Will South Carolina Be The First To Secede From The Republican Establishment Tomorrow?

[Selene]

Ok. It is time to pick the South Carolina Republican Primary:

Turnout in 2008 was 445,677.

1) Pick the turnout expected tomorrow;

2) Pick the percentage of the vote each candidate will receive tomorrow;

3) All picks must be in by 6 AM Eastern Standard Time Saturday January 21, 2012.

There are nine candidates on the ballot.

Bachman

Cain

Gingrich

Huntsman

Johnson

Paul

Perry

Romney

Santorum

"All of South Carolina's 46 counties use a paperless voting system and touch screen methods to vote. That system will come under intense scrutiny as five mainstream candidates vie for the state's GOP primary victory. ABC News reports on one possible snafu. Stephen Colbert claimed to his supporters that he could be a write-in candidate. That is not the case. There are nine candidates listed on South Carolina's official ballot for the Republican presidential preference primary. But there is no slot for a write in, or in this case a possible "type in" candidate.

Here's a look at South Carolina's voting machines as the state gears up for its presidential preference primary on Jan. 21.

June 2010 Controversy

As recently as June of 2010, the previous electronic voting system used by South Carolina came under scrutiny. The Atlantic Monthly reported that the Palmetto State utilized ES&S iVotronic systems starting in 2008. The article reported Ohio and Colorado banned the machines. A case in Kentucky indicted nine election officials on voter fraud as people tricked voters into thinking their votes had been cast when they really weren't. Those officials then cast votes according to who they want, not the voters.

The case of Alvin Greene and state's Democratic Senate primary of 2010 was controversial for various reasons. Greene defeated rival Vic Rawl with just under 60 percent of the vote. Rawl claimed that was impossible since absentee ballots, which were cast by hand, showed overwhelming support for Rawl.

The Charleston Post and Courier reported in October 2010 that Manning was a relative unknown, had little campaign money and somehow won despite being a felon. The state's election commission rejected the notion of circumstantial evidence because there were no methods to back up Rawl's claim. His lawyer stated that was the problem.

Further Scrutiny

For the November 2010 mid-term elections, paperless voting machines came under further scrutiny. South Carolina purchased 12,000 iVotronic machines with federal money. A few machines malfunctioned in 2008.

One issue with the voting machines revolved around proprietary issues. ES&S owns the software to the machines. The company doesn't have to divulge how their systems work. Otherwise, the trade secret will be out and the company would lose money and its secure voting systems.

Computer World reported in late October 2010 that six states, South Carolina included, used completely paperless systems. Verified Voting told the publication that paperless systems make it difficult to reliably recount votes if there is a software glitch.

In April of 2011, some of South Carolina's elected officials felt there were enough issues with the iVotronic systems for the legislature to get a new system. Myrtle Beach Online reported the price tag for an entirely new system was $30 million.

How to Vote in South Carolina

A demo of the technology is on the South Carolina State Election Commission's website. Each voting machine is independent and can't be hacked into wirelessly. A voting official activates the device, voters use the touch screen to make choices and follow instructions on the screen. After you are done voting, that's it. There are no paper receipts. Each machine has three redundant memory systems to ensure accuracy.

The Verified Voting Foundation states direct recording electronic voting has improved the system and can prevent vote miscounts or fraud. However, more backup systems need to be in place to prevent problems and increase voter trust in the system."

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

[caroljane]

This is an intersting topic title. The idea of defederation has been discussed here before, and thinking of the trends of nistory and the seemingly insurmountable philosophical divides in your Republic, a dissolution into regions is thinkable about.

[Selene]

This is an intersting topic title. The idea of defederation has been discussed here before, and thinking of the trends of nistory and the seemingly insurmountable philosophical divides in your Republic, a dissolution into regions is thinkable about.

They led the way before, first to secede in the Civil War...

South Carolina on December 20, 1860

BATTLE OF SUMTER '12

[BaalChatzaf]

They led the way before, first to secede in the Civil War...

South Carolina on December 20, 1860

Yes. And William T. Sherman repaid the favor vigorously in 1865. He did a worse number on South Carolina than he did on Georgia.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

They led the way before, first to secede in the Civil War...

South Carolina on December 20, 1860

Yes. And William T. Sherman repaid the favor vigorously in 1865. He did a worse number on South Carolina than he did on Georgia.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But a 21st century secession would be piecemeal and consensual, nonviolent. A legal process by the Constitution.

