michgan gets busted for cutting in the democratic primary line

I wanted to have a post tonight on the presidential primaries. I was going to argue against Michigan’s attempt to move up to the front of the line and have theirs first. It would have been based on purely selfish reasoning though. You see, I think that Edwards probably has a better shot in New Hampshire than he does in Michigan, and, since I believe that, I want the New Hampshire primary to remain first. (Edwards probably doesn’t have a shot, most people seem to agree, unless he wins an early primary.) My political motives aside, however, I think it’s probably a good thing for Michigan to have a shot at going first. We deserve, at least once in our lives, to be courted a bit and told nice things about ourselves before we’re used and cast aside. In the spirit of fairness, every state should have an opportunity to go first. Maybe there could be a national essay contest with representatives from each state writing in and saying why they deserve to go first during a particular year. In 2001, it probably would have gone to New York. Two years ago, when Katrina hit, it would have been Louisiana. This year, I think there’s a damned good case for Michigan.

If you’re interested in the politics surrounding Michigan’s play for first, the “Detroit Free Press” has an article today. Here’s a clip:

…If you think the squabble over when to hold Michigan’s 2008 presidential primary is much ado about nothing, think again.

“This isn’t some intra-party skirmish,” said Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the Democratic National Committee who wants to break the New Hampshire-Iowa stranglehold on her party’s presidential nominating process. “This is a war to change the way we select presidential candidates in this country, once and for all.”

Certainly the fog of war enveloped Michigan presidential politics this week after Michigan legislators moved to advance the state’s presidential primary from Feb. 5 to Jan 15 and all the major Democratic presidential candidates responded by vowing not to campaign here.

In addition, the Democratic National Committee is threatening not to count the votes of Michigan’s delegates to the national convention — and those elected in Florida, which also defied party rules by moving its primary up to Jan. 29 — unless the state’s Democratic leaders return to their assigned place on the primary calendar…

Of course, they don’t mention the rumor that Michigan Republicans are behind the whole thing. According to this theory, they want an early Michigan primary because they feel that Hillary would win it, and there’s no one they’d rather face in the general election than Hillary.

And, here, for those of you who are interested, is a link to the letter just sent by Debbie Dingell and Carl Levin to Howard Dean, explaining, like a child would, how we only violated the rules set down by the DNC because “New Hampshire did it first.” It’s complicated and silly stuff. Here’s a clip:

…On August 9, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, with the support of the state’s Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

One of New Hampshire’s purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC’s rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire’s transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

But when the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida primary to a date before the window opened, you promptly determined to punish Florida Democrats by threatening to not seat their delegates if they abided by their legislature’s decision. You still maintained public silence about the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s decision to violate the DNC rules, a decision, again, which was supported by New Hampshire Democrats.

In the past, New Hampshire maintained its discriminatory privilege and dominating role because our party would not take them on and because of the gun that New Hampshire holds to candidates’ heads, insisting that they pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary.

Our national party began the process of taking that gun away from the heads of our candidates when we changed the sequence and put New Hampshire third instead of second in the period prior to the opening of the window. The battle that we fought was over the sequence of the primaries and caucuses. New Hampshire either pushing ahead of its assigned position or increasing the distance between its primary and the opening of the window for the rest of the states violates the purpose of the rule.

It was a hard won, albeit partial, victory, allowing our party to better reflect the diversity of America and to begin to inject some fairness in a process for states whose role had been diminished election after election by the dominance of two states.

