Angelos throwing money away...
by brooklynlovesorioles on Mar 20, 2008 1:39 PM EDT
75 comments
This article from the LA times details Hillary Clinton's quest to get a re-do in the Michigan Primary.
Of note for Orioles fans?
Ten donors to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign offered Wednesday to give Michigan $12 million to hold a rerun of its Democratic primary.
The group includes Los Angeles investor Haim Saban; Fred Eychaner, a Chicago contributor who made his fortune in TV and radio; and three attorneys: Peter G. Angelos, who owns the Baltimore Orioles baseball team; John Eddie Williams Jr. of Houston; and Calvin C. Fayard Jr. of Louisiana.
Read it all here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-michigan20mar20,1,691306.story
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Y'know
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions
I'm cool with it
Rocky Cherry, son of Merry Cherry.
Um
that's fine
Rocky Cherry, son of Merry Cherry.
They did vote
by brooklynlovesorioles on Mar 20, 2008 2:55 PM EDT reply actions
2632
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Obama
I thought his Philly speech was pretty damn good. But you're right, he's being boxed in as the black candidate which isn't good.
Rocky Cherry, son of Merry Cherry.
Philly speech
I fear it's not enough though. The sad truth too often is that people don't respond to nuance but that they do respond to negative politics. I wish I was wrong, and maybe I am, but I think he'll need both the carrot & the stick to win.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Against Hillary or McCain?
Additionally, because he's run on this platform of hope and change and new style of politics, he's held to a higher standard on this stuff. If he runs a negative ad, it's going to garner a lot of attention in the media and it could expose him to even more backlash than is typical.
"It would behoove the Orioles to play better." - Jim Palmer
going negative
Yeah, I remember hearing either Obama or people from campaign say repeatedly that he won't go negative. Sorry JP.
Rocky Cherry, son of Merry Cherry.
It's politics.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
re
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Bear in mind
Re: media perception - I have no idea what it will take to get the media off McCain's nuts (sorry for the imagery).
"It would behoove the Orioles to play better." - Jim Palmer
It is early.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear ya
Did anyone else see Huckabee defending Obama on this the other day? That guy is full of surprises.
"It would behoove the Orioles to play better." - Jim Palmer
Check Yahoo's
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I should clarify
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it possible that you represent
Besides, why worry about the polls? Polls don't win elections. Even popular vote does not directly lead to a win. From what I've seen, Clinton has little chance of over taking Obama and clinching the nomination. It appears her best chance is to woo the uncommitted super delegates. That's more back room politics than what is said on the campaign trail. If Barack is going to get his hands dirty, that's where he needs to do it.
It's certainly possible.
Now I'm not suggesting Obama even stoop as low as Hillary, as a matter of fact I'd be disappointed if he did. But I don't think it's unreasonable to remind people why they dislike Hillary as much as they do. I don't think it will be too hard to do either.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 21, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd agree he needs to fight back.
There isn't much to differentiate between the two from a policy standpoint. The biggest difference is one will claim "experience" while the other can claim "fresh perspective". If Obama can refrain from attack ads, it helps maintain his claim to being a new sort of candidate. Were I giving him advice, I'd play off that, and point out that Hillary's attacks are nothing more than business as usual from a desperate candidate, then start in on issues.
I don't get it either
Instead he's sitting passively while he gets the crap kicked out him by someone who has enough bagged to need her own bellhop.
Let's see him do something. I'm sick of this. The one advantage of old-school political machine candidates is they weren't pushed around. Why is he allowing himself to be?
And...?
Dude
Last I checked Angelos owns the Orioles and this is a news item about him. You don't seem to be so laissez-faire about the way he spends money on the team so get off people's asses if they want to rag on the way he spends it on something else.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Ha!
HA!
by Awesome Mike Awesome on Mar 20, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Now
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok so
by Awesome Mike Awesome on Mar 20, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
re:
Please don't talk about yourself. It's bad enough you're here discussing things you have nothing to do with.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
just remember
by Reddrummer9187 on Mar 20, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, well...
re:
With jerks like you, hell yeah. I'm supposed to feel bad about this?
who needs to get the least word...always.
The word is "last". Spellcheck next time you feel like talking shit. And I don't need it always, just until my point is made, which shouldn't take too long with you.
So go ahead, prick...the floor is yours.
Feel better now? Got it all out?
It's telling how when someone calls you out on some bullshit you immediately fly off the handle and launch into a personal tirade. But that's you isn't it?