[Selene]

Carol:

That would not be permitted. The issue of secession was settled with the Civil War at the cost of over 500,000 American lives.

The one possible state that might have, by a linkage argument, the "right" to secede would be Texas because it was an independent "Lone Star State" before being gobbled up by the spreading union.

Moreover, it would not be allowed by the Federal government. Any secession would be won with blood and treasure.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

That would not be permitted. The issue of secession was settled with the Civil War at the cost of over 500,000 American lives.

The one possible state that might have, by a linkage argument, the "right" to secede would be Texas because it was an independent "Lone Star State" before being gobbled up by the spreading union.

Moreover, it would not be allowed by the Federal government. Any secession would be won with blood and treasure.

Adam

I stand corrected. Don't know the legal history. I was thinking of the agelong rise and fall of empires, coalition, conquest, territorial aggregation - then internal and external pressure, regional dissension, rebellions and realignments. Always it is about blood and treasure. Why did I think modern times would make a difference? As cummings wrote,

All ignorance toboggans into Know

then trudges up to Ignorance again

[BaalChatzaf]

But a 21st century secession would be piecemeal and consensual, nonviolent. A legal process by the Constitution.

There is no procedure in the Constitution for secession.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

But a 21st century secession would be piecemeal and consensual, nonviolent. A legal process by the Constitution.

There is no procedure in the Constitution for secession.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I said, I do not know the legalities/ But is there anything in the Constitution that explicitly forbids the united states from disuniting?"

[Selene]

But a 21st century secession would be piecemeal and consensual, nonviolent. A legal process by the Constitution.

There is no procedure in the Constitution for secession.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I said, I do not know the legalities/ But is there anything in the Constitution that explicitly forbids the united states from disuniting?"

Now that is an excellent question.

[Selene]

Scalia: No to secession

You've got to love that Antonin Scalia answered a letter from a screenwriter asking for tips on a screenplay involving Maine seceding from the union:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

[Selene]

During the Nullification "crisis," this was addressed by Danial Webster, in debates on the floor of the Congress, with John C. Calhoun:

That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period.

For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of

South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that

Constitution as a form of government.

Ole Hickory, Andy Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party addressed the issue specifically with them thar South Carolinian folks in a "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina," stating that:

The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States.

The States “retained

all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to

constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to

secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”

Finally, Madison, "...who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."

So despite the attempt to use the tenth (10th) Amendment to justify secession, by ratifying the Constitution, each state surrendered certain powers to the Federal government, those not specifically mentioned, are reserved to the States, or the people.

Secession was not one of the powers that could be reserved, the argument goes, because this was not a league, or a confederation, as in the Articles of, which preceded the adoption of the Constitution, but a union which formed a nation which could not be detracted from, but could be added too.

Make sense Carol?

Adam

[caroljane]

During the Nullification "crisis," this was addressed by Danial Webster, in debates on the floor of the Congress, with John C. Calhoun:

That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period.

For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of

South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that

Constitution as a form of government.

Ole Hickory, Andy Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party addressed the issue specifically with them thar South Carolinian folks in a "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina," stating that:

The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States.

The States “retained

all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to

constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to

secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”

Finally, Madison, "...who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."

So despite the attempt to use the tenth (10th) Amendment to justify secession, by ratifying the Constitution, each state surrendered certain powers to the Federal government, those not specifically mentioned, are reserved to the States, or the people.

Secession was not one of the powers that could be reserved, the argument goes, because this was not a league, or a confederation, as in the Articles of, which preceded the adoption of the Constitution, but a union which formed a nation which could not be detracted from, but could be added too.

Make sense Carol?

Adam

Sure does. I wonder how the Maine screenwriter got around it. I have never been to Carolina but I know Maine very well. Tell me, as an American, if one of them tried to secede, which state could you best do without?

[Selene]

Here are my picks:

Gingrich 38%

Romney 27%

Santorum 19%

Paul 16%

Turnout will probably be under the 2008 445,677 around 440,000

[Selene]

During the Nullification "crisis," this was addressed by Danial Webster, in debates on the floor of the Congress, with John C. Calhoun:

That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period.

For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of

South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that

Constitution as a form of government.

Ole Hickory, Andy Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party addressed the issue specifically with them thar South Carolinian folks in a "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina," stating that:

The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States.

The States “retained

all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to

constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to

secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”

Finally, Madison, "...who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."

