People who suggest we switch to Independent, are missing something

[SoCalDem]

Most places I have lived will not let one vote in a primary unless you declare a party, so if you plan to vote in a primary, and then ask for a republican ballot, you are automatically identified as a republican (or dem , if you ask for that ballot)

And most people probably don't want the hassle of switching back and forth all the time..

A better choice would be to start electing qualified people and then start holding them accountable :)

[meegbear]

1. And there's no IndependentUnderground.com either ...

put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[DancingBear]

4. That's too bad

Blind allegiance is a very poor choice.

[William769]

6. Whats to bad about it?

Nothing is stopping anybody from starting up IndependentUnderground.com. Unless of course they are just moochers and want to use somebody's else's bandwidth. Light bulb come on yet.

[DancingBear]

12. No, not really

However, had you a f$%*ing clue of what you're talking about maybe it would.

You have a search function, don't you? Bring up "Crawford" and see what you find.

Or go back to stunting progress by keeping your head in the sand.

Bye, now.

[William769]

43. Why don't you find a site where you would be happier?

I bet I know why, see my first post.

[William769]

2. In the State of Florida if you are a registered Independent

You can only vote for a Independent in the Primary. And guess what? If there are no Independents in the Primary, you don't vote.

[Ganja Ninja]

3. The only thing they're missing is a viable alternative. n/t

[Vinca]

5. I thought we had done that - elected qualified people.

How do we hold them accountable (beyond pestering them to death) since we can't hold an election tomorrow and replace them? It's all very discouraging. I've been threatening to return to Indie status just to make a point: elected Democrats should not be so comfy in their positions that they assume the masses will come out and vote for them no matter what they do.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. No. We merely elected Democrats

And sort of bought the campaign hopes that they would somehow get us out of Iraq, fix health care, maybe a few other niceties. We hoped they were qualified, had the guts to push the president toward peace and health care.

But no, they can't get 60 senators to allow negotiated prices on drugs, so how can we expect them to fix health care in general?

They can't get any conditions on war spending, or Bush will veto. So they roll over.

Generally disappointing, this new Democratic majority.

Voting independent is not a fix for this. We're stuck with the two-party system for a long time. Better if we can get Republicans to vote for independents, like H. Ross Perot.

[Vinca]

14. I didn't say I would vote Independent.

Independent status would only send the message - to the politicians - that the Democratic vote wasn't guaranteed.

[NavyDavy]

28. you know what ..... we Dems inherited a lot of s**t from the repukes

when we won the congress back, and only giving them 5 months to chge 12 yrs of corruption and lack of oversight is just a bunch of bull......if all you critics think you can do better then run for public office......this is just one Dems opinion....

[magellan]

44. They aren't even trying

They're trading lives for votes in '08 only because they're too cowardly to defend the principles they should be championing against the Repuke smear machine, and it's despicable. They won't win MY vote that way.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Let's Form Even More Circular Firing Squads

Yes, the "compromise" was a sell-out and the Beltway Democrats are starting to hear from us "fly-overs" how we feel about this. IMHO, the one-way dialogue in the beltway that is dominated by right wing talking points and the media elite made many think this vote wasn't going to get the reaction it did. They were more worried about being framed as "not supporting the troops" and other right wing chestnuts that they hear all day long on the radio, on questions from the stenographers and in the papers. There's no excuse for this, just the problem of Democrats still not believing their speaking for the people, not the corporate media and their Repugnican masters.

Be pissed at the Democrats...write a letter to your Congresscritter or Senator (REAL paper, REAL ink...not email) and then take a deep breath...and ask what's the alternative? Any third party is sure suicide for whatever party it draws its protest votes from. Hopefully some learned this from their Nader votes in 2000, and I expect we'll see the Repugnicans splinter into one, if not two or three parties by this time next year.

Wanna make a difference? This is a great time to look around your area and see what's going on. Check out the candidates...if there's a "DINO" or "Blue Dog" or a Democrat who you don't support, then find out if there's a primary challenger and get involved. Yes, there are some of our own who need to either get the boot or one hell of a scare and to let them know this shit won't stand. Then...it's time to focus on the real enemies of all of us here...they all have (R)'s after their names.

Cheers...

