Ralph Nader = Pat Paulsen

Ralph Nader may be an American hero for bringing safety standards to the US auto industry, but the consumer advocate has a penchant for wanting to ruin things. For the fifth time in a row, starting with a 1992 write in campaign, Nader is running for US President.

He has the right to run, of course. But with each season he becomes more like the late Patrick Paulsen -- a joke candidate. He has the potential to siphon votes off from both parties and become a spoiler, especially if he winds up polling at least 5%.

That would be fine if America had a system like in France, where the top two contenders square the circle in a run-off. The US, however, has an electoral college where the 50 states and DC are allocated a certain number of electoral votes. A narrow split between the GOP and the Dems in any number of battlegrounds could prove fatal.

I am sympathetic to the claim both major parties in the US have lost their way. Short of proportional representation or abolishing the college, no third party candidate will ever have a rats chance of winning; and with so much at stake Nader doesn't seem to care about the consequences.

Obama, the presumed Dem front-runner, should try to reach out to Nader and fast -- and neutralize him before this gets really out of hand. Nader is the new Paulsen, only this time no one is laughing. And people did vote for Paulsen out of disgust for the alternatives.

By the way, Nader turns 74 on Wednesday. Happy B-day, Ralph -- I suppose.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Toronto loses Indy

Good news and bad news. The good news is that the 12 year battle between the IRL and Champ (formerly CART) is over. The two circuits will merge and have a unified open car series for North America. The bad news is that, at least for 2008, Toronto will lose its race. The city estimates the hit to the economy will be in the neighbourhood of $50 million.

The split was regrettable to begin with if for no other reason than the Indy 500 was for a long time a truly stupid race with a lot of no-names.

I can't figure out, though, why the combined league would give up one of its biggest and most reliable revenue generators even for one year.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

There will be PAX in the (Allegheny) Valley

Both John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman deny having an affair and I'll take them at their word. However, questions still have to be asked about the kind of relationship they did have even if it was strictly professional.

Bud Paxson, who ran the former PAX network, now Ion (best known for c0-producing Sue Thomas, F.B. Eye) has now jumped into the frey and shed some additional light.


From WaPo:

Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf.

Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson's quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.

Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. "Was Vicki there? Probably," Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday. "The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings."

The recollection of the now-retired Paxson conflicted with the account provided by the McCain campaign about the two letters at the center of a controversy about the senator's ties to Iseman, a partner at the lobbying firm of Alcalde & Fay.

The McCain campaign said Thursday that the senator had not met with Paxson or Iseman on the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said in a statement.

But Paxson said yesterday, "I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."

McCain's lawyer Bob Bennett claims whether McCain spoke to Paxson isn't really such a big deal.

Oh yes it is. Lobbyists do have a place in politics but there's a difference between using a lobbyist to make a point and using one to obtain a solution. In the case of the latter there is an ethical way to do things and an unethical way.

The FCC, a quasi-judicial body, is supposed to be free from political influence and regulate the airwaves in the best interests of the people. Not the people who own the stations or phone companies, all the people. It hasn't exactly performed that function that well the last few years as it's allowed media consolidation to escalate to the point where the press exercises a form of censorship. In the case of an approval for a TV station, the FCC has a duty to decide whether it's a new one or a transfer of ownership, it judges whether it serves the local community interest.

Paxson is a plucky guy. He made a genuine attempt to break through the firewall of network TV and create a 7th network, one with a mix of family friendly and religious programming. He wasn't entirely successful but he did put some noteworthy shows on the air and he deserves praise for that.

However, it's the Pittsburgh situation that's rather interesting; if for no other reason that Vicki Iseman is from near that city.

Long story short, his mini-net, PAX, was a montage of about 60 local stations. Nearly all of them were on the UHF band. UHF stations which signals while travelling farther are seen as being less desirable than VHF stations. But he still had something close to national coverage. One city was missing a PAX affiliate. Yup, Pittsburgh. So Paxson suggested another Christian station offer to buy one of the two PBS stations in that cty -- the sister channel to the one that gave us Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Paxson would then buy that station for $35 million, swap transmitters with the Christian station, and 50% of the proceeds would go to the remaining PBS channel which was in the red at the time. (Like where this is going?)

PBS agreed it was a good deal. So they made a joint application to the FCC. Normally such approvals take about a year. After 2 1/2 years, no word -- not even a date to set a hearing. So Iseman was sent in to ask McCain for help. McCain eventually wrote two letters.

