WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Thursday, January 03, 2008

ELECTION LOGIC

The possibility of what happens tonight in the frozen tundra of Iowa creates an almost endless scenario of possibilities.

We will address a few of the more fascinating and likely possibilities.

Rudy "9/11" Guliani. It's getting a little tiresome to listen to this man who cannot complete more than two sentences without remaining anyone and everyone he was the Mayor of NY on 9/11.

You've heard of a "front loading strategy'? Guliani decided to do something that has rarely been done before. He back loaded his strategy. Super Tuesday is February 5, 2008 when 1,113 of 2,500 delegates in 20 states are uo for grabs. The problem is that by Super Tuesday Guiliani might be 0 for 8, or at best 1 for 8 as he competes in Florida on Tuesday January 9, 2007. If a week is an eternity in politics, a month is more than a life time, and Rudy G may well find himself irrelevant before his race even begins.

Huckabee/Romney/McCain.
This is the battle. McCain needs to show a strong third in Iowa and New Hampshire is in play for the man written off over the summer.

Huckabee is a phenomenon who needs to avoid a Howard Dean. No matter how he finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he just needs to keep plugging along doing what he is doing. He has a solid evangelical base that will not abandon him. If Romney implodes in Iowa/New Hampshire, the Florida race looks for solid for Huckabee in six days, and he goes into super Tuesday as the candidate of change versus McCain the candidate of the Republican establishment.

Out bet: Huckabee is out of his league and screws is up.

Mitt Romney. Forget being Morman. Is the country ready for a president named "Mitt"?
He has money. He has organization. He has worked the hardest and has put himself in position to win it all. In other words, he is where you don't want to be- out in front, with major expectations. Short of a full sweep and a video of Ronald Regan calling Romney the country's only hope, in many ways Romney and Hillary Clinton have only one place to go- down.

That leaves McCain. He's honest. He's paid the price for his honesty on immigration that put him at odds with most Republicans. He is the most experienced of the group. He has the gravitas to be President. He has been in tougher spots than this, and if he emerges with the buzz of a survivor it plays into his image. He needs to win New Hampshire; he needs the voters of South Carolina to not abandon him like they shamefully did in 2000 when he ran against Bush. A strong showing in Iowa, wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and he is set up with money and organization to compete and win on Super Tuesday.

The Democrats.

Here is the most fascinating scenario: Clinton finishes third in Iowa and a weak second or third in New Hampshire. Obama has not campaigned in Michigan at all, so that leaves South Carolina on January 26 before Super Tuesday on February 5. The SC race is tight. Clinton could well be in third by then. She would then be faced with this difficult choice- go after Obama hard. Flay him down to his bone and destroy him or face losing the nomination. However, Obama holds a strong segment of Democrats who would never forgive Clinton for doing that. She would in a sense be destroying her own party to secure her nomination. Is that the legacy she wants?


Edwards needs a win tonight or a strong second and a win in new Hampshire or a strong second to get him to South Carolina where if he has been competitive until then, he could win, giving him new money and momentum for super Tuesday. Edwards has more than a 100 days on the ground in Iowa, which is more than Obama, who has about 70. Edwards has a very fine organization in Iowa, and his supporters are just as evangelical about him as Obama's are about him. He has kept expectations low while working hard and building a complete organization in Iowa. He has a lot to gain tonight with a strong showing.

Obama. He has the premier organization in Iowa. Clinton's is almost as good. Almost. Obama has tried to change the parameters of the race by bringing in independents who have traditionally not shown up in big numbers. Obama has name recognition and strength to carry him into Super Tuesday no matter what his results, absent a Howard Dean melt down. The question is whether in these dangerous and troubled times the voters in the end feel he has the gravitas to be a President. Obama probably wins Iowa which gives him the street cred he needs to take him into Super Tuesday. We think in a head to head comparison he fairs better against Clinton, who has strong negatives, than against Edwards who doesn't differ a whole lot ideologically from Obama, but based in his experience, might well be more acceptable to voters.