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Ha!
by Awesome Mike Awesome on Mar 20, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Also
by Awesome Mike Awesome on Mar 20, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I put this
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah, will never happen
At least WE own up to the fact our ownership is clueless and our players suck. Boston fans never did that. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
I remember 14 straight foul balls in one at-bat.
Can you imagine it...
A Dickheaded Boston Red Sox fan comes to see the error of his ways with a little help from the Ghosts of Baseball's Past, Present & Future - then repents and learns to live in the full glory of a sport he formerly used as merely a sounding board to shit out his own personal insecurities and bitterness on rival teams' blogs.
I smell Daytime Emmy.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 22, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
yeesh
Re: RobG, I just thought O's fans might want to know where Angelos was spending his money, since a common complaint is that he's too tight with it when it comes to the team. Certainly seemed to be a general feeling when Markakis' contract was renewed.
Didn't say anything about his not being allowed to, just that I wish it was going to the team. It's not everyday you see the O's mentioned in a paper other than the sun afterall.
by brooklynlovesorioles on Mar 20, 2008 3:03 PM EDT reply actions
really?
by jq higgins on Mar 20, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
re:
Anyhow, regardless of whether it is proper to rerun elections (I think no), Angelos is free to spend his money where he pleases. He's also spent plenty of money on other causes, they don't get such press. We're just interested in whether he'll make the O's any good. I can only hope he has that on the top of his priority list and can check his ego to let it happen.
This is Birdland
rerun primaries
I don't want this to turn into a debate over the ethics of whether to rerun a primary, but can I get your quick take as to why it's a bad idea (and not for reasons that simply involve partisan justifications)?
Rocky Cherry, son of Merry Cherry.
It depends how it's re-run
For example, the Clinton campaign's proposal (the one Angelos has offred to donate money to) is to have a re-vote with ONLY registered Democrats allowed to vote. This is despite the fact that the primary in January was an OPEN primary. Because they thought their votes wouldn't count on the Dem side, many registered Dems voted Republican in the primary (for Romney, in an effort to stir up opposition to McCain). Most of the voters doing this were Obama supporters, as his name was not on the Michigan ballot, and they had no stake in voting "uncommitted"; they'd rather do something with their votes than have them count for nothing. The Clinton campaign is saying that none of these voters be allowed to participate in the re-do. A blatantly disenfranchising move.
Are there other ways to do a more fair "re-do". Maybe. But you'd have a hard time making it fair for overseas voters, those out-of-state, etc. It's kind of a mess.
MelMo happy again!!
re
My first inclination is that both States knew the party rules and tried to jockey for early influence. In general, ethics do come into play. Why be rewarded with influence now in a very close and contentious race when you blatantly broke the rules in an attempt to do so? Pragmatically, I don't think it would solve much. The two candidates are essentially locked in a tie. I read that Clinton thinks she could win Michigan (FL is out, right?) and push further the argument that she can carry the important big states, but as per the rules, it won't out her over the top. I also read she thinks she has the delegates in Michigan. In any event all the jockeying now is for how to run the election to favor someone. That's ridiculous.
If one believes this is going to the super delegates, and I'm in that camp, the pertinent question is do you seat the delegates?
On a whole, I find the Democratic race very entertaining. The US just might get to see some back room politicking that hasn't happened for years. I like watching how the candidates react under pressure. People might want a coronation, but I personally find it more enlightening when there is some rough politicking. We've seen some warts exposed. That's always interesting.
This is Birdland
I agree with a lot of what you said
Obama leads in primaries won, caucuses won, the popular vote, overall pledged delegates, and money raised.
Hillary only leads in pledged superdelegates, and that lead has dropped in the last month from ~96 to ~36 (i.e., Obama has picked up a net gain of 60 superdelegates).
That's not a tie; that's a clear forerunner and someone trying to catch up.
MelMo happy again!!
The problem is
Well that's not really true. The press knows, but they're not telling anybody. It wasn't until today that the NY Times ran a story saying HRC was in big trouble. The press had it right up until the night of the OH/TX primaries. Before those contests they rightly predicted that if HRC didn't win BIG in both Tx & OH there would be no way in hell she could make it up in the remaining contests. She pulled off a decent margin win in Ohio, but Texas was a draw - with Obama actually ahead after the Caucus results came out. But since then the press has been operating in this pretend land where she still has a chance. Meanwhile the feud continues and the party becomes more fractured. I hope there's some sort of resolution soon, but I doubt there will be.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 20, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
So let's not pay attention to the press.
Well
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 21, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't bother reading the papers any more.