The problem isn't that McCain did write to the FCC on Paxson's behalf. He certainly had the right to. It was that McCain had already accepted $28,000 in campaign contributions from Paxon, raising a bit of a stink about his reputation for "straight talk." For that blatant breach of ethics, plus the fact that FCC staff was still going over the details of the deal with a fine tooth comb and was actually days away from a decision, McCain was openly rebuked by the Commission. More important, McCain used Paxson's corporate jet for his 2000 campaign.

What happened to the deal? Well, the FCC approved it, 3-2; but it collapsed anyway because the Christian group who also stood to benefit refused to accept an amendment to their license banning proselytizing.

*****

So, let's see now. He gets bitten once for being part of the Keating Five. He gets bitten a second time for interfering with the FCC when he had a vested interest to do so. While the FCC story explains Iseman's presence on the corporate jet, it doesn't explain how McCain can claim to be a straight talker. He's no more a man of the people than he is a salesman trying to sell a monorail to a village.

It's also worth noting that Congress only banned its members from flying on corporate planes in 2007. What's happened before then and all the promises made in secret, away from prying media and muckraking eyes?

Certainly Obama and Clinton can't claim any high ground here -- they've done the corporate route too.

I just find it troubling that a war hero would see fit to fall into that kind of crowd. Moreover if a Senator says one thing and a businessman something quite different about the nature of their professional relationship, then it has to be investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Given the stage of the electoral season America is in right now, I don't see any appetite for that, though.

Also remember the rather nuanced position McCain took on the Confederate Flag when he was locked in a battle with Dubya back in 2000. Both saw the South as key to their strategies and McCain later admitted he wasn't straight talking at all -- the Stars and Bars really did had to go. That reluctance to say how he really felt cost him a lot of credibility and possibly the election. I think the world would have been much better off had McCain won the GOP nod that year and not GWB.

These days, you see US networks take pains to discuss conflicts of interest on the air -- for example, if NBC is doing a story about GE's quarterly results, they'll add that GE owns the network. CNN does the same when it identifies Time or People or the gossip site TMZ as sister organizations to Turner.

Why is so hard for Senators and Representatives to do the same when they approach executive agencies? Why can't they just say: So-and-so needs movement on their disability pension; oh by the way, she also donated to my re-election campaign also?

All McCain had to do was say he was feeding at Paxson's trough. The time to have done that was back in 1999.

Now, McCain is the presumed GOP nominee.

Paxson is willing to give some straight talk. It's time for McCain to do the same ... before he locks up the nomination for sure.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Debate is not disloyalty, General

You may be tempted to find solace in the diversity of opinion that is American democracy. You should resist any such temptation. Diversity ought not to be confused with division. Nor should you underestimate, as others have before you,
America's will.

That wasn't some nobody. That was the elder George Bush in a letter to Saddam Hussein, days before the First Gulf War. He knew whereof he was speaking. In fact, although there was widespread opposition to the war in America, Bush 41 actually saw democratic debate as a plus and not an impediment to the then task at hand; namely, evicting Iraq out of Kuwait.

Now, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, would have us believe that a protracted and divisive debate would give ammunition to the Taliban. That's the same kind of BS Karl Rove and Co. used to drum up support for Gulf War II.

Debate is not disloyalty. Trashing out differences and coming up with a general consensus or at least hearing out the other side is entirely the point. The Taliban and other Muslim extremists want it their way -- period. No debate, no discussion. I'm not sure if the soldiers, sailors and airmen of our Armed Services would appreciate being told they're fighting to eliminate free speech and thought. That's not what the Greatest Generation fought for in WWII -- they fought for the right to speak out.

Hillier should just shut his yap and let the politicians make the decisions; then give the orders to him. Not the other way around. The military is under civilian control and not military for a reason. If he wants to eliminate freedom of speech, he should spend his time looking for the Spear of Destiny -- not whine that Canada actually has a Parliament. Last time anyone heard of it, it was allegedly in the possession of Mr. Moustache who murdered 6 million Jews.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

A date certain

PMS counter-offered the Liberals yesterday and agreed to a date certain to end the Afghanistan mission -- December 2011, six months after the Liberals end-date proposal. However, Harper won't agree to Liberal demands that turning over detainees should be stopped; instead the motion states operational decisions should be left to the field commanders.

While my preference remains bringing the troops home next year, it's good to see that this never ending story may finally have an end in terms of the Canadian contribution. The fact remains that NATO still isn't pulling its weight. There's something inherently wrong when 26 countries declare war on Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 but only six or seven are willing to provide troops and equipment.

I do hope as well there is a greater focus on development and diplomacy. This should have been the case a long time ago from when this all started and too many opportunities have been squandered. If there is a place where we still have a chance to win the hearts and minds of a people it is in Afghanistan.