[Captain Hilts]

9. The RNC counts on a good % of us bailing on our party. nt

[spotbird]

22. and the DNC counts on

our support no matter how they lead.

It's quite a fix.

[Captain Hilts]

32. But Republicans don't bail on their party nearly as easily as Democrats do.

That's the difference in a lot of elections.

[spotbird]

39. Republicans know what matters to their

base, a lesson that escapes the Democrats.

[Captain Hilts]

41. DU is not representative of the Democrat base. nt

[sheerjoy]

10. We keep trying....

and failing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Hey, I remember you. From that Rosie O'Donnel thread.

I haven't been talked about you-know-where in a long time. I must be doing something wrong. Can you fix that for me?

[JTFrog]

11. Then we need to change the system.

The "2 party system" is killing this country. Call it what you want, but that's what we got now. It's basically a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[BobRossi]

13. One problem

We thought we WERE voting for qualified people! It was the traitors that switched parties, not me.

[spinbaby]

15. We do switch back and forth a lot

You have to recognize that what your registration is doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whom you vote for. We're in Pennsylvania and we tend to switch depending on who's got the better primary. It's a bit of a nuisance, but often worth it. I wish I'd changed to Republican for the last primary for a chance to vote against Diana Irey for county commissioner--you may remember her run against Murtha last fall.

[Clark2008]

16. My state's just a tad different.

One just has to ask for whichever ballot they want when they go to vote. We don't have to register with a party in order to vote in that party's elections.

You declare when you vote; therefore, it's not a hassle to switch back and forth. Hubby and I do it all the time. If we know a particular Dem is going to be the nominee (and, in this state, there's usually only one Dem running anyway), then we vote in the Repub primary for the candidate who might have the least chance against the Dem (we're sneaky that way). Besides, where we live, if we didn't vote in the Republican primary, we wouldn't get to pick any represenatives on the state level since few Dems run.

Now, our LOCAL district is Democratic (Dem county commission, city council, state house), but our little blue oasis gets cancelled out by all the Rethugs in the surrounding areas when the district broadens for state senate seats.

[journalist3072]

17. I switched from Dem to Independent in 2005

I have no regrets. Now, if I want to vote in Democratic primaries here, I do have to change my registration back to Dem (and after, switch it back to Independent).

But I have no regrets.

[LWolf]

18. I was an independent for 25 years.

I didn't vote in a primary until CA played around with open primaries a few years back.

I liked open primaries. It gave those of us who vote for issues rather than party a stronger voice.

When the open primaries were shut down, I registered as a Democrat, since I voted for Democrats most frequently. I got to participate in primaries.

Which made no difference, since no one I was interested in supporting in the general election ever won the primaries.

I'm still a registered Democrat, and still casting votes that the mainstream Democratic party doesn't value. I feel more silenced within the party than from without. Within, it's all about the party, and the issues are a side dressing. At least, that's been my experience.

The Democratic "leadership" during my tenure as a Democrat has not exactly been burning with desire to address the issues that bring me to the voting booth, either.

So, voting in primaries are not exactly a strong draw to remain in the party. It's not like the party has any intention of nominating someone I want to support or vote for in the general election. I don't think the Democratic "leadership" is "missing" this point. I think it's deliberate; a way to control a segment of the voting population with propaganda designed to make them feel impotent if they aren't "one of us," and to make sure that their position on issues stays "fringe," "ignored," and does not have to be directly addressed.

I completely agree with your last statement, though.

A better choice would be to start electing qualified people and then start holding them accountable

A better choice than supporting any Democrat just because of the "D;" a better choice than voting for the so-called "electable" status-quo. I believe that the best choice for the Democratic Party would be to hold the current "leaders" accountable by voting them out, and voting some people in that would give people a reason to WANT to be a Democrat. People that will actually take on the entrenched corruption and clean it up. People that actually mean what they say when they talk about issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. People Can Call Themselves Whatever They Want. They Just Better Vote For The Democrat.

If they don't, then the only appropriate label they should call themselves is 'fool'.

[LWolf]

20. Fools

are those who follow along where they are lead, and vote obediently the way they are told to vote, no matter what their so-called "leaders" are doing.

No one who makes an informed, conscious decision about party affiliation or vote is a "fool."