Michigan Democrats are determined to fight to maintain that victory. We object to your continued silence in the face of New Hampshire’s stated intent to violate the DNC rules. As Chairman of the Democratic Party, you had the obligation to state your intent to apply the rule to New Hampshire Democrats when its Secretary of State announced his intention to move the New Hampshire primary prior to January 19. Selective enforcement of our rules undermines the progress achieved — to open the process potentially for all states…

And now, to further complicate things, I’ll say this… I’ve spent the past few days watching the candidates on the campaign trail, talking to people in New Hampshire, and, on the whole, I’ve been very impressed by the questions that are being asked. I’m not suggesting that we’d totally fuck up the responsibility if the spotlight were turned on us, but I do feel that the people of New Hampshire, over time, have come to take the responsibility seriously. At least they seem to do their homework on the candidates and the issues. So, if we as Michiganders really want to be out front one day, I’d suggest that we all start studying now. If we really want to be first, we all need to get more engaged in the process.

[Tonight’s post was brought to you by the radically honest Keith Olbermann and the well-deserved object of his contempt; the so-called “liberal media,” the decent man they ravaged, and the war they’re selling us today; the nukes flying overhead; and the broadcast flotsam we’re leaving in our wake… Goodnight.]

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Steph's Dad
    Posted September 6, 2007 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Michigan is just too big to saturate. And who wants to go door to door in Detroit? And in Michigan it’s all about the union vote.

  2. Posted September 7, 2007 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Good lord! Please don’t let Rove and his pals manipulate yet another presidential election. How can people be this stupid?

  3. maryd
    Posted September 7, 2007 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    It is far past time to change the way we vote for the president. Popular Vote should decide
    “1 cat, 1 vote, 1 beer”
    ry cooder

  4. Robert
    Posted September 7, 2007 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    I imagine the founding fathers had reasons for setting up the electoral system. It might be a good idea to consider them.

  5. Mark H.
    Posted September 7, 2007 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    The Founders did not give the electoral college a lot of thought. They did not expect political parties to develop, and they did not think the nation would ever be cohesive enough for people from different regions to assess who was the rgiht man for the job. So they came up with a method by which the states could all, supposedly, send their “best men” to a meeting, the electoral college, where they would dispassionately assess who would best serve the nation. It was never menat to be democratic, and it never has been. Nor has it worked the way they imagined it would work. The development of political parties as a force outside of legislative halls was unexpected by the Founders, and it changed everything. Nothing in the Constitution says that members of the electroal college will be selected by partisan elections – but that’s how it’s done.

    One citizen, one vote, majority rules – that would be democratic. The 220 year old American constitution was not written to be democratic, and it ain’t. The electroal college gives a huge advantage to the small states, thus making those residents over represented in the selecting of the president, and most Americans are underrepresented in the process. So I agree with Mark M. on this.

  6. Robert
    Posted September 8, 2007 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Political parties were nothing new in 1776.

  7. Robert
    Posted September 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    For the record, I don’t necessarily oppose the institution of a process which elects a president by popular vote. But it’s a false issue. It has never been the problem.

    I also don’t oppose the institution of a more fair system of primaries and caucuses. But why would anyone who claims to be so concerned about fairness, be proposing changes in a process, right in the midst of that process? The time to make changes to the primary/caucus system is immediately AFTER a general election.

    I would oppose ANY attempt to make structural changes to the established political processes which are proposed in the MIDST of a presidential campaign. Even if the situation were such that, by making these changes, my favorite candidate would be granted some advantage. If it were proposed that all the southern states were to vote first, I would oppose that. It’s nothing short of ethical relativism to play these games at this time. I am all for making any and all needed changes to our process immediately FOLLOWING the general election.

  8. maryd
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    OK, timing is everything, but I cannot convince my kids, growing up and watching the 2000 election unfold, that “their” vote even counts. They completely distrust the electoral system, and frankly so do I.
    Those founding fathers in all their wisdom really didn’t want women to vote, this despite the fact their own wives were so very qualified to participate in that process.
    At that time news traveled so much more slowly, today there is no excuse. I cannot watch another president chosen by the supremes.
    Besides, I see very little will for change following an election.

  9. oliva
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Re. the Supremes choosing the president and the recent reports about David Souter frequently breaking down into tears about Bush v. Gore . . . I wish Souter had shown us his heartache back then. Why? Just seems it would’ve helped all of us other criers feel like our banged-up hearts and bubbling rage weren’t just our problem.