An Edwards/Obama ticket, but not the other way, would be formidable indeed.

This is the start of a process, that by the very nature of press coverage, front runner status, and impressions, will be over in a quick month. We might be better off as a country having a more lengthy primary season- something that would last into June, and would give the entire country a chance to see and evaluate candidates. But this is what it is and for better or worse, we are about to begin a process that will select our next President.

In January 2009, we want to hear CJ John Roberts say "I John Edwards, do solemnly swear to faithfully execute the Office of President Of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Whether that will actually happen, remains to be seen.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's the only thing I want to hear too but it scares the c**p out of me that it will be Pres. Hillbilly Huckabee...No No No!

Rumpole said...

By the way: As I said a few days ago: CAM CAMERON WAS FIRED. I stood by my sources, I scooped the Herald, and I was right to write what I wrote.

Anonymous said...

Rump:

Please proofread before blogging (and cut down on those little bottles on the airplane)!

A Faithful Reader

Obama/Clinton 2008 said...

I was a Hilary supporter a few months back until one day I ventured over to the Obama web page and clicked away at his web page and after also reviewing John Edwards web page that same day I have been sold on Obama.

Take a few minutes and visit http://www.barackobama.com

I am convinced that you will come away as I did a Obama supporter. It is my hope that a Obama/Clinton ticket happens not the other ways around.

While I like Edwards I like the Idea of a Black Man and a White Woman taking the powers that be for the first time in American History.

So keep your eyes open for the Obama/Clinton 2008 Campaign.

Side note Obama already told Dave Letterman in April he would not take a VP position so the Edwards/Obama ticket is just a dream.

Either way make sure you vote and get those lazy relatives registered to vote and Change the World.

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

To answer an earlier inquiry, it was Howard Lubel who resigned from the Public Defender's Office suddenly this week. Is he contemplating a run for the Office of PD against Mr. Martinez?

Time will tell .....

CAPTAIN OUT .....

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

HOPE IS .....

... a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.

... where ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

... we are not red states and blue states, we are the United States of America and together we can .....

Did we witness a new Camelot tonight? Young, good looking, energetic candidate with attractive wife and two young children by his side. Great public speaker. Is this the right time and is Obama in the right place and is he the right candidate?

If you watched the victory speech, you may be be thinking what many Americans are beginning to think:

Can you say President Obama?!!!

CAPTAIN OUT ......

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

DEAD WOMAN TO TESTIFY FROM GRAVE ..

Rump, not to take away from the important local and national issues of the day, (Cameron/Fins and Iowa/Obama/Huckabee), but what we really should be discussing in the next post is what is going on in a case in Wisconsin.

The headline reads: "Jury to hear man's dead wife" and the story is essestially this: Julie Jensen will testify from her grave when her husband's murder trial begins this week in Milwaukee.

Shortly before her death, she told police, a neighbor and her son's teacher thst she suspected her husband was trying to kill her. She gave a letter to her neighbor that said if she dies, her husband should be the first suspect.

The Right to Confront your accuser, a constitutional right, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in 2004 changing the rules on admissibility of that type of evidence that will be introduced into this murder trial are the issues presented in this interesting case.

According to the trial judge's ruling, the letter from the wife will be permitted to be introduced into evidence against the husband.

Read the entire article here:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/
wireStory?id=4073708

I am curious as to how someone like Abe Laeser feels about the case and the issues presented in the article. Abe, care to comment?

CAPTAIN OUT .....

Anonymous said...

Captain, I think that the Wisconsin rule violates the right of confrontation and the right of due process. By determining that the defendant prevented the witness from testifying, the judge is basically ruling that the defendant is guilty before the trial has begun, and it is indeed, quite easy for a suicidad person seeking revenge to write this kind of letter to frame someone. It's circular reasoning: the hearsay statement is admissible because the defendant prevented the witness form testifying and the reason to rule that the defendant prevented the witness from testifying is the content of the hearsay statement itself. Quite dangerous, indeed!

Anonymous said...

