to earn, and 2. you get more out of it if you have to earn it, in my opinion. It's like the right to vote...it is not a right, it is the privilege of a good law-abiding citizen.

That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for president of the United States.

Insert pithy comment. I hope he gets Mondale-d

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing. That is a debate I look forward to.

Can we quote him on that? I do look forward to that debate...

(APPLAUSE)

It is a debate that the American people deserve on the issues that will help determine the future of this country and the future for our children.

But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon…

I don't know...it seems to me that the primaries of the Democrats were pretty much governed by fear, innuendo, and division. Or was he saying that he got it all out of his system at this point.

(APPLAUSE)

What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Then why does he want America to lose? If he wants America to lose, and he is an American first, then by logic he wants to lose and we should all vote for McCain to give him what he wants!

(APPLAUSE)

Despite what the good senator from Arizona may have said tonight, I've seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I've brought many together myself.

I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the south side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.

Like Rev. Wright and that Ayer guy? Hmm....there was a reason everyone told me to stay away from the South Side of Chicago.

I've sat across the table from law enforcement officials and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent 13 innocent people to death row.

And how many guilty people were set free from prison? How many monsters physically can't do anything anymore because they're dead. I'm not trying to excuse mistaken executions, and I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty (or you can convince a jury that the crime you wrote on your company check is not a crime), but in no other country do death row inmates get appeals (Sean, check me on that). So while it is an imperfect system, people are an imperfect species, how do you attain perfection from imperfect minds?

I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break, to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent, and reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

cite your source Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because, behind all the false labels and false divisions and categories that define us, beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes.

Unless you're a church-goer, a gun-owner, or a blue collar worker

And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union, and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines, the women who shattered glass ceilings, the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better and kinder and more just.

And so it must be for us.

Did he just compare himself to Revolutionary War vets, Civil War vets, WW2 vets, and Civil Rights activists?

(APPLAUSE)

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past…

(APPLAUSE)

… our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge — I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

What are they? What do you feel are your limitations, Senator?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

umm..Jesus? I'm sorry...Moses?

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

I suppose it is easy to end a war, when you give up...he wants the US to give the military equivalent of a soccer own-goal.
Last, best hope on Earth? Wasn't that the tag line for a super-hero?

(APPLAUSE)

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Thank you, Minnesota. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Unless you're his spiritual minister for the last 20 years....I guess we should be glad someone apparently slept through church for 20 years....

The London Times comments on the election...so I comment on the London Times

Yes it's politically incorrect but race matters
The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain
Anatole Kaletsky
The London Times
April 24, 2008

American Presidential elections have been compared with reality TV series or game shows, in which a gaggle of jumped-up nonentities aspiring to be celebrities are ritually humiliated in public and offered entertaining opportunities to self-destruct, until only one survivor remains. But this time round, a much more elevated analogy is sadly apposite.

Whose fault is that? How do you as a party lose the 2004 election? Talk about a handicapped gimme....It's like playing golf against Tiger Woods except before the game your friends have slipped him a roofie, broke both of his hands and replaced his clubs with a limp ramen noodle. I think the 2004 victory by Pres. Bush is less a commentary on the American people and more on the utter unqualifications of the Democratic candidates.

The 2008 US election has all the makings of a Greek tragedy, in which noble heroes and heroines are forced to follow a course to catastrophe, divinely preordained as punishment for sins and blunders committed by their forefathers in the dim and distant past. In acting out their ineluctable doom, the eloquent protagonists do not just destroy themselves but also their cities, their nations and even their entire civilisations.

Oh boy....someone loved the lit classes in college... I think there were more adjectives in this sentence then anything else.

If this description sounds too grandiose, consider yesterday's results from the Pennsylvania primary. The outcome seemed to be precisely calibrated by the gods to maximise the agony of the Democrats. It gave Hillary Clinton just the support she needed to stay firmly in contention, but not quite enough to turn the tide in her favour.

By grandiose, do you mean uppity? And please... is the outcome a Greek tragedy or just the result of having 2 equally ambitious and minimally if at all qualified candidates (for their own reasons) squaring off for their own success? If they truly believed that a Dem should run the country for the sake of the country and/or the party, why did someone not just drop out and ask for VP? this democratic primary season is an early Christmas present for the GOP, and I very purposefully say Christmas present and not "holiday present".

