This is infuriating

[Penn]

I think it was on the Brit Hume newscast, this evening, that a tiny tidbit came to light, as to what really drove him to his knees; why Sen. Dick Durbin felt it was time to make an apology, concerning his remarks:

Seems that the mayor of Chicago, some guy named Daley, was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that Durbin's remarks were outrageous and over the top, that he should in fact apologize for comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Nazi prisons/deathcamps and the Soviet gulags, etc., where millions had died.

Then, our Senator from Illinois, feeling the preceived heat from such an influential mayor as Mr. Daley, decided it was time to fess up.

Mr Daley, meanwhile, advised that the Senator had indeed taken his message to heart, and was about to issue an apology - called the Senator to assure him he meant no harm - only to find out, that at that particular moment, our Senator from Illinois was on the Senate floor delivering that same apology!

OOPs!!
I'm sorry just ain't gonna cut it!

 

[willie]

The tears were when he realized this is probably his last term in office. Phony.

 

[rraley]

The tears were when he realized this is probably his last term in office. Phony.

Yeah, Durbin, whether you like it or not, is gonna stay in his position for as long as he wants (he constantly receives large majorities in his reelection campaigns and the GOP in Illinois is kinda like the Democratic Party in Idaho - nonexistent).

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, Durbin, whether you like it or not, is gonna stay in his position for as long as he wants (he constantly receives large majorities in his reelection campaigns and the GOP in Illinois is kinda like the Democratic Party in Idaho - nonexistent).

His problem won't be a Republican - it will be other Democrats who smell the blood in the water and would like to have his job.

PS, this is me, Vrai, not Larry

 

[Christy]

Ahhh...I see you've met the President of Christyvrainia!

I won't even comment on the subject matter, it just burns my britches too much.

 

[vraiblonde]

I won't even comment on the subject matter, it just burns my britches too much.

I changed my siggy in honor of you

 

[ylexot]

Yeah, Durbin, whether you like it or not, is gonna stay in his position for as long as he wants (he constantly receives large majorities in his reelection campaigns and the GOP in Chicago is kinda like the Democratic Party in Idaho - nonexistent).

:fixed: Illinois is predominantly red...except for Chicago which dominates the state.

 

[2ndAmendment]

:fixed: Illinois is predominantly red...except for Chicago which dominates the state.

Kind of like the Communist Republiks of Kalifornia, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts; they are predominately red states except for the major urban areas which dominate.

 

[rraley]

:fixed: Illinois is predominantly red...except for Chicago which dominates the state.

Regardless, Durbin isn't going down.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Kind of like the Communist Republiks of Kalifornia, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts; they are predominately red states except for the major urban areas which dominate.

But it's supposed to be a count of the people, not the land. This is why electoral votes should be divided. That what people really feel that their vote went to the person they voted for.

 

[vraiblonde]

But it's supposed to be a count of the people, not the land.

The problem is that the urbanites shouldn't be able to rule over the ruralites. It's about equal representation.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The problem is that the urbanites shouldn't be able to rule over the ruralites. It's about equal representation.

The losers of an election miss that it is about equal representation and keeping the heavily populated areas from completely dominating elections.

 

[rraley]

The problem is that the urbanites shouldn't be able to rule over the ruralites. It's about equal representation.

Well in the 2002 Maryland gubneratorial race, the rural areas overcame the urban areas.

Elections are won and lost in the suburbs...the urban areas are usually counterbalanced by the rural areas.

As for the equal representation idea...we got that; four of the eight congressional districts in Maryland are dominated by rural/suburban areas.

 

[vraiblonde]

Elections are won and lost in the suburbs...the urban areas are usually counterbalanced by the rural areas.

How can you say that when the majority of the people (read: voters) live in the urban areas?

And I'll tell you something else: if they broke down electoral votes by district instead of just by state, you'd never see another liberal in the White House again. Ever.

 

[ylexot]

And I'll tell you something else: if they broke down electoral votes by district instead of just by state, you'd never see another liberal in the White House again. Ever.

Sounds good!

 

[rraley]

How can you say that when the majority of the people (read: voters) live in the urban areas?

And I'll tell you something else: if they broke down electoral votes by district instead of just by state, you'd never see another liberal in the White House again. Ever.

The first statement you made is just plainly incorrect. Take Maryland for example. There is one urban jurisdiction: Baltimore City. In the 2004 presidential election, Baltimore City accounted for 213,381 votes. Now, to be fair, Prince George's County is highly urbanized as well, so let's add them to the "urban" total for Maryland. In PG there were 318,201 votes cast for president in 2004. Adding them together gets us 531,582 votes cast for president from "urban" jurisdictions. There was a total of 2,384,197 votes cast for president in Maryland in 2004. 531,582 divided by 2,384,197 equals 22%...nowhere near a majority there vrai.

As for the second part of your statement...it's a bit of an exaggeration. In the 2004 Election, George Bush won 255 congressional districts while John Kerry won 180. Combine this with the fact that most congressional districts are gerrymandered for GOP gain (due to the fact that more state legislatures are held by Republicans than Democrats nationwide), and it isn't completely whacked out from the actual result of the election.

Plus remember that we haven't had a true liberal in the White House since LBJ, so it's not that big of a deal...we need moderate Democrats anyhow.

 

[rraley]

Also the concept of "one man, one vote" has been the driving idea behind American democracy since the 1960s civil rights era. It doesn't matter if you're from Baltimore or Leonardtown or if you're black or white, or if you're poor or rich...you're vote is exactly as equal as the vote of any other person. That is what we have today; so what if that means that cities hold more power than smaller areas in terms of voting power (while I still think that to say they have much more is an extreme exaggeration).

 

[Bustem' Down]

The problem is that the urbanites shouldn't be able to rule over the ruralites. It's about equal representation.

So just because you happen to live in a city your vote should count less?

 

[Bruzilla]

So just because you happen to live in a city your vote should count less?

It's not a question of your vote counting for more or less. It's about the influence that your community has. When our country was formed, the concern was that more people lived in the cities than in the country, and that politicans would focus more on getting votes from city people because they could win an election by just getting city votes, so they wouldn't care about what the country folks wanted... hence the electoral college.

This is the reason that Democrats are losing. They've been focusing their attention on the areas of highest concentrations of their voters, like cities and south Florida, rather than running true national campaigns. I doubt a Republican will ever win a majority in places like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Miami, or Los Angeles, yet places like that are where a lot of the Dems focus is. They do very little campaigning to middle America and to smaller cities, which is why the vast majority of areas outside the urban areas is red.

 

[Penn]

Democrats report no abuse at Gitmo

"Two Democratic senators just back from reviewing U.S. detention facilities and interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said they saw no signs of abuse and said it would actually be worse to close the facility and transfer the detainees elsewhere.
"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, who toured the U.S. facility along with Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat. "

And yet Sen. Durbin has never visited this base?