    A friend of mine went to a psychiatrist after the election and talked about her growing sense of helplessness and rage, and the doctor told her she should really focus on matters “in her own life” that she can control, plus take some antidepressants. Ugh! Isn’t that partly how we came to this in the first place–so much focus on self, with help from pharmaceuticals (I’ve read that antidepressants help take the wind out of people’s sails and make them easier to manage)?

  10. maryd
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Oliva, I hear this all the time from young women I work with. They absolve themselves of any civic duty, by “concentrating on their own little world” and give excuses by treating politics like a dirty word. Politics is truly personal when it involves all of our hard earned taxes being wasted in Iraq, our young dieing there, while at home our schools, cities and our whole infrastructure suffers. If the state really does shut down, it may get people more depressed, at least it will be good for the pharmaceuticals.

  11. oliva
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Sure do appreciate your comments. I remember hearing someone say about the gigantic protests against the war in mid-February 2003: “It’s great to see all those people coming out against the war–but aren’t they embarrassed to be out there protesting in public?” How to hold those competing ideas at once?!

    I remember hearing parents say they couldn’t bear to listen to the news about impending war or they’d be too depressed to parent. Seems like parents would be the most engaged and fiercest of all–and many are. My sister and young niece went to an antiwar vigil in NYC back in 2003, and on the way home my niece said to her mother, “That was the most special thing I ever did–I’m gonna remember it my whole life.”

  12. abby c
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    With all due deference to History Prof Higbee, Robert is correct that partisan politics were nothing new in 1776. In fact, the political partisanship had been around so long and was so entrenched by that time that the meanings of “Whig” and “Tory” had already flipped around twice over. Tory was originally an insult (“Irish bandit”) but became embraced by aristocratic conservatives, and Whig (originally “Scottish Cattle Thief”) became embraced by parliamentary reformers and London business interests. Once Whigs gained power with the rise of parliamentary politics and the decline of monarchal ministrations, they essentially became Tories, trying to conserve the laws that brought them into that envied position of authority.

    I am also surprised that a historian of civil rights would claim, “One citizen, one vote, majority rules – that would be democratic.” Hardly so! For many minorities, majority rule simply means all the more fascism! I do not at all endorse the latent elitism of the Electoral College, but I do endorse the federalism that ensures that smaller constituencies retain a stake in the policies of their government. Where would the United States be if the federal government did not step to curtail the fascism of the majority (e.g. the Jim Crow South circa 1950).

  13. mark
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I love it when professors fight!

  14. mark
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    (If only Michael Vick had stuck with professor fighting instead of making the jump to dogs.)

  15. abby c
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Funny, Mark! If we are feirce in words and determined in argumentation, ’tis only because we are next to hopeless in any other battle of substance. Viz, Monty Python’s “Philosopher’s World Cup.”

  16. egpenet
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Mark … you mean like what Jim Vick did?


  17. maryd
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Oliva, I am inspired to attend next war protest.
    I agree about majority rule (excepting the presidential election). Women and African Americans never would have gotten the vote with a majority rule, nor any of the civil rights we enjoy today. There is tyranny of the majority too and the minorities would languish. James Madison understood this (my favorite founding father).
    Regarding the new date for MI primary, very worrisome. Can or will the party really discount all of the concerns of MI for breaking the rules?

  18. Posted September 9, 2007 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Interesting thread. Isn’t the real problem the top-down attitude that the national party imposes by trying to control the schedule of individual states?

    Our state, our primary, our timetable, I say.

    Also interesting is how quickly the legislature seems to be abandoning election consolidation. After going to all that trouble to have only four election dates per year, now they are adding a fifth. Nothing like making a new law only to abandon it just about a year later . . .