The other thing is that the border with Afghanistan has to be made more secure, without question. Only trouble I see is an unwillingness to do so even with surveillance and counter-intelligence measures. The US and Canada have difficulty at times securing their common demilitarized border. If we can't properly ensure a fast and still secure border here, what does it say about about standing guard alongside Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier and Tora Bora, which have so many caves Fred Flintstone would feel right at home?

The main point is, though, the Liberals and Conservatives broadly agree that there has to be an end date. What that date will be is still up for negotiation; but this time it had better be a date certain and not something with enough loopholes that it's an open ended committment.

We don't want a 100 year war. We must end it fast, and we must win so Afghanistan can stand on its own; but Kabul has to step up to the plate as well and start taking care of itself.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Death penalty may grind to halt in Georgia

Another state faces a budget crisis -- and it could lead, unwittingly, to a moratorium on the death penalty. This time it's a state that is overly enthusiatic about capital punishment, namely Georgia.

From the AP:

The funding roller coaster continued for Georgia's public defenders Tuesday as a key Senate committee slashed their budget to just a fraction of what they had sought to stay afloat.

The midyear budget that passed the Senate Appropriations Committee contained just $513,000 for public defenders to get them through the June 30 end of the fiscal year. Gov. Sonny Perdue had recommended $3.6 million.

"We still believe they have sufficient resources to meet their needs," Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson, R-Savannah, told reporters.

The move continues a tug-of-war over dollars between the legislative and judicial branches that's been exacerbated by the high-profile case of Brian Nichols, which has ground to standstill because of a dispute about funding for his defense.

Though none of the additional state cash would go to the trial of accused Atlanta courthouse gunman, the case has become a lightening rod and emboldened some who believe the state's indigent defense lawyers - funded by court fees - are driving up costs unnecessarily.

Sen. Preston Smith, who oversees judicial branch spending, has suggested that death penalty opponents are trying to put an end to capital punishment in Georgia by placing the price tag out of reach.

But officials with the Public Defender Standards Council have said they are wrestling with a jump in capital cases. They warned that without additional state funds they could be forced to furlough their lawyers and support staff for the month of June, bringing the court system to standstill.

Revenge, whilst being one of the seven deadly sins, doesn't seem to count as such when it comes to murder and high treason. But an increasing trend among states is the cost-benefit analysis; that it cost more to execute a person than it does to just lock him or her up for 25 to 40 years; that it can take an average of 12 years before someone is executed (and some have waited 24 years, equal to a life sentence); and in the final scheme of things, death is not a deterrent but only encourages more killing and not less.

The fact remains that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. Over the years, the US Supreme Court has made it clear that this also means effective counsel. Public defenders are hardly an ideal solution, but in many cases that's all that is available to an indigent defendant. Short of attorneys to the rich suddenly getting a whiff of conscience and offering to defend capital cases on a pro bono basis, the accused whether guilty or not deserve a bit better treatment than what they have been used to -- or could be subjected to under such draconian cuts. The argument would be that if a defendant didn't get a chance to present a counter-argument, his or her due process rights were violated and thus the death penalty should be excluded. Do that across the board, no death chamber, period.

If this helps to end the death penalty in the States, so much the better. While New Jersey (by law) and New York (by order of court) have abolished the ultimate punishment in the States, my sense is that the movement to end it will not gain any traction until at least one state in the South or the Plains gets the courage to do so.

For murder one, as I've written before, the punishment should be life without parole.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

BREAKING: McCain's ethics questioned

This was posted in the last half hour, as I write this, on the NYT website. This is the guy who's supposed to be carrying the GOP mantle, remember. You gotta love this though:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

And on it goes. No idea where this might lead, but if there's even a hint of impropriety against McCain, this could blow the primary season wide open and give Mike Huckabee a new lease on life. They just mentioned on Lou Dobbs' "newcast" that McCain and Co. begged the Times not to publish the story, which of course it will be in tomorrow's edition and just about any other publication that subscribes to the NYT newswire.

If they're worried about this, then it may very well be McCain's "hero" status is terminated. And that would mean another "key" turned in favour of the Democrats. Let's not forget he was one of the Keating Five -- the gang of senators that convinced regulators to keep their hands off the "moral" -- and I use the term sarcastically -- Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings and Loan, which later collapsed in one of the biggest bank frauds in history (McCain was reprimanded by his fellow Senators for bad judgment).

McCain vowed not to take a direct flight from Phoenix to Washington on commercial flights (a route he got approved) yet had no issue flying on corporate jets to and from work. He fought for campaign finance reform but he is leaching off lobbyists this year. And let's face it, who wouldn't be attracted to a Vietnam vet? Especially a married one?