So despite the attempt to use the tenth (10th) Amendment to justify secession, by ratifying the Constitution, each state surrendered certain powers to the Federal government, those not specifically mentioned, are reserved to the States, or the people.

Secession was not one of the powers that could be reserved, the argument goes, because this was not a league, or a confederation, as in the Articles of, which preceded the adoption of the Constitution, but a union which formed a nation which could not be detracted from, but could be added too.

Make sense Carol?

Adam

Sure does. I wonder how the Maine screenwriter got around it. I have never been to Carolina but I know Maine very well. Tell me, as an American, if one of them tried to secede, which state could you best do without?

Vermont, Massachusetts [we would have to be able to keep their sports teams and all of the Revolutionary War sections], R.I. and Washington DC would work for me.

[caroljane]

During the Nullification "crisis," this was addressed by Danial Webster, in debates on the floor of the Congress, with John C. Calhoun:

That the American Republic was both federal and national was the dominant view among statesmen of the antebellum period.

For instance, in his reply to Calhoun on Feb. 16, 1833, Daniel Webster observed that the state conventions, including that of

South Carolina, did not accede to a league or association when they approved the Constitution, but ratified and confirmed that

Constitution as a form of government.

Ole Hickory, Andy Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party addressed the issue specifically with them thar South Carolinian folks in a "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina," stating that:

The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States.

The States “retained

all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to

constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to

secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”

Finally, Madison, "...who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."

So despite the attempt to use the tenth (10th) Amendment to justify secession, by ratifying the Constitution, each state surrendered certain powers to the Federal government, those not specifically mentioned, are reserved to the States, or the people.

Secession was not one of the powers that could be reserved, the argument goes, because this was not a league, or a confederation, as in the Articles of, which preceded the adoption of the Constitution, but a union which formed a nation which could not be detracted from, but could be added too.

Make sense Carol?

Adam

Sure does. I wonder how the Maine screenwriter got around it. I have never been to Carolina but I know Maine very well. Tell me, as an American, if one of them tried to secede, which state could you best do without?

Vermont, Massachusetts [we would have to be able to keep their sports teams and all of the Revolutionary War sections], R.I. and Washington DC would work for me.

And really, do you need two Dakotas? What is the point?

[Selene]

Yep, there's black gold in them thar hills!

With the rise in obesity and diabetes, you can have the maple syrup...

[Jerry Biggers]

I wouldn't presume to give the voting percentages, but I think it likely that Gingrich will win over Romney, based, if nothing else, on Romney's fumbling stumbling performances, particularly in the last two debates - and Gingrich's "take no prisioners" debating style.

Obviously, the audience loved Gingrich's responses, particularly to the CNN and earlier MSNBC moderators. What I noticed was his tactic of not accepting the ptremises of the moderators' questions, immediately challenging them in a confrontive way, and then answering thequestion on his own terms. This startled and then excited the audiences, who were obviously tired of the moderators' manipulative manner of giving loaded questions and the usual meek response from the candidates.

Obviously. Newt Gingrich is no Objectivist, nor is he even a libertarian, but his method of response reminds me of the characteristic way that Ayn Rand would often challenge the premises of those asking her questions at the end of her public lectures, or at the all too few symposiums that she participated in. I remember vividly, her reducing conservative author Russell Kirk to sputtering, stuttering.displays of exasperation, after a televised exchange on an ABC-TV symposium in the early 1960s. Apparently she used the same tactic in personal conversations, as her publisher, Bennett Cerf observed in his memoir, At Random. Commenting about her performance at the parties he had for prominent New York intellectuals, authors, and celebrities, he observed that "No one could best Ayn Rand in an argument.."

Gingrich, however, may be an opportunist, and has not always followed even the usual "conservative partyline." Rick Santorum, on the other hand, is a religious conservative traditionalist with an authoritarian streak. In a recent book, and in interviews, he has explicitly stated that he is not a believer in individualism or in other libertarian values. Rather, he thinks Family, Faith, and traditional values are the most important principles that should guide America.. Hopefully, he will be rejected in South Carolina.and in subsequent state primaries.

$Ron Paul's positions are obviously quite close to libertarian i8deas, at least on domestic policy. His foreign policy ideas are more typical of Murray Rothbard than Ayn Rand. I doubt that he will beat Romney or Gingrich. Hopefully, he will receive more votes than Rick Santorum.

[Selene]

Good points Jerry.

Where have you been? Health ok?

