Shenanigans from the Texas county caucuses

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
New from the frontline.

I went to my county caucus (which had a massive turnout) and had to sit through some nonsense from a bigwig Hillary supporter.  After being told by every official that if we had cast our caucus vote we could go home if we wanted, when we sat down to begin the business of the convention former Texas AG and super-dem Jim Mattox called for a quorm count. 

Earlier Mattox had given a very hostilely received speech for Hillary to cap off a day of "unite the party" speeches (good one by our Rep Lloyd Doggett).  The call for quorum was eventually defeated after a procedural dance that took about an hour and caused everyone working on any facet of the convention to drop what they were doing to stand around waiting to be counted.  Apparently Mattox and some other Clinton supporters tried to slow the convention down as much as possible trying to wait out the crowds and then call for another quorum. 

You see if there is no quorom at the quorum call the convention essentially did not happen and our delegates don't get selected and we just aren't represented.  Very democratic, huh? 

We heard numerous reports that this was happening in Travis County (Austin) directly to the North of us and Williamson (the north Austin suburbs), all of which Obama won handily.

Now I can't tie this to Hillary, her campaign or her rank and file supporters (most of whom I talked to were appalled by this tactic) but at least these folks were up to no good today here in Hays County. 

< The Supreme Court | Catholics and Clinton >
 Display:

This is surprising? Those who are in power set it up so they stay in power.

One of my favorite movie quotes goes something like this. 

"The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules."

by z1p101 on 03/30/2008 01:32:09 AM EST


Prof, re: her rank and file supporters most of whom I talked to were appalled by this tactic. Wonder if any of them finally saw the light. It's always a top-down issue for the Clinton campaign, isn't it? That's what turned me into a Clinton-defector.

by Verified1 on 03/30/2008 03:17:05 PM EST


“It's always a top-down issue for the Clinton campaign, isn't it?”

The Clintons will do anything to remain in power. That’s why I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama take the nomination.

By the way, where was your outrage when Bill Clinton was raping women, and sexually harassing women and Hillary was helping him cover it up?

by KenTX on 03/30/2008 07:16:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
She squeezed her hand?  Really?  SHOCKING.

She strikes me as an attention whore and a gossip queen.  Bill probably hit on her and that's all there was to it.

I am the last person to defend Hillary OR Bill for partisan reasons.  This is just silly, Ken.

by jarett on 03/31/2008 01:59:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's been well documented that Hillary begrudgingly accepted Bill’s extramarital activity. This was simply one more compromise she was willing to accept in pursuit of her ultimate goal of high political office.

But there is also evidence that Hillary disapproved of rape. When she heard the description of the lip biting, she knew Juanita Broaddrick was telling the truth. How else could Juanita have known about Bill’s unusual proclivity? How else could Paula Jones have known about Bill’s “distinguishing characteristic”?  

Who are you going to believe? Little people like Juanita with nothing to gain but trouble? Or congenital liars like the Clintons, who dodge bullets in Bosnia?

When Hillary loses the nomination and her political career is over, this is how Bill will be remembered in history.  
pantless bill

by KenTX on 03/31/2008 02:40:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You ask were our outrage is on the history of Bill Clinton's sex life and I have to wonder were your outrage is for a president who has lied our way into this war, supported the outing of CIA operatives, claims he wishes he could be one of the soldiars fighting in Iraq when he dodged his chance to go to Vietnam and couldn't even be found to finish serving in the guard. Or maybe a little bit of outrage about the out of control spending that his administration has seen mostly when your conservative republicans were in control. How many of their spending bills did he veto. I don't recall any veto's in the first 6 years. In 2001 or 2002 they proudly stood in front of cameras and said they were deregulating the banks to give them more freedom, now look at the housing situation. No outrage there! "Your doing a fine job Brownie" while people in New Orleans couldn't even get water to drink becouse FEMA had been gutted and placed under homeland security. And now those same people are being kicked out of trailers because of fomeldihyde with no or little new housing having been built to accomidate them! Of course it may be a good thing that they haven't been rebuilding housing there, seeing as they can't seem to find the funds to rebuild the fire stations either! In 7 years the only outrage I have seen from you is Harriet Myers and that Bush might give amnesty to millions of brown people. And you want us to take time out to be "outraged " by Bill. I don't think I have enough left over to spare, thank you.

by juebawl on 03/31/2008 01:24:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"In 2001 or 2002 they proudly stood in front of cameras and said they were deregulating the banks to give them more freedom"

I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for what I was alluding to here in an effort to defend the statement, but have been unable to find much. In the dark recesses of my little brain I can remember something about it, but I know how handily I will be beaten with it going just on that. Consider it retracted.

by juebawl on 03/31/2008 04:07:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: