Campaign news and rumors: Cameron Brown Birther edition

There was a diary a few weeks back on Daily Kos

that posted a video of Sarah Palin bookstore groupies who "wanted their country back".  After much of the same, the "interviewer" asked who these people voted for in 2000 and 2004.  The resounding answer:  George W. Bush.  

The interviewer replied, "You voted for Bush?  Twice?  Then you've fucked up my country and you can't have it back."

Priceless.

Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. That way, you're a mile away from him; plus, you have his shoes.

---

by: lakeshoremmm @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 19:21:13 PM UTC

Eric, where's the birtherism?

I don't see how you get birtherism out of that quote.

As to Meltzer, it is an unfortunate parsing of words, but Meltzer could simply have been referring to the other two candidates observationally, as both are indeed men.  It comes off a bit like playing the sexism card, but you have to read a little into it to get there.  I'm not 100% sure how she meant it - but it is hardly the issue of the day that will decide the election.

By the way, Leon, ironically, won a lawsuit in the Dillon case that made residency in petition-circulating irrelevant because its a First Amendment right.  I wonder how much the residency for candidates statute is Constitutional (although candidates face a higher bar constitutionally in terms of speech if the regulations are reasonably related to their function in office).

---

by: wet-chetly @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 06:16:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Answers

Back over the summer, this was code for "Barry Soetero, super secret Muslim commie agent from Kenya, is a-comin' fer yer freedoms!" And, the only way you could protect yourself from this insidious plot was to show up to Congressional townhalls and wave around Zip-loc bags containing your own birth certificate.

...

it is hardly the issue of the day

I think you're reading too much into a post called "Campaign news and rumors."
...
I would seriously hope that you're not seriously suggesting that someone should be allowed to represent a district in which they do not live (Leon's "win" regarded recalls, and has made it simpler for monied interests to continue to buy representative government ... hardly a victory for anyone but those monied interests).

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 14:42:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not argue that ...

Back after the Civil War many northerners went into the South and were elected to various poolitical offices.  It was in fact the Klu Klux Klan that first heavily used the term "carpetbagger," and, indeed, killed many of the carpetbaggers.  The current state of the law on residency is that you are a resident of a place when you decide to be one - period.  That fits with free association and free travel rights.  I'm not arguing that one shouldn't live where the district one represents is, but aside from the difficulty in defining residency, there are some constitutional issues and I'm just raising them - not advocating for them.  And if you oppose term-limits because they restrict voters choices, why not let voters choose whether a non-resident can represent them?

Leon's win might have had the effect you cite, but it also had the effect of being a win for the rights of average people to petition their government.  And I think you can pretty quickly make minces of the meat of your argument by pointing out that Leon himself is hardly a representative of "the monied interests".  Andy Dillon had nearly every monied interest in the State on his side or at least explicitly condemning Leon's side.  Leon's campaigns - almost all of them - were underdog, anti-establishment campaigns that were outspent by opponents hugely, and succeeded or failed on shoestring budgets.  So what if a few wealthy people helped out with some dollars - is only the left entitled to its Soros and Strykers, but all others with money must be regulated?  You really do believe in monopolies.

They were victories (and losses) of the people.  And I think his Dillon effort quite misguided - but still very much a right of the people involved.

---

by: wet-chetly @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:13:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're finding arguments where they don't exist...

First off, I really don't care where Kim Meltzer lives. She's not going to be my state senator. I'm merely pointing people to a news article here that may be relevant and interesting to them. At the time this article was published, one of her prominent opponents was calling her a carpetbagger who doesn't actually live in the district.  She tried to make that criticism about her being a woman.

As for whether we should let people who don't live in districts run to represent districts, I think this is the kind of thinking that has created such a political mess in the first place.  People should be elected to represent districts, and not either themselves or their political party.  They should at least have a residence in the district to show some commitment they wish to represent ... if for no other reason than to give aggrieved constituents someplace to put to the torch if deemed so appropriate.

I'm also curious how you think Leon's recall lawsuit can be described as anything akin to a victory for regular people so soon after news broke that people involved in the recall campaign he ran, in a district that isn't his own, were charged with felonies related to it.  This works for both sides of the coin, by the way, and is not some silly "You wish to have your cake and eat it, too" game. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to disperse his nine ringwraiths to gather signatures in Tom McMillan's district to recall the guy because they don't like him.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:47:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bishop

Bishop has been carrying the GOP water against Granholm for 4 years from a position of prominence. He will get the nod and probably win. When you sell your soul to the Devil, the Devil pays his debts. I'm just thankful he didn't run for Gov.

---

by: Mitch @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 12:34:15 PM UTC