Captain, relax. )ANd stop posting so often!) Howard Lubel run for PD??? Nice laugh to start the AM. Howard doesn't give a shit about those idiots. You obviously have know nothing about the PDO, Captain. Which is fine, just stop pretending you do.

Anonymous said...

lubel would be great but to cheap to run....

i thought you were running captain

getting cold feet???

Anonymous said...

Rump:

You're wrong about Edwards and Obama being so ideologically close. Edwards is far to the left of Obama. Most commentators I've read would agree that Obama is the most conservative of the three Dems. (That's not to say he's Lieberscum.)

Anonymous said...

The only run Lubel's contemplating is one offshore to catch some fish.

Whoever started this one is really reaching to stir the pot.

Anonymous said...

OK Captain back to reality. Time to come off of Broadway. Those psychotropic drugs are great aren't they?

The fact of the matter is Iowa will mean as little as New Hampshire and South Carolina. The real test is Super Tuesday and that is when we all come back to earth.

Basic facts:

1. This country is barely prepared to vote for a woman to be President except for this woman has a former President as a husband. A former President that would be re-elected if the constitution permitted it.

2. All of those outspoken white liberals espousing support for any democrat including Obama will go into the voting booth and when faced with voting for the white guy or a black man with the name Barak Mohammed Obama will pull the lever for the white guy even if he has an agenda like Huckabee's.

3. In the end the American people vote their pocketbooks. They want to know what it is going to cost them and to this date Obama has given them no substance. All the national polls show that Obama is liked, but can not win. His lack of experience and true hardcore leadership will be his undoing.

4. The Republicans know that just about any of them can beat Edwards or Obama. They are scared to death of Hillary and Bill. Obama is their dream opponent. Can you see the hit ads from interest groups making his middle name a promenent part of the graphics. The only problem they will have is keeping the keyboards of their computers dry from salivating over the prospect of another Republican inauguration.

Anonymous said...

Any non-hispanic can beat Martinez in a DEMOCRATIC primary. What a buffoon Martinez is to run as a Democrat. Does he know nothing of the ethnic divisiveness in this community and how that ethnicity is divided along party lines?

Anonymous said...

I'll vote for the candidate that promises the most govt programs and benefits.

Edwards is looking good.

Anonymous said...

Even though it concerns civil rather than criminal, this is an interesting 3d DCA opinion.

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D06-2228.op.pdf

Apparently Carnival who previously made the Civil Procedure books as a cruise company that actively uses geographical forum selection clauses, i.e. you can only sue us in Florida, Miami-Dade County, etc., now has further limited its suit clause to the Southern District of Florida only (federal court).

Thus eliminating passengers from being able to sue in state court (11th Judicial Circuit). The 3d DCA upheld this draconian provision surprisingly.

Read all about it.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole
Did you know that ASAs & APDs must by law resign to run for any State office. Watch out Carlos Howard has taken the first step in your ouster.

Anonymous said...

So 2:24 p.m. does that mean Carlos has stopped working at the PD's office?

Inquiring minds want to know...

obama/richardson 2008 said...

All of those outspoken white liberals espousing support for any democrat including Obama will go into the voting booth and when faced with voting for the white guy or a black man with the name Barak Mohammed Obama will pull the lever for the white guy

Well... Iowa's outspoken white liberals went into the voting booth and, when faced with voting for a white person or a black man, overwhelmingly chose a black man: Barack Hussein Obama.

As to the assertion that Obama couldn't beat Huckabee- Every recent non-partisan poll has both Obama and Clinton handily beating EVERY Republican.

Faux Fakey Fakerstein, Esq. said...

To 11:21 AM

Far be it from me to post something intellectual (however slight my capacities may be) on a Friday afternoon, given that my more common posts on Fridays after 12pm are either mocking and scoffing at Jack Thompson or a series of "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"'s.

I read the 3d DCA's decision in the Carnival case and find nothing "draconian" about the clause in the Carnival contract with its passengers.

Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid under applicable Florida and federal law. Their enforcement is merely to behave consistently with the parties' expectations and agreements upon entering into the contract.

If you don't like forum selection clauses, strike them from your contracts. You have the choice to take a cruise on Carnival or any other cruiseline, or otherwise take a vacation that doesn't involve a contract with a forum selection clause. These are not adhesion contracts.

Wow......my head hurts now....back to my oxycodone cocktails.


FFF, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 9:59, great rant, but Obama's middle name is Hussein, not Mohammed.

Anonymous said...

This is a blog for legal issues in Miami-Dade County. Why are we spending so much time on the worthless sports teams in Miami and national politics. Keep these subjects to the experts, Fox and ESPN.

Anonymous said...

actually its both Hussain and Mahammad

Anonymous said...

To FFF, Esq. I point you to this:

"Forum selection clauses in passenger tickets involve the intersection of two strands of traditional contract law that qualify the general rule that courts will enforce the terms of a contract as written. Pursuant to the first strand, courts traditionally have reviewed with heightened scrutiny the terms of contracts of adhesion, form contracts offered on a take-or-leave basis by a party with stronger bargaining power to a party with weaker power. Some commentators have questioned whether contracts of adhesion can justifiably be enforced at all under traditional contract theory because the adhering party generally enters into them without manifesting knowing and voluntary consent to all their terms."

Dissent of Stevens joined by Marshall. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).

For the most part, it is acknowledged that these types of contracts form the bulk of all commercial contracts in existence presently and that the courts seldom refuse to enforce them. That it is for the good of commerce that these contracts be allowed to go forward and that certainty about a forum in litigation results in increased savings for cruise passengers in terms of tickets.

But the clauses are part of the idea that, "Don't get sick or hurt and it will be okay and alright." Few people have the sense to read these contracts, know how to interpret them and be considered to have equal bargaining power.

But lets not go so far as to label them not draconian and not contracts of adhesion, that's laying it on too thick.

Faux Fakey Fakerstein, Esq. said...

To 9:14pm.

Thank you for the citation to a DISSENTING opinion. By the way, Stevens doesn't actually go so far as to call these adhesion contracts, but merely describes what an adhesion contract is.

I for one would agree that adhesion contracts should in most cases be unenforceable on their face.

But to say that a cruise passenger is faced with a "take it or leave it" adhesion contract is inaccurate. A cruise passenger, rather than the cruise line, is in the position of power.

They can choose to take another cruise line as there are numerous that go to the same location. They can take a different type of vacation, etc.

If Carnival Cruise Lines was the only way to go on vacation, or the only way to get to a particular location, or the only way to engage in certain activities (binge drinking, buffets, and rigged slot machines and other bad gambling), the contract might be considered an adhesion contract because the customer has no alternative but to take Carnival to engage in those activities.

Because Carnival is not "the only way" to engage in the activities, the customer has bargaining power to choose not to use Carnival.

I am not a cruise line or maritime attorney (thank the good lord). I do however represent various clients that have form contracts with forum selection clauses which provide for the sole and exclusive venue for litigation in Broward County state court. These clients are part of an industry with ample competition (there are thousands of other companies providing similar or identical services in Florida alone) so these contracts may be "take it or leave it" with the customer, but they are not adhesion contracts because the customer can say, "Ok, I'll just walk down the street and hire a competitor that can provide me the same service without the forum selection clause in the contract." They, like cruise passengers, have the bargaining power to choose their provider.

As such, I respectfully disagree that such provisions are either adhesion in nature or draconian. If Carnival, who primarily leaves from South Florida ports, had elected to put venue in some odd court in Minnesota, maybe I'd have a different opinion (especially if I was forced to litigate there in February).

Holy crap.....not only am I waking up from a tequila induced blackout, but I've actually been able to string more than 4 words together consecutively (oops...that was redundant "stringing words consecutively").

Ahhh...wonderful, someone left a half-full (always the optimist) bottle of Jack next to my computer. Back to dreamland I go.

FFF, Esq.