Mr. Newt is one of the few candidates that, in my estimation, can beat O'biwan. Yes, he is no objectivist, or even a libertarian.

However, I live in objective reality, as we all do, and we are not going to elect a libertarian, or an objectivist, as you well know this cycle.

Mr. Newt, who I have supported since the late eighties as the type of mind that should be in politics.

Romney has to have the worst campaign staff I have ever seen. I have been on the inside of these consultant led campaigns and it is amazing how docile and subservient a powerful competent businessman can become in the political realm.

I am always reminded of Rearden and his "Washington man." Rearden never understands what his "man" does. Rearden just keeps paying him to "run interference." Rearden is very docile when it comes to his "Washington man."

Political campaigns are quite similar.

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

I receive a monthly publication from www.investmentrarities.com which is free for the asking and includes commentary by the silver analyst Theodore Butler and the founder of investment rarities James Cook, with quote from other luminaries in the investment and precious metals contingent. This often includes John Williams, founder of www.shadowstats.com who is well credentialed. In the latest issue John Williams asserts that a hyperinflationary depression will be upon us by 2014 given the massive printing of fiat currency not only by our very own Federal Reserve but by so many global countries which are endowed with similar printing presses.

I mention this because it conveys an urgency which is barely hinted at in the debates, certainly not by the moderators who manage to avoid questions to the candidates. Ron Paul has mentioned the absence of such questions and he is the only candidate who points out that the mishandling of federal spending with growing debt and deficits are unsustainable and how the existence of foreign military bases constitute another financial burden on our country which has become an empire which is not only unsustainable but along with unfunded promises such as Social Security and Medicare are bringing us to bankruptcy.

That is something which his supporters are aware of to some extent and why they are willing to strain their own budgets to contribute to his campaign in ongoing moneybombs, out of concern for the future for their children and grandchildren.

Not only would President Obama make things worse if he is re elected but their is serious concern that a Romney presidency or a Gingrich presidency would not begin to address these issues sufficiently to avoid the otherwise inevitable disastrous financial debacle about to descend upon on like a tsunami causing untold suffering including the impoverishment of the middle class as their hard earned savings become worthless.

Ron Paul's supporters have a sense of this urgency and believe that only Ron Paul in the White House will address these issues by dealing with federal spending, cutting the entitlements, harnessing the federal reserve, restoring sound money and the like.

Did anyone else notice the article by Kimberly Strassel in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled What Does Ron Paul Want?

She suggests that he knows he cannot win but will go on gathering delegates and will arrive in Tampa to hold the Republican Party hostage with demanding that his policies be adopted which are unpalatable by traditional conservatives on foreign policy. She is quite critical suggesting that he wraps himself in the Constitution and does not tolerate any criticism of his positions as part of the "establishment."

She does not appreciate the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in financially, not the impending hyperinflation and depression about to inundate and destroy our economy.

Even Ron Paul's super brochure does not quite convey the urgency. I take that back. There are two graphs. one shows the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar which began with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and has eroded over 96 % or more to date. That one should give us pause. The other one shows the asymptotic rise in the national debt and it is in red which is so steep that I doubt even Alex Honnold could climb it. www.ronpaulsuperbrochure.com to see what I mean.

It is taken out to 2015.

We should appreciate Ron Paul's presence in the debates and his candidacy in the election. His dedication to this country is impressive as he knows what is at stake. He takes his oath of office seriously as few others do. His conception of the antidote is to take the Constitution with its limits on federal powers seriously again as most others do not which got us into this mess in the first place.

His candidacy is enlightening the youth across the country who in turn are enlightening anyone who will listen and read. He has endorsed the Young Americans for Liberty group and the Campaign For LIberty which began with supporters of his 2008 run. The Students For Liberty group was started independently but supports Ron Paul too and became international.

Does anyone else here realize what is at stake in this election?

gulch

[Mark]

Regarding Strassel on Ron Paul:

"... he knows he cannot win"

At this point I don’t think he knows this. I certainly don’t know it. It does seem to be Strassel’s wish.

"... but [he] will go on gathering delegates and will arrive in Tampa to hold the Republican Party hostage with demanding that his policies be adopted which are unpalatable by traditional conservatives on foreign policy."

Given his projected defeat, that might be one goal but it shouldn’t be his primary goal. Since when did the Republican Party adhere to its usual platform of cutting spending and taxes? Not in my lifetime. Reagan is a particularly telling example of this hypocrisy.