God bless -- and help -- America. If this what passes for normal, DC really needs a shakeout.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Best blog post of the day (2008-02-19)

I usually don't pay attention to live blogging until after it's done. Going through my RSS this morning, though, I found this charmer from one of the better right wing pundits:

"Oh, goody. Bill O'Reilly is covering the gripping Paul McCartney divorce case. Back to CNN!" -- Ed Morrissey.

Thanks for the morning smile, Captain. Hope all is well with you and the First Mate.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Can we call it Obamentum now?

Chalk up two more wins by Barack Obama. No surprise he won his birth state of Hawai'i: 76-24. Wisconsin was an even bigger win. This is the kind of working class state that should have been Hillary Clinton's. But Obama continued to make inroads into her constituencies: Unskilled workers, the latter baby boom and Generation X, women. Obama took the state by an almost 3-2 margin: 58-41. As late as Monday, Obama was showing just a four point edge; and the fluff about him lifting some phrases from fellow Democrats proved to be just that. Clinton has no right to whine about it: She and virtually every other candidate for office has at one time or another.

Add to that some polls which indicate Obama is slightly in the lead in Texas, and one can understand how some are now saying Clinton has backed herself into a corner. There are still misgivings about her, serious ones, which she unfortunately has not yet addressed. I am not taking away from her legislative record, street smarts and her good nature. I am amazed, though, that a guy (Obama) with far less legislative experience than JFK could be, at this stage of the race, a far more credible candidate than Clinton (or, if you're Kang, Klin-ton).

The way I see it, the only hope for Clinton in Texas is making sure that her supporters show up for both the primary and the caucus on March 4. That's right, due to yet another quirk in Texas law, there's a two stage election -- a secret ballot held earlier in the day (in fact, advance polls start today) followed by a series of caucus meetings. And we've seen how well Obama does in caucus situations.

Realistically, Clinton must win Texas or at least get 45% of the vote. If she fails even there, one could hardly understand why a superdelegate who has pledged to her might be tempted to say enough of her.

"I know what you want," versus "I know what you need." Hobson's choice, really. Against a 100 year war that John McCain wants -- the money is still on hope.

Look at it another way: the BBC World Service broke into regular programming to carry Obama's announcement for his run about a year or so ago. They didn't do that for Clinton. That must mean something in itself.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Top Eleven Reasons why Dion should force an election

Harper has given the Liberals the following reasons why the time to move is now:

11. Banning access by bureaucrats to progressive websites -- mine included -- even during their off time.
10. An Accountability Act that actually created some new issues that surpass the problems the law was designed to eliminate.
9. Screwing around with the Wheat Board -- one of the most successful cooperatives on the planet.
8. Cancelling universal day care. Harper won't even consider a means-tested regime.
7. Permanently damaging the Child Tax Benefit program with the so-called "child care" benefit which is taxable and reduces eligibility for other entitlements such as the GST Credit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
6. Favouring seniors with private pensions over those who don't.
5. Holding cabinet meetings in secret locations.
4. Muzzling committee chairmen.
3. An irresponsible GST cut. An across the board income tax cut would have made way more sense and have been revenue neutral.
2. Questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with Harper [read: Afghanistan].
1. Two words: Chalk River.

All these have happened with a minority government. We can't afford a Conservative majority.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Adios, Castro

It would have been nice to see him hang on longer, just to make the State Department even more mad, but Fidel Castro has announced today that he will not seek another term as the President of Cuba.

It is my sincere wish that this marks the beginning of the end of the American embargo against the country south of Key West. It has never posed a serious threat to US interests, at least since the termination of the Cuban Missile Crisis. More significant is that is managed to do what the Americans are incapable of doing: Providing top rate, universal medicare -- at about 1/30th the cost of the broken American system.

Castro proved to be a good friend to every Canadian PM except PMS -- and I think it's that bridge that will prove valuable as the barriers eventually come down. When it comes time for contracts to rebuild the country, it will be Canadians and EU firms that get first dibs, not the Americans.

Like Martha Stewart says, that's a good thing.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Give it up, Fayed

Am I the only person on the planet outside of the employment of any government agency who has had it up to here with the fabrications and conspiracy theories of Mohammed al-Fayed? Today's testimony at the inquest really reached a new low even for him.

He claims Diana told him she was pregnant at the time. Impossible: She had her period ten days before. Multiple medical reports attest to this. (Besides, even if she was, who would she tell the news to first; her sons or Mr. Fayed? Exactly.)

He claims the then PM wanted her dead. On the contrary, Tony Blair was about to appoint her as an Ambassador at Large -- maybe even Ambassador to Washington. Why would he blow away his secret weapon just months after becoming PM?