Worse still, this result underlined the fear that senior Democrats have long been aware of, but have never dared to express in public: America may not yet be ready to elect a black President. Worst of all, it has created conditions for the possible election victory of a militarily belligerent and economically unqualified Republican candidate who supports many of President Bush's worst policies. Given the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign failures, the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and, most recently, the slump in the economy, the possibility of a Republican victory in November would seem to overturn every principle of proper democracy - and also the hope of America and its system of government being rehabilitated in the eyes of the world after the Bush years. The fact that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both such impressive candidates, intelligent, sincere, articulate and in command of the issues, while John McCain does not qualify on any of these criteria only makes matters worse.

1. Could it be not that America is not ready, and more that a 1st term Senator with the same foreign policy experience as my 12 year old cousin, the attitude toward genocide of Pol Pot, and the health care plan of Elmo from Sesame Street is not a qualified candidate? 2. By militarily belligerent does he mean not a giant vi-jay-jay (not sure if Websense will have issue with the actual word) ? I can think of nobody better than McCain that is running with a true sense of the cost of war... 3. Why is it that Dems always seem to have the attitude that the president rules like a king, with no advisors, counsel, and completely and solely based on themselves? I mean not everyone can invent the internet and save the planet with the ingenious plan of starving third world countries with rising food prices so they can't cause pollution for the rest of us? Still, I wonder...HOW DO YOU WIN AN ACADEMY AWARD AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WITH THE SAME 2 HOURS OF WORK??? Wouldn't the "achievement in film" and "peace prize" inherently describe 2 probably very different areas of accomplishment?? 4. Disasters and failures? Don't even need to go there, somebody just smack him and take away his sippy cup. He needs to go home and learn to walk and talk at the same time without sounding like a preschooler. 5. I can find no possible explanation how either Obama or Clinton are sincere or in command of the issues. I tap out, if this is the way the country truly believes, I wonder if Thomson has any offices in Australia...

That Mrs Clinton will now carry on with her campaign is not just probable but essential. For the voting in Pennsylvania confirms that she has a much better chance than Mr Obama of winning the White House for the Democrats. According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

To me race is a non-issue as is gender. I don't know any other Republicans to whom race is a issue more than qualifications, experience, and future strategies. It seems to me, that it's always the ones who whine about race and equality (mind you, not legitimately complain, but whine) are the ones for whom it is a an electability issue which can change their vote.

Given that Mrs Clinton's clear victory over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania followed similar results in other "must-win" states with large working-class constituencies, such as Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and even New York and California, the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race. This is especially true now that the televised rantings of Rev Jeremiah Wright and Mr Obama's own gaffe about the "bitter" white working-class culture of "guns and God", have reminded Americans that race is not just a matter of skin colour. Rev Wright embarrassingly revealed in his "God damn America" and "Chickens come home to roost" sermons that his African-American vision of America is be profoundly at odds with the white majority view.

Does Michigan and Florida really count as clear victories for Clinton? I mean beating nothing is a win....I suppose. I do note that Rev Wright is brought up as a sign a political mis-speak, not as a potential issue when looking at a presidential candidates advisers and personal counsel.

The latest polls in the two most important swing states show Mr McCain easily beating Mr Obama in both Florida and Ohio, while Mrs Clinton comfortably beats the Republican in Ohio and is neck and neck in Florida.

Mr Obama has, of course, apologised for his condescension towards working-class church-goers and hunters - probably the most important group of floating voters in the electorally critical mid-Western states. He has tried even harder to dissociate himself from Rev Wright's anti-American tirades, which really have to be seen (on YouTube) to be believed. And Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to "negative campaigning" and "scorched-earth" strategies in her desperation to stay in contention.

Note: Dear Hillary. Please continue the scorched earth strategies. It is delicious, it's like gold when it touches your lips. Thank you, Eric.

The trouble is that Mr Obama's efforts to suppress the race issue are doomed to failure. For the influence of Rev Wright on him is a matter of public record. Indeed, the phrase "Audacity of Hope", which is the title of Mr Obama's political autobiography as well as his presidential leitmotif, is attributed in that book to a sermon by "my pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright". The Republican political machine, which demonstrated its mastery of the arts of character assassination in the two Bush presidential contests, will have no compunction in exploiting the Wright relationship and portraying Mr Obama as an anti-American in the general election, even if the Clinton campaign and the media observe a self-denying ordinance on the race and patriotism issues, as they broadly have so far.

Demonstrated art of character assassination? Then what the Dems do, character apocalypse? I have seen no one more completely and totally attack the personal character of people than Democrats. Is it character assassination to bring attention toward Wright for everything he has said? Or is it a legitimate look at a candidates personal friend and spiritual adviser?