  19. Mark H.
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Well…my comments were about American history, not English history. The electoral college, Abby C, was devised by the Founding Fathers in 1787. And they most certainly did NOT anticipate the rise of mass political parties, which did first arise AFTER the constitution was written.

    Partisan politics and mass political parites aren’t exactly the same thing. The Whigs and Tories of the UK in the 18th century were not mass political parties contending for election victories and parlimanetary majorities – very few people in the UK had the right to vote, and they were not organized like the mass political parties that emerged in the US first and then quickly came to dominate politics in the western world and now do so in nearly all the world.

    It’s concept stretching at its worst to use the term “fascism” to slam the idea of one citizen, one vote as being insufficiently democratic. For the Record: The USA has NEVER had such a thoroughly democratic system, as one citizen one vote in selecting the president. As for the record, actual fascists like Hitler were opposed to all aspects of democratic government. Fortunately, no mass murdering genocidal “fascists” ever ruled the American government, and no progressive purpose is served by saying otherwise.

    On civil rights and black voting rights — the arguments made by the Movement that secured the Voting Rights Act were entirely based on the idea of citizenship and the constitution (15th Amendment).

    Yup, it sure gets ugly with professors fight.

    Peace. And study history.

  20. abby c
    Posted September 9, 2007 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    “Fights between professors only get ugly when they purport to profess fields outside their expertise. Whatever I say of the Civil Rights should be taken with a grain of salt – I only know what I was taught in college or what I plucked from random reading. However, as an 18th-century scholar, I can safely say that the founders did “expect political parties to develop.” For political parties had already developed long before. Profs of American anything (history, literature, politics, etc.) all too often assume that everything of importance began after the founding ‘fathers’ sired it some 230 years ago–as if a few men had a collective epiphany about democracy in a vacuum without any baggage coming before. Party politics plagued Anglo-American culture from the Civil War onwards. Jefferson could not take an idea from Locke, Paine, or Franklin without knowing that these Brit-born men argued some ideas over others depending on party affiliation. They may have tried to disdain such partisanship, but they still vehemently subscribed to certain parties nonetheless.

    Hitler is a prime example of the fascism of the majority rule, the National Socialist party being in his mind democratic for the only people that really mattered (the knee-jerk majority). One needs only to read Plato (over 230 years plus 2 centuries old) to see that democracy readily lends itself to dictatorship when simple majorities rule. The founders devised checks and balances (almost to the point of paranoia) to prevent that very dictatorship from happening.”

  21. oliva
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    I haven’t yet read Bruce Ackerman’s book about the founders, electoral politics, and the rise of political parties, but I heard him discuss it, and it sure sounds worthwhile. Here’s a snippet from a piece by Ackerman in American Prospect plus a book description.

    American Prospect, May 23, 2005

    . . . Under the original U.S. Constitution, members of the Electoral College didn’t cast one ballot for president and one for vice president. The Founders distrusted political parties and sought to minimize their influence. They refused to allow electors to designate a party ticket for a two-candidate slate, as they do today. While electors were each given two ballots, they were told to cast both ballots for the men they considered best qualified for the presidency. The candidate with the most ballots became president; the runner-up became vice president. This system virtually guaranteed that the vice president, serving as president of the Senate, would be the president’s principal political antagonist.

    But party politics quickly proved too powerful for the Founders’ ingenious efforts. During the election of 1800, all the Republican electors voted for the party ticket of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, giving each of them 73 votes in the Electoral College. Although everyone knew that Burr was the party’s vice presidential choice, the tie threw the proceedings into the House of Representatives, and the Federalists almost succeeded in making Burr president. When Jefferson finally ascended to the presidency, the Republicans made sure that the problem wouldn’t happen again by enacting the Twelfth Amendment, which created the Electoral College voting system we have today.

    But the Jeffersonians failed to consider how this constitutional change could transform the Senate presidency into an instrument of presidential power. It inadvertently created a constitutional time bomb that has been ticking for two centuries. It hasn’t gone off only because vice presidents have understood that the Senate was its own place and that their constitutional responsibility was to protect the integrity of its procedures.