He claims MI5, MI6 and the CIA also wanted her dead. Ridiculous, although all three spy agencies did have files on her.

It's true there was no love lost between Prince Phillip and Diana, during her marriage to Chuck. But they actually got along very well after the divorce.

He is right about what he called Camilla. But you just don't say that in polite conversation and certainly not in a court of law.

As for the accident itself: Serious and credible allegations have been made that Dodi Fayed switched businesses from motion picture producing to arms dealing. If this is indeed the case, wouldn't the elder Fayed have had a duty to warn Diana to keep a safe distance from his son? If there was a murder, wouldn't it be more appropriate to blame it on Al Qaeda or other extremist groups? Or the Mafia?

Fayed is an embarrassment to himself, what's left of his family and the UK. The government should go into Harrod's, melt down the solid gold memorial and drive down the price of the precious metal a hundred bucks an ounce or so.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

UK Bank nationalized

In a last ditch effort to prevent a Titanic, the British government is going to temporarily (whatever that means) nationalize the Northern Rock Bank while it reorganizes; and freeze trading of the stock. This is going to put the Brown administration in the unenviable position of having to foreclose on some of its own citizens.

This move was made after two buyout offers were deemed by the government there to be insufficient. For a party (Labour) that finally appeared to give up on the concept of nationalization, this is déjà vu.

I don't know whether the UK has deposit insurance such that exists in Canada and in the US which theoretically protects innocent depositors in case of a "run" on a bank, but there are two things that bother me about this. One is that it sets a very dangerous precedent and that beyond the deposits, British taxpayers could be on the hook for £55 billion, the value of the distressed loans the bank itself owes. If another major bank gets into trouble, it'll be huge if for no other reason that Northern Rock is rather small compared to the other majors there. (An apt comparison in Canada would be the National compared to the other Big Six Banks.)

Two is that this is indicative of just how much the sub prime crisis has gotten out of hand and that no one did anything to stop it. I generally favour free markets as the best place to determine loan risks, but I also wonder what business the banks around the world had in granting mortgages to high risk people as well as people who decided to hedge on whether those loans would be paid back. Some towns in California and in Ohio are facing foreclosure rates of 25%. This is insane, especially when people were given 125% mortgages meaning even if they lose they still win. The loanees, that is; the loaners are the ones stiffed. Surely there should be some guidelines if not outright regulation to ensure those who take out money can pay it back.

This is truly a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Frankly, this extraordinary step could be the end of Gordon Brown who is mostly a lame duck here on in. While I'll be glad to see New Labour go, the presumed alternative of the Conservatives are hardly appealing either -- I'd want to give another look at the Lib Dems (ironically they're supporting Labour on this one, although they say it's very late in the game to have had to taken this step).

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Screw Family Day

Tomorrow is the manufactured holiday called "Family Day." I won't be celebrating it. For one thing, I don't have a family. It was taken away from me when my parents divorced, and there is no prospect of me ever having a family.

I cannot celebrate it when the divorce rate continues to hover at 40%.

I cannot celebrate it when 53% of women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetimes.

I cannot celebrate it when Canada's Immigration Department does not do a background check on a pedophile known to British authorities, and allows him to enter Canada to commit even more child abuse.

I cannot celebrate it when our tax policies continue to favour rich families over lower income families.

I cannot celebrate it when PMS deregulates foreign adoptions but makes it even harder to adopt a kid born in Canada, making the foster care gulag even larger.

In short, I cannot celebrate a concept that to me is a total farce. There are no real families in Canada, just people who live together who are related to each other.

Screw Family Day. I don't mind the day off. Just call it something else.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Delay's gerrymander may favour Obama

This is interesting ... remember a couple of years ago when the Texas Democrats refused to agree to a mid-cycle redistricting plan; and under orders from Tom Delay arrest warrants were issued for the Dems, when they walked out of the legislature resulting in lack of quorum?

One writer suggests that plan which split the white and black Dem vote in many districts to ensure a Republican win may wind up working in favour of Barack Obama. Since about 2/3 of the delegates are selected by district and only 1/3 by the statewide vote, Obama is primarily focused in Houston, where six of the districts intersect.

This one is really fascinating. It also does raise one of the pitfalls of the particular form of PR the Democrats chose for this cycle; that Obama could lose the popular vote in a really close contest, but still wind up with more delegates as has happen in some states already.

Which vote should people therefore pay more attention to; the state vote or that by district? This one could be messy. But if this helps Delay to shoot himself in the foot; if in fact it helps Texas become a swing state or even a Blue State, so much the better.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.