[Selatius]

24. Unfortunately, our system doesn't give voters much of a choice without punishing them.

With single-member district plurality as a system of representation and with first-past-the-post voting as a voting method, if you split the vote on the left, you get a Republican in office. The same logic applies in reverse if you split the vote on the right. In that case, you get a Democrat. This is why many Democrats harbor anger against the Greens over what happened in 2000.

[LWolf]

30. I understand that.

I also understand that not "splitting the vote," going along to make sure you get a "D," does not necessarily gain a "win."

It's not the "D" that accomplishes a "win." It's what the person does in office to represent us. If the "D" is a mainstream, corporate, status-quo politician who is more likely to talk big than take strong stands and have the courage to act on issues, then it really doesn't matter what letter is next to their name.

Whether they are independents, 3rd party members, or "fringe" democrats, there are voters who believe that the whole reason to choose a representative is not to further a party, but to further work on issues. That's what those voters want to see. Action.

Democrats can harbor all the anger they want; if they want those votes, they can nominate a candidate who can deliver them. It's not like Greens, independents, or any 3rd party owes the Democratic Party votes. If Democrats are honest, the anger should be directed at themselves for losing those votes. Blaming others for not agreeing with you, for exercising their right to make their own choice instead of going along with what a party chooses for them is not exactly "democratic" in spirit.

There are Democrats who can bring all those voters in, should Democratic voters decide that they want them. I would say that it's the party's job to field a candidate who will draw those votes, not the voters' job to get in line.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Disagree.

If one who is informed, upon thinking deeply, makes a conscious decision to vote for the independent, green, etc, thereby throwing away their vote as if they never voted in the first place, while casting an attitude of insignificance if the Dem or Repub wins cause they're both the same, thereby enabling a republican victory to screw this country further, due merely to their narrow minded idealism that keeps them from seeing how counter-productive their actions are, then I'm sorry to say but that person is the epitome of a 'fool' in my opinion.

And that's far more valid then your voting for the Dem anyway comparison. See, when it comes to election time, there are only two real choices in REAL LIFE. That's the Dem or the repub. It's not obedience that dictates one voting for the Dem, it's simply a common sense desire to not enable further republican victory. Yes, common sense.

[Clark2008]

29. But, you may hate yourself for voting for the Dem if the Dem

does nothing but for political expedience. And, you can't vote for the Republican, either, because most of them are tools.

Me? I'd feel "foolish" voting for either. I may lose, but my conscious would be clear.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I'd Hate Myself Far More Knowing I Helped Enable The Republican Victory Instead.

How one could have a 'clear conscious' by doing so is something that makes little sense in relation to people who would be members of our community.

See, any time you vote in a national election for a worthless green or indy candidate, then it is the exact same thing as casting half a vote for a republican. My position is that if one who is informed to all that is going on and all the further damage that can be caused by a republican victory chooses to cast half a vote for them anyway while maintaining a 'clear conscious' afterwards, then that person is either simply a sheep republican or in the context here, an idealistic narrow minded fool.

I care not how many flaws the Dem candidate has or the distaste that may come from knowing I have to vote them in. What matters is how much more exponentially distasteful the repub candidate is and how many exponentially greater flaws the repub candidate has.

There are two choices: Dem or repub. One is going to win. Idealism and 'clear conscious' will not change that quite simple layman fact. When voting, one who is not a fool knows that they must either help the Dem win or help the repub win. There are no nuances there. It is one or it is the other. If one doesn't vote for the Dem, then they are helping the repub win. Like I said, you may have a 'clear conscious' after doing so but after being as informed as I am to the dangers of having the repubs in office, I couldn't possibly share in that bliss.

(and 'clear conscious' is put within single quotes since I'm pretty certain you meant conscience.)

[LWolf]

34. Common sense

recognizes that it doesn't really matter if the "D" wins, if the "D" isn't going to do the work I want a rep to do.

I've heard all of this logic before. The bottom line, though, is that if an independent, a green, a liberal, a progressive, or any voter goes into the voting booth because he wants strong action on particular issues, and is faced with a "D" and and "R," neither of whom will take that strong action, the voter has lost before the vote is cast. Putting the "D" in office when that "D" isn't going to work to accomplish your goals is not a "win."

