Plan B Forum

dgs49 wrote: (3) Most people who claim to be "undecided" at this point are either (a) lying, or (b) stupid, or (c) seriously uninformed. And the less informed you are, the more vulnerable you are to the lies told by the candidates. Thus, polls of "undecided voters" are meaningless.

Long Run wrote:

dgs49 wrote: (3) Most people who claim to be "undecided" at this point are either (a) lying, or (b) stupid, or (c) seriously uninformed. And the less informed you are, the more vulnerable you are to the lies told by the candidates. Thus, polls of "undecided voters" are meaningless.

I doubt this is true. Rather, my view of the undecided voters at this point is that they are non-idealogical and have a view that: 1) Obama is fairly likeable, had a very tough situation to deal with, and didn't do a particularly good job at it, but there is plenty of blame on Congress as well; and 2) Romney is a so-so candidate and it is not clear he will do a better job than Obama. Many undecideds have moved into the Romney vote because his debate performances showed he is up to the job. However, for the remaining, they are having a hard time figuring out which way to go, because picking the least bad choice is always a difficult analysis.

WHERE LEGALS DARE

To General W. S. Hancock
St Paul, Minnesota

PHILADELPHIA, November 6 1871
On the question of presidential ambitions, the issue is surrounded by so many difficulties, and blended so intimately with questions, not only of politics, but of party, that I have esteemed myself fortunate in being hitherto permitted to remain where I am.

Besides, certain ill-disposed persons have put it about that the Court would rule that my birth in Cadiz, Spain renders me not “native born” and hence disqualifies me, constitutionally, from seeking the highest office, as would be true had I been born on the isthmus of Panama, or in tribal lands in east Africa. Vice-presidency of the Fairmount Park Commission is sufficient preferment for myself.

As to your own position, I fear that your narrow defeat in 1868 which resulted in Seymour’s selection as democrat candidate against Grant, the galvanized republican, has shown that our people are not yet reconciled to one who believes in the principles of states' rights and limited government. Then, your public characterization of Sheridan’s interference in your Department last year as resulting in the “Baker massacre” has cemented his enmity. He is more concerned with rushing about Chicago saving his home and his friends from fire, than he is about the death of hundreds at the hands of an alcoholic. How true it is that the acorn falls not far from the tree.

Your mention of Canada in connection with the arrest of O’Neil in St Paul, and my own musings on Supreme Court involvement in presidential matters, bring to mind Vallandigham in 1863, whom I feel sure you recall. The justices were between the Scylla of the Constitution and the Charybdis of Mr. Lincoln. Chief Justice Chase sidestepped the question by making the un-surprising discovery that extra-legal tribunals were not listed amongst those over which the Supreme Court had any authority.

Democrats claimed this will permit a future administration to incarcerate citizens as well as non-citizens without protection of our Constitution. I cannot credit that any such emergency as the recent sectional conflict could arise that would require such draconian measures.

By the by, had you learned of the death of Vallandigham this past June? He was busily engaged in defending one accused of murder, and had formed the theory that the victim discharged his own gun by accident. He invited other attorneys to his hotel room, and illustrated his notion by seizing a convenient pistol, and entangling it in his clothing. The unfortunately loaded weapon performed admirably and Vallandigham shot himself to death. The client was acquitted. Grant has been heard to say that more lawyers should be encouraged to go thus far for justice.