Call It A Comeback
Steve Neal points out that Gary McDougal has nothing, but is happy to insinuate he does against Blago. How much trouble is J-Ry in? The guy he begged to take the job after several refused can’t even offer up any real dirt.
Voters in Illinois aren’t going to choose based a ICFST campaign of inuendo and whining. They have no message whatsoever at this point except to cry boogeyman at Blago.
Not that the topic hasn’t been well covered, but there is a good column at Belief.net concerning the Falwell’s selective views on violence in Holy Books.
Interestingly this dovetails into the rather hyperbolic claims of many warbloggers about the inherent nature of Islam. This is nonsense, but an interesting new book is out warning about increasing violence in 3rd World Christianity. That isn’t the theme of the book from what I can tell, but the author, Philip Jenkins, discusses it and the rapid changes Christianity is undergoing outside of the 1st World.
Perhaps the twits need to think more about promoting pluralist institutions and economic growth? Even radical Sikhs use their faith to justify violence. Islam isn’t inherently violent. Islam takes on a violent look when in societies where it is the form or resistance. For those looking for more than a quick lazy answer, it might be of note–so does Christianity in the same conditions.
Another good column on the idiocy of the Israeli divestment movement.
This movements seems to me to be the most morally relativistic approach to human rights I’ve seen.
From the Hotline Thursday edition.
Quote of the Day
“This is now just a case of a corpse kicking himself.”
— UC Berkeley prof. Bruce Cain, on Bill Simon, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/10.
One of the more amusing features of the New Jersey case was the hyper defense of the rule of law. I find a close parallel between those fundamentalists who call for a literal reading of the Bible and morons who think interpreting law is like reading a set of instructions to a toy. Most of the time, the issues are far more complex and have a judicial and legislative history that is relevant to how to interpret the law.
On top of this, legislators are often dumb and/or lazy and write some half ass laws. They expect the judiciary to save their ass much of the time. In fact, often times competing arguments over interpretation are put into the record to inform the courts of the different positions and then let them sort it out.
One of the best reporting jobs on the New Jersey case was done by National Journal (subscription based. Here is what they found:
With so much focus on ballot access deadlines and so many tongue-in-cheek suggestions about Torricelli-style withdrawals in other races, we thought it would be helpful to list what each state’s law is regarding the drop dead deadline for changing a name on a general election ballot.
The focus of this survey was determining a date regardless of actual statute. For example the Arizona statute states that withdrawal is possible before ballots are printed. State law says ballots must be printed 33 days before the election, therefore 33 days would be the last day a substitute can be made.
For all you lawyers out there who disagree with the results, email us and we’ll try and figure it out. Obviously, as we learned in NJ, no date is set in stone.
One quick clarification note: When using the term NS (No Statute), statute does not provide an accurate remedy or explanation for substitution or withdrawal. NP (Not Permitted) refers to provisions not allowing substitution or withdrawal. None is used when no deadlines are written in to statute.
State Last Day* Substitute** Last, Last Day***
AL 48 days 16 days same
AK 48 days same same
AZ NS 33 days same
AR NS 25 days same
CA 68 days none Removed, but no switch
CO NP NP 68 days before election
CT 10 days 7 days 24 hours
DE Sept 1st Sept 1st 5 days for replacement
FL 42 days 21 days NS. Votes for party are
transferable.
GA 60 60 10 days, party must file
replacement by 4 pm next
day after vacancy occurs
HI NP none changing???? (see HRH)
ID 45 days Same same
IL 15 days 8 days post vacancy same
IN 31 days same Elec. Commission decides
IA 89 days 81 days same
KS none none 7 days post primary
KY NP NP 2nd Thurs. pre election
LA election day none none
ME 60 days 60 days Sec. of State determines
MD 5 days before same same
MA 6 days post same 72 hours before election
primary
MI NS NS NS, replacement allowed
MN NS NS NS
MS NP NP none approval of Gov,
Sec/State and AG
MO 42 days 25 days same
MT 85 days NP 75 days
NE Sept 1st before ballot same
printing
NV NP NP petition drive
NH NP NP 5 days from vacancy
NJ 51 days same 30 days now, right?
NM 63 days same 5 days before election
NY NP NP 7 days drop, no switch
NC 30 days 30 days if dies, name stays
but party can nominate
replacement. no deadline
specified
ND 60 days same same
OH 76 days same 10 days
OK friday after same none
primary/runoff
OR 67 days 70 days 61 days
PA 85 days same 1 day before ballot printed
RI 3 days after same if death and time permits,
primary Sec/State shall sub.