Putting "D"s in office last November sure as hell didn't help with the goal of ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home.

Apparently, putting "Ds" in office doesn't prevent republican victory.

I won't say that it's a "fool" who doesn't recognize this. It's not only recognized, it's deliberate. A way to maintain the status quo while making voters think they've "won" something.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. This Is Black And White LWolf. You Must Answer The Questions Without Nuance:

Do you want the republican to win? Y/N

Do you think if the republican won we'd be better off than if the Dem won? Y/N

For all the flaws of the Democrat, do you find them to be greater than the flaws of the republican? Y/N


Answering no to any of these questions means that the Dem should get the vote. If the Dem doesn't, then I'd consider the person voting to be a fool; sorry.

It is black and white. It is one or the other. You can issue as long of a laundry list of complaints as you want and that still doesn't change the reality. Dem or repub. That is your choice. Do you want the Dem to win or the repub to win. There's no answer of 'neither'. It is one or the other. Pick your side and then vote for them.

[LWolf]

45. I don't agree.

I don't see the world in black and white. I don't think reality comes in such simplistic terms.

Do I want the Republican to win? No.

Do I want the Democrat to win? It depends on what Democrat is running. I don't want a Democrat to win just because he is a democrat; I want a Democrat to win if she has a good record working on the issues I cast my vote to affect. If he doesn't have the record, and the platform, to do so, then I don't really want to see her in office, either.

I don't think we're better off with one bad representative in office instead of another bad representative in office, regardless of the party that claims them.

Party shouldn't trump issues. When the party takes priority over issues, the party has become irrelevant from my pov.

The party is only relevant when it puts issues first.

Edited to add this disclaimer:

Please note that I have not said that I think voters should leave the party to become independents. I have not done so myself. I'm simply responding to the OP about what independents are and are not missing.

I think that those who put party before issues are missing the whole point of casting a vote: to elect someone who will represent us on the issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Don't See The World In Black And White Either, But I'm Smart Enough To Recognize When Something Is

This is one of those times.

You want to so badly make a case out of the 'don't want to vote for a dem that I'm not proud of' concept, but that sentiment itself does not alter reality. In reality, it comes down to exactly what I said it does. You either would rather the republican win or the Democrat win. Those are your only two choices. No matter how passionate you are about your position or how much you so badly want to throw other options into the mix as if they are legitimate, that just is not so. Two choices. Dem. Repub.

It doesn't matter how much you think party shouldn't trump issues. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter.

Because even if you care about the issues more than the party, are you prepared to declare that the republican candidate would be a better fit for your issues of choice? Cause that's your ONLY option. That's the simple concept you are failing to grasp: Even if the Dem doesn't get full marks for your issues, the repub would score even worse marks. That simple fact is what then would deem that you should vote for the Dem or risk suffering the fate of having to deal with a victor who is monumentally further away from you on the issues that matter. Is that what you want? Really?

This is black and white lwolf, whether you are able to open your mind enough to see it that way or not.

You say: "I think that those who put party before issues are missing the whole point of casting a vote: to elect someone who will represent us on the issues.".

Sounds nice on paper, but it has fundamental flaws inherent within it. Since there are only two viable parties within national elections that matter, forsaking rarity such as Joe, then the statement really needs to read "elect someone who will represent us on more issues than the other candidate". One, or the other. That's your choice. Voting for a green or independent is not going to yield the result of 'electing someone who will represent us on the issues', since that candidate would not be elected anyway.

Two choices. Dem. Repub. Who do you want to win. Dem. Repub. Which will align more closely with you on the issues, even if still too far away. Dem. Repub. Which do you want to hear victorious the following morning. It is one or the other lwolf. Ya ain't changing that any time soon. Pick one and vote accordingly. And remember, picking an independent, green, or not voting at all, is the same as voting a half of a vote for the repub, therefore that choice would then go into the repub column. It's either the repub column or the Dem column. Be certain of that. Yes, lwolf, some things in life are that black and white. You just need to be objective and aware enough to recognize when.

[LWolf]

48. I guess we differ on what matters. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Sorry, Ya Can't Just Dismiss Away Logic Like That. Doesn't Work That Way.