The certainty of a no-holds-barred attacks by the Republicans brings us to the potentially most tragic aspect of this election. If ever there was an election the Democrats ought to win this is the one. Yet on the basis of the primary results so far, they are all too likely to lose it. Mr Obama may be marginally ahead of Mrs Clinton in the popular vote but the Democrats seem to have forgotten that all the votes cast so far have been by their own supporters. In the general election their candidate will have to win over Republicans and right-leaning floating voters. Most of the evidence so far suggests that the Repulicans will find it much easier to frighten voters about the prospect of a President Obama than a President Clinton.

If there was ever an election that the Democrats should win it was 2004. But let's not dwell on the utter and complete failure of the DNC, which should be expected considering their core is MoveOn, Code Pink, and all of the leftover eco-nazi, communist, hippies who had nothing to do when all of their ideologies failed on their respective merits or lack thereof.

Professional Democratic politicians now have the casting vote in their party's nomination and could yet force the two candidates into a "dream ticket" led by Mrs Clinton with Mr Obama as Vice President which would sweep all before it and would probably make Mr Obama unbeatable as a presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016. Yet the Democratic superdelegates who could now secure years of hegemony for their party seem to consider it "unfair" to use their professional judgment to overturn the "democratic" verdict of primary voters.

By professional democratic politicians do they mean "Oh crap the voters have too much power so let's change the rules so the candidates can buy our nominations"? Is the article really advocating the buying of votes of to secure "hegemony"? The one fair thing the superdelegates could do is vote the way of the party....isn't that what primaries are for? And if you had a dream ticket, so to speak, is anyone else picturing a west side story style showdown between Obama and Clinton in the oval office?

The Republicans will have no such compunctions about the fairness of launching personal attacks against a potentially vulnerable Democratic candidate. In this respect this Presidential contest may again manifest the tragedy of left-wing politics through the ages. Parties which care more about fairness than about power, end up achieving neither.

Are they vulnerable candidates or are they candidates which have a lot of quality weaknesses? Is it a personal attack to complain that McCain is too old? Because I've already seen that. Is it a personal attack to say he is unqualified because he isn't an economist? If that's the case, then Hillary and Barack have absolutely no business being president because of their foreign policy which consists of making up stories worthy of an episode of 24 dodging snipers in a helicopter and playing tag with a bunch of yellow children in grade school. The tragedy of left-wing politics is that they are the only ones that don't see the weaknesses transparent in their party, and then they wonder what went wrong. Tanya, what was that definition of insanity again? And since when have the Dems ever cared more about fairness than about power? The Clintons....really?

END RANT....McCain 2008, Rice 2012, Petreaus 2016

An Agent for Change?

Senator Obama makes much of being an "agent of change". He along with Mr. Edwards, represents himself as an outsider who seeks to change the "good old boy" network which is, admittedly, in too much control of the process. However, the hypocrisy of this stance is staggering.

If Senator Obama was truly dedicated to ending the "special interests" that dominate politics, he would have gone into the early primary system differently. Instead of repudiating a corrupt system focusing on special interests, moving from a convention and caucus primary system to an election, he has actively worked with his party to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan. For someone who says he stands against backroom politics, he's gone well out of his way to commit himself to them.

When is Hitch going to shut up?

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens yanks out yet another protracted column about how it's perfectly fine for him to discriminate against particular political candidates on the basis of religion. Going further, he argues that everyone should discriminate against candidates based on religious viewpoints.

What is so shocking is that Hitchens famously belongs to the group which faces the most widespread religious discrimination: he's an atheist. According to a recent Gallup poll, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist.

This begs a question: When you're in the most oppressed of the minorities, why are you encouraging oppression?

Dickerson lays it to the State Dems

This is sheer brilliance. Brian Dickerson of the Free Press slaps around the idiocy of the Democratic leaders and their continued pursuit at Michigan voter disenfranchisement.

Salvaging the primary wreckage
The Detroit Free Press

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Michigan's Democratic leaders have figured out a way to make participation in their party's Jan. 15 primary even more meaningless.

Most observers figured the Democrats' primary fiasco had reached bottom last month, when Democratic state lawmakers couldn't muster the votes to assure that all their party's presidential candidates would appear on the Michigan ballot.

But now, in a new voter guide unveiled this week, state party leaders are urging voters who support any of the four Democrats who've dropped out of the Michigan primary to cast their ballots for "Uncommitted," effectively ceding their voices to an unknown slate of electors to be named later in party caucuses across the state.