    Cheney, however, has been remarkably aggressive in his assertions of presidential power, and the present struggle over the filibuster provides him with yet another opportunity. It is up to 50 senators to determine whether they will assist him in his assault and bring the era of Senate independence to its close.
    Bruce Ackerman’s new book, The Failure of the Founding Fathers, will be [was] published by Harvard University Press in the fall.


    * * *
    The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (Paperback, Harvard University Press, 2005)
    by Bruce Ackerman

    Book Description
    The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when it was almost destroyed by the rise of political parties in the United States. As Bruce Ackerman shows, the Framers had not anticipated the two-party system, and when Republicans battled Federalists for the presidency in 1800, the rules laid down by the Constitution exacerbated the crisis. With Republican militias preparing to march on Washington, the House of Representatives deadlocked between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Based on seven years of archival research, the book describes previously unknown aspects of the electoral college crisis. Ackerman shows how Thomas Jefferson counted his Federalist rivals out of the House runoff, and how the Federalists threatened to place John Marshall in the presidential chair. Nevertheless, the Constitution managed to survive through acts of statesmanship and luck.

  22. Robert
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    You people remind me a lot of the ancient Athenians who in response to what they perceived as growing chaos in their city, sought to bring more order to it by rearranging the streets in a much less random design. They established straight and wide avenues which ran from the city centers to the edge of Athens. Marauders promptly made use of the avenues for frequent and devastating raids, causing greater chaos and insecurity, and contributing considerably to the collapse of the Athenian state.

    I realize you are all wound up about the popular vote in 2000 going to Gore while the Electoral College was handed to Bush anyway. So now you are all convinced the Electoral College is is the culprit, and dumping it is the cure. I’m here to tell you that, had a system of electing a president by popular vote been in place, the Rovian tactic would have been simply to target the heavy Democratic areas in the Northeast and California with their massive electronic voting machine fraud and other more traditional vote suppression tactics. The focus would have been to fix the popular vote by a couple million (as it was in 2004 in California).

    The actual problem is much more complicated than you people like to think. Technology has reached a point in the last decade where large networks, of bigots for example, are no longer needed to suppress, destroy, and mis-tabulate votes on an enormous scale. It can be done by a relatively much smaller number of strategically placed fuckers.

    For all of your off-season whining and cynicism regarding how corrupt and manipulated our political system and all politicians are, you sure do fall prey pretty easily to the simplest distractions and blatant manipulations when the chips are down and just a little critical thought from the masses would likely make all the difference in the world.

  23. oliva
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Robert, you say “you people” as if we are one being and you are another. Maybe it’s that we’re all in this together? (Or you mean “you the people”?!)

  24. Robert
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    I say “you people” because I don’t want to be too specific. I figure if I can set things up so that everyone recognizes that this game here is all about The People of Earth vs. Robert, there’s a chance I can get sympathy from extra terrestrials, and they’ll pull my ass off this fucking disaster you people call a planet. ;)

  25. oliva
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Packing my bags–going away
    To a place where the air is clean
    On Saturn . . .

    Robert, your comment brings to mind that sweet escape-minded (-hearted) song from Mr. Stevie Wonder . . . who will be performing at Meadowbrook Hall this Wed., Rochester, MI.

    Thanks for putting this song in my head.

    And for your reports from the Edwards campaign.

  26. Mark H.
    Posted September 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm | Permalink


    Thank you for the snippet from the Ackerman book on the Founders and the electoral college. He has it right: They did not expect or want political parties to develop and become so influential in selecting the President or representatives. Indeed, there was no prior experience with mass political parties in electoral democracies. I get the magazine your snippet is from, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, and I highly recommend it to al readers interested in a smart. liberal progressive take on US politics and world affairs and social policy.