Fact is, I've more than thoroughly laid out the case for why I'm right and why your logic was flawed. You have not refuted it nor given any reason to call my logic into question. You cannot simply say some throw away statement like "I guess we differ on what matters" and think that puts our logics on equal playing fields or something, or that it somehow closes the argument with some sort of finality. Just doesn't work that way.

I have shown quite readily why my logic is sound and irrefutable. Can you challenge that or argue my logic to any degree at all? If you can't, then it isn't a matter of us differing on what matters, it is quite simply a matter of you thinking something that was misguided and me showing you why.

Goodnight.

[LWolf]

50. Sure I can.

Circular logic goes nowhere. It should be dismissed.

I'm sorry that you can not acknowledge that some people, myself included, see things from a different perspective than you do.

Some people take a broader view.

Some people take a narrower view in order to remove those pesky complications that make simplifying the world down to "black and white" more difficult.

Attempting to prove my perspective "false" with faulty logic accomplishes nothing.

Insisting on the last word in an argument doesn't make one "right." You can have the last word, which doesn't affect my point one way or another; I'm moving on.

Circular arguments also go nowhere.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. There Is A Difference Between Different Perspectives And Simply Being Wrong.

If you want to make this about perspective, as if there's a huge grey area open for discussion with the overall logical deduction of this context, then you're gonna have to show where it is. I have thoroughly shown why this grey area does not exist and why it is a black and white situation. You have provided nothing logically to refute that or show otherwise. If you want to argue that the grey area is still there despite my efforts at proving to you that it isn't, then you have to provide at least some sort of legitimate logical refutation as to how. You have not yet done so. Simply saying "I just see things differently" is not a logical argument nor a bolstering of your case. In fact, saying such a thing has no meaning at all unless you can provide reasoning for your view.

What is your reasoning? Based on what I've explained and put forth, why are you still holding onto that reasoning? What is it about my analysis that you disagree with that keeps you confident in your position? What about my analysis is untrue or disputable? Can you dispute any of it? Is any of it inaccurate? If so, which parts? Where are the holes in the logic? Where is there room for the grey area you so dearly want to hold onto? Can you explain yourself or provide insight into why you hold onto the opinion that you do?

See, trying to hold onto a simplistic viewpoint of "my perspective simply differs" without having any justification or readily explainable defense as to why you hold onto such a viewpoint is not holding a position at all; it is merely naivety. That applies whenever someone clings to an opinion, even in the face of strong opposing argument, without having any ability to defend that position other than "cause I want to".

I'm not trying to criticize you here. I'm trying to get you to understand that sometimes an opinion can be based on ignorance, and that we should all strive to educate ourselves beyond that ignorance when the opportunity arises or when one tries to make us aware. I have done more than my part to show you why your position holds no water yet you refuse to counter with anything that shows that it does. That's your call, but it does nothing to put you in the right.

You say I can't acknowledge that some people have a broader view. What you fail to understand is that doesn't apply here and that I've handily shown why that doesn't apply. You seem to want to ignore that fact. But if you want to claim my argument as being illogical and narrow and that I'M the one flawed here, then shouldn't you be prepared to show why? Shouldn't you be prepared to counter my position with an even stronger argument? Shouldn't you be able to debate the logic you so readily criticize with logic of your own? Do you truly believe that just saying "you're just narrow minded and using flawed logic" is an actual argument that does anything for your position?

Listen lwolf, you can criticize me and my argument all you want but you have yet to provide any refutation to it. Until you can do so, my argument stands as the victor. This is a black and white scenario no matter how passionately you want it to be otherwise. Prove me wrong. Prove your position. Defend your position. Do anything. You say I'm using flawed logic. Really? Where? I can't find it (at least in my replies, anyway).

You say you're moving on yet you never even started. You were refuted long ago and haven't been able to overcome it since. If you still choose to move on then that's your choice. I think it would be a hell of a lot more beneficial to you and your argument to actually be able to offer something legitimate in defending it. If not, and if you can't, then maybe you should ascertain that your position was possibly flawed to begin with and not one worthy of holding.