That's right, citizens: The same party regulators who collaborated to render Michigan's vote a meaningless footnote to the Democratic presidential contest want your proxy to do as they please at the party's nominating convention.

If that's your idea of participatory democracy, I'd suggest a write-in vote for Vladimir Putin.

Would Sen. Clinton supporters vote for "Hillary Smith?"

Yet more bigoted, sexist drivel from a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Maybe Robin Gerber needs to step back and analyze her own prejudices. She honestly thinks that Hillary Clinton would be viewed differently if she was a man? Let's just set aside the straw man arguments that Ms. Gerber is postulating here, the waffling on abortion (a charge I've not personally heard) and on the war (a charge which rings very true) - her detractors are a little more concerned about things like the "vast right-wing conspiracy," her methods of dealing with the media, her former business dealings, the censorship of her notes and papers from her time as First Lady, the mysterious death of a former associate, the secrecy surrounding the Clinton White House, and the people who work for her engaged in personal destruction while working for her husband.

To address specifically the straw-man arguments and bigoted suggestions in the article. Hillary Clinton is neither effective nor qualified for the position. There is not a single piece of significant legislation she has enacted. She has never run a single thing in her life - never run a business, a city, a state, an Executive department, or even a legislative committee. She has accomplished exactly nothing as a legislator, as a First Lady, as a business manager, or as a lawyer. Further, the entire sum of her qualifications are 8 years in Congress. By that measure, there are - literally - hundreds of other lawmakers who are at least as qualified as she is.

The issue is, and always has been, that Hillary Clinton is an unsuitable candidate because of who she is - not that she happens to have two X chromosomes. Plenty of other female candidates would be much more suitable, most notably Christie Todd Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, Madeline Albright, Janet Napolitano, or Mary Jodi Rell. All of those women have actual accomplishment, have actual qualifications, and have actually led. Elizabeth Dole, in particular, is extremely well qualified.

The bottom line, however, is that the real question Ms. Gerber should be posting is not "would you vote for Hillary Clinton" but, rather, "would you vote for Hillary Smith."

Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
NewsDay.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It's not the voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.

A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the start dilemma that competent women face. In "the Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.

Democrats: Every vote must count!

The Democrats have finally, officially voted to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan. Not only will the Democratic Presidential contenders not campaign in Michigan, not only have half of them pulled out of the race, but the Democratic National Convention has now officially made it clear that no Michigan vote will count.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer apparently expects that the Democratic presidential nominee will make sure that Michigan's delegates will be counted at the convention. If it's a close race, however, and Michigan's delegates will make the difference - don't count on democracy to win out.

Democrats punish Michigan for early primary
MSNBC News

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5.

Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

CNN Republican Debate

Regarding the controversy over the unscreened (and biased) questioners on the CNN Republican debate Wednesday night, my quick pair of pennies:

1¢: I tend to value the substance of the question more than the questioner. I like that they faced hard questions, although I wished that when the Democrats debated in the same format, they had the same quality questions.

2¢: My understanding of this debate's format was that these were supposed to be members of the American Public at the very least, preferentially undecided likely Republican voters and caucus goers. Instead, we get questions from activists in CAIR, LGBT Americans for Hillary, United Steelworkers of America, and about another half dozen groups. This should not have been the "CNN/Special Interest Debate." We already have too many problems in this country with special interests, we don't need CNN giving them special access to Presidential candidates.

CNN hit for planted questions
The Washington Times

CNN intended for political sparks to fly during Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, but outrage and accusations of partisanship were directed at the network instead.

The backlash started after it turned out that a homosexual retired soldier asking about "don't ask, don't tell" has an affiliation with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The network was forced to apologize and scrubbed the exchange from its repeat of the two-hour debate, even though the Clinton campaign says retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was not acting on behalf of the Democratic presidential front-runner.

But things spiraled downward for CNN yesterday as bloggers - a more natural audience for a debate co-hosted by YouTube - held each questioner under a magnifying glass and found anti-Republican links ranging fro the Council on American-Islamic Relations to a pro-Democratic labor union. The network defended its choice of questioners and noted that it drew 5 million viewers - the most-watched primary debate every.

Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos - on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform - came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.

"Would it have killed CNN to Google some of these people?" conservative blogger Jason Coleman asked.

Funniest story of the day...

This is one of the most idiotic stories I've recently read.