    And for those who might still care, this long into this tread, Thomas Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention. He had no role in writing that document. He is no architect of the electoral college. As Ackerman shows,and is rather famous in American history the flaws of the electoral college nearly cost him his presidential election.

    He and other Americans of his generation knew of British political conflict, of course, but that was more factional conflict than organized competition for office thru mass political parties. The American experience after 1787 was more shaped by, huh, the American post-Revolutionary situation than by ideas of elite politics in Britain.

    Jefferson, in the decade after the constitution was adopted, became a key figure in forming the first mass political party, the Democratic-Republicans. But this mass political party, organized to run candidates for office across the land, was not in struture or function much like the parliamentary parties of the UK in previous generations, which had little “grassroots” support — after all, elections were decided by tiny, tiny electorates of a few elite landowners, so mass parties would have been pointless.

    Lastly, I challenge anyone to find evidence that Hitler’s goals or methods were in any way shaped by a serious consideration of what the “majority”, any majority, wanted. The purpose of facsism was to do away with all that silly democratic procedural stuff, and let the elite rule as they saw fit, and to expect and compel obediance from the people.

    One citizen, one vote: Too democratic for the Founding Fathers, and too democratic for the the fascists too. But one citizen, one vote is a good idea nonetheless!

    Enough from on this topic here. Sorry to go on so long.

  27. Edwards Fan
    Posted October 22, 2007 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Granholm announced on Friday that she would be supporting Hillary.


  28. Robert
    Posted December 3, 2007 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Now the national party is taking away Michigan’s delegates to the convention. Nice work.

  29. Robert
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    10 Million dollars. That’s how much it is costing the Michigan taxpayers to go ahead with the phony primary. I’m sure nobody minds though. We can afford it. It’s not like we have the worst economy in the country, and some of the highest job loss and home forclosure rates in the country. Oh wait, yes we do.

  30. stillnotlate
    Posted December 31, 2007 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s great that the primaries are shown to be the sham that they are.

    If these things meant anything, the candidates would never even think of skipping out.

  31. John on Forest
    Posted January 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    If I can put the developed topic of this thread (pros and cons of electoral college) on hold for a moment, I have a serious question regarding how to vote in the primary coming up.

    There is considerable doubt that the National Democratic Party will even seat Michigan’s delegates. Furthermore, of the three Democratic front runners, only H. Clinton is on the ballot. Many supporters of Obama and Edwards have suggested a vote for “uncommitted” in the hopes that one or the other of these candidates will garner a few delegates. This of course assumes that enough of the voters are paying attention to cross the 15% of the vote threshold necessary for uncommitted delegates to be sent to the convention.

    So, my question is this: Would our votes be counted better if we Democrats were to ask for a Republican ballot and vote for one of those candidates?

    The goal would be to vote for a candidate who stands a chance of being nominated as the Republican presidential candidate; but whom we think would be less electable than a Democrat in the general election. Or perhaps we would vote for a candidate who stands a chance of winning the nomination and whom we think would be the lessor evil of Republican presidents, if elected?

    I’m thinking I’d rather see McCain in office than either Romney or Huckabee. I have no idea who would be least electable against any of the Democratic candidates.

  32. mark
    Posted January 13, 2008 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I’m hoping to get a new post about this very issue up onthe front page tonight, John.

  33. Bill
    Posted January 15, 2008 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Think Ron Paul. He’s an embarrassment to both the war touting democrats and republicans. They’ve done everything possible to black out his 20million dollars which he earned in average of $40 dollar increments. He actually BROKE A NATIONAL RECORD earning the most money in a single fundraiser in the smallest resolution (amount per person). They ALL hate this guy.

    Think about it. When have we ever seen real support for a candidate?
    All the other candidates, after a little research, prove to be steeped in money.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who’s still working WHILE he campaigns. This man is insane. I’ve actually switched over to republican so I can really screw these guys royally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Manchurian Candidate Banner