It's ok to learn. It's ok to abandon positions once realizing they were flawed. It's ok to adopt a new perspective once being made aware that the new perspective is far more accurate and legitimate. We all should be willing to do such things. It's what keeps us from remaining ignorant.

Regards,

OMC

[spotbird]

21. I plan to keep my affiliation

just so I can vote in the primary.

But I absolutely refuse to vote for either of the anointed in the general. They do not represent change, so I will not contribute in any way to the continuation of the status quo.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. I don't understand this "Independant" thing at all...

nor why it's supposedly such a good thing.

I do understand why someone might prefer not to have a party affiliation, but that's not the same as this calling for Independance just because we're pissed at a party or some of the elected.

The sad fact is that none of us will be completely happy with anyone we elect, and if we are ineffective in one of the established parties, how can we expect to have any influence with no party at all?

Electing good people is a nice idea, but not as easy as it looks. First problem is who is to define what is considered "qualified." It would seem that for everyone elected, those who voted for them considered them qualified, nu?

[NotGivingUp]

25. We've got controlled media and one party. We're screwed. nt

[Marrah_G]

27. It worked for JOE!!!!

[baldguy]

33. There are two sides to this fight: American & unAmerican, good & evil, right & wrong

People who claim to be "independent" are observant enough to see how evil the Republicans are, but too stupid to see through their propaganda - therefore they are just tools of the VRWC.

[Beelzebud]

36. Want accountability? Let them know your vote isn't something to be taken for granted...

[Le Taz Hot]

37. It's not a problem at all.

I do it all the time. Register as Democrat for the Primaries and back to DTS (decline to state) for the general. It's a matter of filling out an online form, printing it, signing it and mailing it in. No problem.

[Nunyabiz]

38. The best choice

would be to eliminate the WAY out dated Electoral College, that bullshit should have been long gone at least 75 years ago.

Then get rid of ALL electronic Voti....errr stealing machines and go back to all paper ballots hand counted.

Then we need AT LEAST one other viable party such as the Green party, ideally there should be 5 parties.
All candidates are given the exact same amount of funds paid for by the federal government and they can not spend a dime more, ALL Candidates get the exact same airtime provided FREE by all broadcast media because they are using PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
ALL candidates must be part of debates held in every single state and the rules of the debate are made by each state.

The voter turnout would be 10X what it is now and EVERY PHUCKING VOTE WOULD COUNT.

[SoCalDem]

46. And that's why it will never happen.. Bias is built in to our current system

and when someone wins , under that system, they fear changing it. The ones who lose...well they no longer have power to change it..

The EC should have gone away when the telegraph was invented..or before..

Our modern world would allow for special channels for politics.. and NO "ads"..Just politicians having time to lay out their agenda..one at a time..and have it as an "on demand" thing, where people could replay and compare.

By the time an election happens, we should all be able to find out exactly what each candidate thinks about ALL the issues of the day.

I'd like to make them HAVE to expound on all issues for at least 30 minutes. NO quick quippy sound-bytes.

Would you let a doctor operate on you is he/she spoke in sound-bytes about your medical problem?

I'd also like to see nationally held offices stripped away from all the local/state stuff too.. Probably MOST people only care about presidential elections and senate/congress, so why not make it appealing for people to vote and make it easy to count their votes. The utter complexity of the current ballots ..with all the extraneous propositions, judges, local stuff is what makes the ballot design (to fit machines) so vulnerable to mistakes/ommissions/chicanery..and of course any "error" on a ballot, causes the machine to reject the whole thing. We need a standardized ballot for ALL nationally-held offices.

A simple 5x7 card with :

president (every 4 years)
senator (every 2 years..depending on that state's senate seat expiration)
congress every 2 years

a sharpie pen and a box to collect the cards are all that needed (except for a chalkboard, a calculator, a phone and some people to count)

We want easy & accountable.. politicians fear those things

[Matariki]

42. "A better choice would be to start electing qualified people and then start holding them accountable

thought we did that <sigh>

[Forkboy]

52. I'm "Unenrolled"...I can vote in any primary.

And I will be.

[Hubert Flottz]

53. "and then start holding them accountable"

And that is what smart democrats will be doing! Ask Joe LIEberman. Joe had better enjoy his self now, because the next time round his ass will be toast!

Where have all the rose garden democrats gone?