Tom Baldwin of The Times of London accused Matt Drudge of conspiring with Hillary Clinton to bolster her campaign while taking cheap shots at The Times of London.

Could you ever imagine Matt Drudge trying to help out Hillary Clinton? Hasn't The Times of London heard of Monica Lewinski? Could you ever imagine Hillary Clinton, of all people, looking to Matt Drudge as an ally?

It must be the guilt, fermenting within him, of directly causing the impeachment of our country's best President (well, at least the best President that was in office when Clinton was impeached).

Even better - this is an author who is defending his paper against a perceived accusation of spreading innuendo. How does this author mount a defense? By spreading innuendo: "Why would a 'Hillary confidante' do such a thing? The mind boggles. Could it be to provide cover for other - alleged - activities at Camp Clinton and its surrounding outposts?"

History according to a "Hillary confidante" (and Matt Drudge)
The Times of London

My collegue, Tim Reid, travelled down to South Carolina last week where he soon found himself up to his ankles in what he described as the "foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America".

Tim wrote about some of the smears and innuendos already floating by in the Palmetto state. His second paragraph reported some of the extraordinary allegations being spread about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson and, oh yes, Hillary Clinton.

The purpose of this report (read it for yourselves) was not to suggest these claims were true, but to provide a measure of their nasty. For instance, I'm pretty sure Obama is not a "Muslim extremist".

Tim's article was duly picked up on Thursday by the Drudge Report and that, we thought was that.

Quote of the Day

"Those of you who live in Iowa, you have this extraordinary privilege. You are going to decide, more than probably any other American who the next president is going to be, who the next leader of the free world is going to be -- So I hope you all decide to take advantage of this opportunity."

- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to a crowd in Iowa.

Note also that Barack Obama has cooperated with the DNC's efforts to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida, going so far as to removing his name from the Michigan primary ballots. What concerns me the most about Barack Obama is that he seems to exemplify the Liberal Elite position: choosing the next leader of our country is a "privilege" which is dolled out by the powerful to certain special groups at the exclusion of others; voting is not a right to the Liberal Elite or to Barack Obama; it is a "privilege" which is allocated in "extraordinary" fashion, with differing weights given to different votes based on arbitrary historical esotary, the whims of the powerful, or whatever special interest happens to have either the ear or the pocketbook of the decision-makers.

Hitch is again off his rocker

I'm generally a fan of Christopher Hitchens' writing. Even when he's writing about something that I stridently disagree with, he usually does so with intelligence, thoughtful purpose, and passion. Today's article published in Slate, however, has little of that. Mr. Hitchens questions why Mitt Romney shouldn't be asked about his faith and questions Gov. Romney's assertion that it is un-American to bring up faith as a qualification for the office of President.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the issue and answers both questions flawlessly: Article VI states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That does include Mormonism, no matter how personally repugnant Mr. HItchens may consider its tenants or how fickle he considers their positions. He goes on to slander the religion by comparing it to the KKK and to the Nation of Islam, both groups which have religious identities but not religions in their own right.

What's particularly surprising about the issue is that Mr. Hitchens' own religious views as an atheist would be more objectionable to most voters that Gov. Romney's views as a Mormon. We live in a nation where voters would rather have a fundamentalist Muslim or a Mormon as President than an atheist. Instead of trying to stir up religious persecution of a minority group that he finds offensive, he should shut up so as not to stir up further persecution of individuals with whom he shares ideology.

Mitt the Mormon
Why Romney Needs To Talk About His Faith
Fighting Words for Slate

Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon "push pull" calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was "un-American" to bring up his "faith," especially "at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving," whatever that had to do with it. Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemmingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the ant-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's a three card monte.

According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it's working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it's off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenents of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Rob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons! However, we do have the governor in an off-guard moment in Iowa, saying that "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. ...And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. ...The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to hear how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

A win for democracy in Michigan...

The Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated Michigan's January 15th primary.

Michigan court OKs early primary
USA Today

LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary is a go again.

Overturning a pair of lower court rulings, a majority of the state Supreme Court Wednesday morning found the law setting the primary date and granting exclusive access to voter lists from it to the Democratic and Republican parties was not unconstitutional.

The 4-3 decision, after a string of setbacks for the seemingly star-crossed election, means the vote can be held as planned.

State election officials had said they needed to know the primary's fate by noon Wednesday to have time to prepare and deliver absentee ballots.

The court majority said reserving lists of voters (sorted by which primary ballot is chosen at the polls) to the two parties was within the authority of the Legislation and governor when they approved the primary bill last summer.