I'd say the foremost example of this is how the economy and the housing market is being covered. I keep hearing the word crisis. When I'm not hearing recession. Like when the news the other night said "A recent poll reveals that 65% of Americans believe the economy is in recession." Do the newscasters bother mentioning the fact that technically, the economy is not in recession? Of course not. A poll of what American's think is not really news, unless what they think is divergent with the facts. Yet the most newsworthy aspect of the poll story was completely ignored.
So, no, I no longer pay attention to what the news channels or the papers put out.
nitpicking
"It would behoove the Orioles to play better." - Jim Palmer
re
Caucuses are a weird animal with their own set of criticisms. Especially the democratic caucuses, which are not secret ballot. That, in my mind, is a fundamental flaw to the notion of fair voting. They tend to have a bunch of arcane rules to favor certain factions. I don't care much about caucus results. Good thing the President isn't chosen that way.
We all knew Clinton's problems coming into the election. At least we are starting to see a little of Obama and his inner circle due to the fact that he has to fight. It's been more enlightening than listening to inspirational but ultimately hollow speechifying (at least for me). McCain has a ton of problems. It's an interesting race.
This is Birdland
And yet...
To completely ignore them, as this table does, is to ignore the will of millions of voters.
So call it a tie all you want, but your table does not paint the whole picture.
Here's a table which actually counts caucuses. It shows that with the caucuses tallied so far, Obama leads by over 700,000 votes. With estimates for the caucuses that haven't yet reported, it's over 800,000 voters, or 3% of the vote.
Is that a "clear choice"? Maybe not, but I'd argue it's not really a "tie" either. 800,000 people is a lot of people.
When you combine the popular vote totals with the other ways of viewing the race, there is, again , a clear front-runner. Add to this the fact that mathematically, Obama will be ahead in all these numbers when all of the contests are over. It's impossible for Clinton to catch up unless Obama drops out of the race.
Lastly, I find Obama's speeches anything but hollow. I honestly will never forget hearing him speak at the Democratic convention in 2004. I literally turned to my wife when the speech ended and said, "he's going to be president someday". I had no idea that day might come so soon.
Whatever anyone feels about Obama on the individual issues, it is undeniable that he is a uniter the likes of which this country has not seen in decades. I, for one, am ready to be spoken to and treated like an adult again; I'm also ready to pitch in and make sacrifices to get this country back on the right track.... if only a leader comes along and actually asks me to do so.
MelMo happy again!!
re:
Obama's speeches have had more substance lately. He's been forced to because he's in a fight. I personally don't get motivated by speeches. Give me a hint that you've aligned your backing to make a little bit of your words a reality and I'll be more inclined to be swayed. One problem that Clinton has made some hay with is the fact that Obama hasn't aligned his own advisers on a consistent message.
As for making sacrifices. If the US can stop pissing away money in Iraq, do you think any politician will then address the real crushing problem facing the US? Namely the fat entitlement system that is Medicare and Social Security? These are projected to substantially increase in cost and overwhelm the budget. Will anyone be able to get the House and Senate to inflict a lot of painful choices on the electorate? Will anyone be able to make Congress stand up to the fat cat industry that's evolved and lines the same politicians' pockets?
You can get excited about a few speeches. I'll get excited when someone starts cracking knuckles to clean up the massive entitlement (corporate and personal) system that's entrenched in the system. Problem is, it's very unlikely to happen and it will take a crisis to force the issue. Economics will force it upon us and it's likely to much more painful by then.
You can charge that I'm just too cynical and pessimistic. But seems to me that vast majority of people I know feel the same. It really doesn't matter who's elected. Your personal favorite might dance around a few issues that interest you (especially getting the hell out of Iraq), but in the end, none of them has the ability, or perhaps even the inclination, to solve the issues that will truly take a massive national sacrifice.
This is Birdland
Unfortunately drj, I think the answer is no.
I also am gravitating toward the opinion that it really doesn't matter who wins, because in the end, not much is going to change.
Not much changing is sounding depressingly like the Orioles. Lord, I hope this season is the start of something different.
Caucuses may have their problems
You can't change the rules mid-game just because they don't suit you, no matter how powerful and "entitled" you may be. Democracy ain't Calvinball.
"It would behoove the Orioles to play better." - Jim Palmer
re:
No one is advocating changing the rules in MI and FL. Exactly what rules are being changed? They broke the Democratic party rules about when to hold a primary and now there is bickering on how to run an election with no precedence. Naturally, each side wants the newly created rules to favor them.
This is Birdland
While we're on the topic,
I'd scrap all three things. What's so bad or hard about one person, one vote?