SC NP NP 30 days
SD 1st tuesday 2nd tuesday NP
after primary after primary
TN NP NP 40 days before election
TX 65 days NP same but parties have 60
days to name replacement
UT no deadline same NS
VT 47 days before ballot same
printing
VA 45 days same 25 days
WA 6th Tuedsay same any time up until 24
before primary hours before election
WV 98 days NP 95 days
WI NP NP before ballot printing
WY 40 days same NS, name cannot be
switched after ballots are
printed
NS – Date Not Specified.
NP – Not Permitted.
* Last Day post primary a candidate can withdraw.
** Deadline within which parties can substitute a candidate.
*** Special circumstances, i.e. death, sickness, or disqualification
where parties can substitute a candidate. (moved out of state or
district).
Some states have some remarkable practices. For instance,
* CT uses lever balloting systems all throughout the state which accordingly allows very late deadlines for replacing candidates. The elections office in CT mentioned, “we just put a sticker over the candidates name” when dealing with these late deadlines.
* CA and NY are very stringent in their rules, not allowing candidates to be removed past the deadline. In fact, in both states, only instances where judicial nominees are appointed to higher courts can candidates be removed, but still no substitutes.
* MS law requires the GOV, Sec/State and AG to vote on allowing nominee replacement.
* In order to replace a candidate in NV who has died after the certification, a petition drive must happen.
* ME allows their Sec/State to set parameters for substitution of candidates in special circumstances elections (ie death, illness, disqualification).
* Some states keep deadlines very close to their primary elections: KY, HI and MA.
* Two states will actually count votes cast for a candidate whose name appears on the ballot but has withdrawn from the election and attribute those votes to the replacement: WA and FL.
* In NC, the elections office pointed out that “we do not run dead people” and they will go to great lengths to replace candidates.
Rich Miller writes another critical article on Birkett. And he is on target. There are all sorts of problems with Lisa Madigan, but Birkett’s excesses are quite amazing.
Instapundit links to the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial on ideological faculty diversity. First, let’s stipulate diversity of all kinds is generally better. Second, let’s not the irony of all the whining about the prof in Florida who is supportive of radical Palestinians. In that case, ideological diversity doesn’t stretch very far. Go figure.
Third, let’s examine a key problem with the study done by Frank Luntz. He cites an overwhelming number of professors in the humanities and social sciences who are liberal. The good Dr. Luntz should know, as a political science PhD, that one needs a control. What are the percentages of natural science profs who are registered Democrats and hold similar views to their counterparts in the other areas?
Obviously, chemistry isn’t taught with a political point. Bush is doing his best with the biosciences though. The important point is that PhDs have long been more likely to vote Democratic and with reallignment that should continue to increase.
Natural science professors provide a good control group. They certainly aren’t hired for their political views (though Stanley Fish pointed out that no one really is) and how much they differ from their colleagues controls for the effect of education on partisan ID and ideology.
Why didn’t the good Dr. Luntz include such a control since he obviously has training in the social sciences? It wouldn’t have fit neatly in the story he wanted to tell.
As stipulated above, ideological diversity is a good thing. Not that many conservatives want to go into academia. Ideology affects the decision to make academia a career choice and certainly the context of the environment reinforces that effect. There isn’t anything dark happening here, it is simply a problem of self-selection. If the Good Dr. Luntz doesn’t like it, then perhaps he should think about how to encourage conservatives to pursue academic careers.
That is always my question when I go to David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine. Tapped points out the problems with his latest efforts. He is trying to claim that there is a horrible bias in academia because of the commencement speakers choices at a few selected universities. It is always nice to have Tapped go after him and demonstrate how he selected cases to fit his desired results.
Of course, it might also be useful to point out that no one actually listens to commencement speakers. Given this, what does Horowitz want? Affirmative Action so that conservative speakers can be ignored just like more liberal speakers? Dave is fighting the good fight there!
Josh Marshall discusses Larry King’s interview with Colin Powell. DO NOT TAKE A DRINK WHILE READING. Even better follow the links and read the Larry satire. It is hysterical.
Fisking is just intellectual laziness. Of course, his reference to the New York Times might earn him a fisking.
ArchPundit