Ron Paul may be looking to the future. His reason to continue even in the face of defeat may be to continue educating the public and giving arguments to those who already agree with his conclusions. Just running for president is a bully pulpit. See DownsizeDC for why this is important, regardless of who your congressmen are.

However, as you (gultch8) point out, our situation is desperate. Though in the past I think economic sayers of imminent doom were projecting their doom sense of life onto the world, today looks like the real thing -- see Kyle Bass on YouTube.

Another consideration is that future elections, rather then getting easier to win by a libertarian because of a more educated electorate, may get harder because of unrestricted immigration. Third World immigrants tend to vote Democrat. It’s all rather depressing.

[Peter]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

I wouldn't presume to give the voting percentages, but I think it likely that Gingrich will win over Romney, based, if nothing else, on Romney's fumbling stumbling performances, particularly in the last two debates - and Gingrich's "take no prisoners" debating style.

end quote

I think Romney is more elect-able in a general election. A Romney bid would not be so worrisome. I think Newt shoots from the hip, which I like, but too many shots fired means an occasional miss with disastrous consequences. Obama has the black vote. Romney or Gingrich will have the white male vote. Romney will do better with white females. Rubio as a Veep is looking better for both Republicans. Santorum is not yet an also ran. In South Carolina, I think first place will be a virtual tie between Gingrich and Romney.

I wish Newt had been honorable in his earlier life. I have observed in life that people who are dishonest and dishonorable to those who are closest to them, their spouses, are dishonorable and dishonest to everyone. Their hubris and lack of morals that promote deceit are not characteristics I want in a candidate. Anyone who says a cheating snake makes a good candidate is a moron. Dishonesty revealed will destroy a candidate. An honorable marital breakup is not a problem. Personal crookedness is.

My second problem with Gingrich is his age and health. He looks old and unhealthy to me. I seriously doubt his stamina for a tough, tough struggle with Obama – based on my non-medical, hunch, observations. He looks like someone with diabetes and a heart condition. I don’t think I am stupid to have that worry. Romney in contrast though only four years younger than Gingrich looks 15 years younger, and healthier.

I really like Newt’s tough, Tea Party message. I could vote for him. Yet, Romney is the safer bet. We must win this election or our country will go off the cliff.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

As I had pointed out on another thread about Romney, I am stunned by how poorly prepared his campaign staff allows him to be going into debates where you know you have to be prepared for specific questions, apparently even the NY Times has noticed the same problems:

But his normally disciplined on-the-ground operation has seemed to have difficulty adapting to the rapidly evolving

political climate. And on Friday his finance team felt compelled to hold a conference call with nervous fund-raisers

and state campaign officials in which his senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, urged calm as some of them vented

frustration at how Mr. Romney had handled calls to release tax returns.

But, as Mr. Romney faced attacks from all sides, renewed questions about his own stumbles and whether he is

conservative enough for the grass roots of his party, there was a real aura of apprehension coursing through

his campaign. With his prospects of wrapping the race up quickly apparently diminished, Mr. Romney and his

strategists began preparing his staff, his supporters and his financial bundlers for a longer and rougher march

toward the nomination.

Having been stripped of his victory in Iowa on Thursday after a recount that gave the state to Rick Santorum,

Mr. Romney now is in danger of being defeated in Saturday’s primary here by

Newt Gingrich

, who had been

declared dead not once but twice in the past year, including less than two weeks ago when he finished fifth

in New Hampshire. A new

Clemson University poll

of South Carolina voters released on Friday showed Mr.

Gingrich with a six-point lead over Mr. Romney. It was within the survey’s margin of sampling error but

captured a dynamic shifting in Mr. Gingrich’s favor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/us/politics/final-blizzard-of-appeals-before-primary.html?hp

It's a shame that Robert has not been able to chime in on this race since he lives down there and is on Clemson's faculty.

Oh well.

Adam

[blackhorse]

My dear Deist god, please let Mr. Disney know that we are deeply sorry that Obama has disgraced Mr. Disney's visionary park with his presence.

[Selene]

My dear Deist god, please let Mr. Disney know that we are deeply sorry that Obama has disgraced Mr. Disney's visionary park with his presence.

Actually, as Mr. Newt opined the other day, O'bama shut down Main Street while visiting Fantasyland and stood there with Micky on his right and Goofy on his left which was kinda like a picture of his cabinet meetings...

so it will provide lots of images for ads during the campaign.