MelMo happy again!!
This
Another thing I think needs to be done is to shorten up these fucking election seasons. It's gotten to the point where these motherfuckers are campaigning for a full year and a half+ before the Presidential election. Representatives in Congress in competitive districts are campaigning every other fucking year. This shit is ridiculous. In Britain they campaign for Six Weeks then the people vote. None of this bullshit about certain states need to have their say at certain times. No 10 month election cycles. It's as though the horserace has become so important in this country that the fact these three Senators actually have a job people elected them into office to do is completely ignored.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 22, 2008 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions
re
Seems to me our representative democracy has been proven to work fairly well. I don't know the ramifications of abolishing a representative democracy. Perhaps increased regionalism and power concentrated mainly in the most populated areas. This is precisely the fear that smaller states had at the Constitutional Convention. Direct democracy is a system the founding fathers subsequently went to great pains to avoid. If you want one person one vote, do you also want to do away with other entrenched Federalist principles like the Senate? If you are an advocate of pure democracy, it seems that other federalist principles should also be abolished.
This is Birdland
The systems
Checks and Balances is between the Three Branches of the Federal Government and allocates various powers to each branch in order to check or offset the powers in the other branches.
The representative democracy aspect of the Constitution is something different. The common people were never even considered in the initial Constitution, as only white landowners could vote. These landowners were permitted to vote for their Representatives in Congress and in the Presidential Election where in turn an Electoral College would look at the landowners' votes, then cast their own in turn. Senators were initially elected by the State Legislatures.
But as we know this system has changed over time. Now people of all races and genders can vote and land ownership is no longer a requirement. Plus the Senate is now elected directly by the citizenry rather than by the State Legislators. If all these major changes can be made, surely we can get rid of these silly Delegates & Superdelegates (which were just implemented in their current form in the last 30 years in the Democratic Party) as well as the ridiculous Electoral College.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 22, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
checks and balances
The Senate is fundamentally not representative of the one person one vote principle. Each state, the small to large, have equal representation. That's a federalist notion that is central to the Constitution. It doesn't matter who votes for the representatives, the small and large have equal weight in the legislative body.
It is irrelevant that people of many races can vote. The Constitution is specifically designed not to give power to the populace via a direct vote. I don't care who votes. The core issue is representative vs. direct democracy. You are basically saying that representative democracy is ridiculous. I suggest you read up more on why the founding fathers and other political thinkers agree. I'll never claim to be an expert, but at least I can acknowledge the issues and I still come down on the side of the Constitution.
This is Birdland
re:
My point is not that representative democracy is ridiculous. Although honestly I'd prefer we get rid of the Senate and proceed with something closer to a Parliamentary system, that's another matter entirely. I certainly recognize the advantages of having representatives in the legislature (hopefully) doing our work for us. What I am saying is that we do not need an extra, superfluous set of representatives to choose our President and that this function can and should be performed directly by the voters. The system has evolved to the point where essentially that's what the jist of it is anyhow - however there's still room for loopholes, as in the 2000 election. We also certainly do not need an ill designed system of pledged delegates/superdelegates in the primaries.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 23, 2008 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Fuck this
Right now, its too the point with the Hillary people that I think they're supporting a person much more than they are any kind of ideas, which is the last thing politics should be about. I absolutely expect this sort of shit out of Angelos.
Fuck this II
I'll probably lose my right to own firearms and F-150s. Damn. That would suck.
Supreme Court
The F-150 is another story. The oil companies and commodity futures traders seem pretty intent to make the price of gasoline so high that you wouldn't even want the thing. Plus you might get a federal gas tax in the near future.
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 21, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
who cares about your guns
Dude...
JIM Brady was the press secretary who was shot during Reagan's assassination attempt by John Hinkley. His wife started a group that promotes stringent bans on personal handgun ownership. That's where the "Brady Bill" came from.
And you're not exactly doing the cause of personal freedom regarding firearms any favors with your rhetoric here. There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove the efficacy (or lack thereof) of handgun bans in this country in the last 30 years. And most of the research would tend to prove bans don't work.
I remember 14 straight foul balls in one at-bat.
Yeah
you think this is bad
"Indeed"
by Jonnypops on Mar 23, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
the more money PGA spends on hillary...
I tried very hard to be surprised
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080320/cm_thenation/1300860_1
I suppose they deserve each other. We don't deserve having them visited upon us, but we're stuck: we can't get rid of the former and the latter won't play nice or go away.
Good thing I live in Russia or I would find this state of affairs depressing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
SBNation.com Recent Stories
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
