 sj |
||
|
||
BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:27 AM No, I believe you have it right. The left has never been cohesive in the US the way it has in other countries, just due to sheer size of the countries. The thing is, we should have a political system that allows for more parties. Currently the political affiliations in the country run about one third Dem, one third Rep, one third independent/third party. All those groups have factions within them. I believe if we had a more open system, and if we could throw out the electoral system and just live with the popular vote alone, we would see more political participation, which is badly needed in the US. As it is, the one third independents don't have any meaningful way of making themselves heard, or getting their issues on the national agenda, because of the lock the two parties have. More and more people are refusing to sign up with those two parties though, so the problem could get even worse before it gets better. If it ever gets better. I have my doubts about that right now too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Big Al Whittle Date: 25 Jun 04 - 07:11 AM The really sad thing is that Americans are often heard saying - we are hated throughout the world - when in fact the complete opposite is true. Baseline, most of the world that has any degree of education feel a preponderance of love and respect for American culture. And the fact is its a simple bloody disgrace that you failed to put a system inplace to count the votes properly in in way that no parties could dispute. There is simply no excuse for the world's richest nation not to be organised well enough to do this. As for the left wing of your political spectrum splitting into factions - it happens. It did for 20 years in England and we were stuck with Thatcher. On the plus side, the right wing has now done exactly the same thing. that's democracy. I think you may be seeing something of the same sort of thing in the Reagan family's attack on George Bush. These extremists - they can't resist playing to the gallery ...e.g his opposition to stem cell research....very difficult to believe he really gives a damn...or perhaps I'm getting it all wrong |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 08:24 PM Actually, it isn't the Democrats' job to say whether the petitions meet all the requirements, but the State of Arizona. I'll go with whatever their decision is, which is what we all would do had the petitions not been challenged so lamely by the party. Dirty tricks are dirty tricks, and not only do many, many, many know them when they see them, but it is the dirty tricks that get remembered over the years as well. It is my opinion these Arizona Dems are shooting themselves in the foot, but that is their prerogative. The thing that is so lame about it though, is that Kerry really doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in Arizona, so all they are doing is creating acrimony and discord among their allies on their local turf. Nader and his supporters really aren't the enemy. Bush and the Republicans are. But you can't get zealots like them, or those in this thread, to see the forest for the trees when it comes to Nader. So remain deluded, keep alienating your natural allies, and see where it gets you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: M.Ted Date: 24 Jun 04 - 08:09 PM From the Article above: Nader for president petitions challenged By HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services 06/24/2004 >PHOENIX -- Two Democrats went to court Wednesday on behalf of the state party to keep >independent Ralph Nader off the ballot. >Legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court contend that all of Nader's petitions for >president are void because he did not list the name of the person he actually chose to be his vice >presidential nominee. Attorney Andy Gordon, who filed the suit for the Arizona Democratic Party, >said that is a violation of law. >Even if that is not the case, the lawsuit claims at 15,467 of the 21,185 signatures submitted are >invalid. If that is the case, it would leave the Nader campaign far short of the 14,694 names needed >to qualify. >That includes 9,890 signers who challengers said do not appear on voter registration rolls >anywhere in the state. Another 3,839 are being contested because the petition circulator either is >not an Arizona resident or is a convicted felon, which would make them ineligible to collect >signatures. >Cheryl Rohrick, statewide coordinator of the Nader campaign, said she doubts that is true. >"One aim was to make sure we had at least 70 percent accuracy,'' Rohrick said. She said Nader >campaign workers checked the signatures themselves against voter registration records and >believe that they met that goal. >Rohrick acknowledged she did not check whether circulators, many of whom were hired by a >private company retained by the campaign, were convicted felons. But she said that may be >immaterial if they had their civil rights restored. As far as I know, the signatures must be challenged if someone feels that they are not legal, this in order to give the the filers the opportunity to defend themselves--as a point of interest, I call your attention to the fact that the Nader people actually paid private contractors to circulate petitions, funny that someone who claims to have a large base of popular support can't manage to drum up enough volunteers to circulate petitions!!! You may not like the system, GUEST, but this is the way it works--if there are 9,000 odd signatures on his nominating petitions that are not on the voter roles, Nader will be not be allowed on the ballot, and he shouldn't be, if the signatures are mostly good, you've got nothing to worry about-- Since the Nader statewide coordinator says that she didn't bother to determine if the circulators were felons or not, seems like there could be a big problem-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 04:49 PM "If you want higher ground, take up mountain climbing and forget about politics." Forgetting about politics will fix what exactly? If you want higher ground, don't abandon humanity and the planet. Work for change. Vote Nader and join the Greens. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 04 - 04:40 PM The "higher ground"? Ha! There is no higher ground for Republicans and Democrats, only the pretense of such. If you want higher ground, take up mountain climbing and forget about politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Jim Dixon Date: 24 Jun 04 - 04:08 PM Here's an updated article from The Tucson Citizen, Thursday, June 24, 2004: Ariz. Dems challenge Nader's 21,512 signatures with lawsuit And another from the [Flagstaff] Arizona Daily Sun, Thursday, June 24, 2004: Nader for president petitions challenged |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 03:14 PM "If everything is in order, the Nader people should welcome the challenge--the fact that they don't(assuming that you, GUEST, are one of the great unwashed) is reason enough to check every name, address, and registration." Uh, MTed, the names, addresses, and registration of every signature would be checked by the State of Arizona without anyone filing a lawsuit. It is known as THE PROCESS for getting on the ballot. It doesn't require that anyone sue anyone. The Dems know full well that because they can afford to bring this harrassment and intimidation suit, Nader will have to use resources to defend against it. That is their strategy. The Dems are behaving like an insurance company turning down legitimate claims, in order to force their victims to sue them to get the bills paid. Stand proud, the Democrats. You're a bunch of sleazeballs, just like the Republicans are. At least Nader & Camejo have their integrity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: M.Ted Date: 24 Jun 04 - 03:02 PM If everything is in order, the Nader people should welcome the challenge--the fact that they don't(assuming that you, GUEST, are one of the great unwashed) is reason enough to check every name, address, and registration. In Washington, before the last election, the petitions for incumbent mayor Anthony Williams were checked, and there were a great number of forgeries, made up names, and other bits of illegal idiocy--he was removed from the Democratic ticket, but, regretably, allowed to run as an independent--he won, though a write in, who announced three days before the election got more than 20% of the vote-- As to Nader, the world would be a better place today if people had kept a closer eye on him-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: dwditty Date: 24 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM It seems there is really no point in either Republicans or Democrats claiming higher moral ground. We have just lost our Republican governor (Connecticut) to a corruption scnadal. Over the last few years, a few mayors as well. I have heard some claim that it is his "republicanism" that caused him to be a dirtbag. I have heard republicans respond by pointing to Clintons actions as a governor (and President, for that matter). SOrt of like a "Your mother wears army boot" mentality, as far as I am concerned. My point is this...they are all corrupt and immoral...OK, OK, there may be one or two here and there who have made it politically without selling out. Whatever the dems are doing in Arizona, the republicans have done something equally bad...So What? The system just doesn't work the way it was drawn up anymore. The one thing Perot had right was that our government is in a shambles. These threads comparing what party A does vs party B are fruitless - both parties are morally bankrupt - and I fail to see the point in trying to connect the actions of one side to those of another. They are both separate actions and they are both wrong in their own right (oooo, a lyric!) dw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 02:39 PM You Anybody But Bushites seem to have very short, selective memories, which is about what I'd expect from Democrats and Republicans who can't think for themselves, and keep spewing their respective party lines. What the Democratic party is doing, is attempting to disenfranchise the 22,0000+ people who signed a petition, quite legally, to get Nader on their state's ballot. They will fail in this attempt, and look like asses, and quite possibly drive voters into the Nader and Bush camps. If you guys don't mind voters coming Nader's way, go for it. But to ignore the fact that you will very likely piss off libertarians, right leaning independents, and Republicans who might have stayed home had the Dems not pulled such an anti-democratic, politically intimidating stunt, well...you'll have no one but yourselves to blame. But then, the Anybody But Bushies are totally out of touch with the leading edge voters anyway, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Chief Chaos Date: 24 Jun 04 - 01:13 PM For someone who keeps telling us that Nader will take votes away from Bush and not be a spoiler for the dems he sure seems mad about what the dems are doing and not the rest of my post. Don't you think that the 'pubs would be doing this if they were worried about him getting any votes? Or are you a 'pub trying to push nader and show the moderate dems how bad their party is? "Laugh about it, cry about it, when you've got to choose Either way you look at it you lose!" - such an apt description of the current situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 04 - 12:51 PM Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are extremely unscrupulous. It should not surprise anyone that they are, at this point in history. Together they forward the corporate agenda and hold the public hostage by dominating the airwaves so that no one else but the candidates of the Machine can get elected. This is one reason why so few people vote anymore...they know it's useless. The Machine has 2 wings...one Democratic and one Republican. It perpetuates itself in this fashion, by giving you 2 choices which are essentially 2 bad choices. The big game is...which set of scoundrels gets to win and cash in? The Machine doesn't really care. It wins regardless. But the candidates care! And that is why they campaign so hard and stoop to every sort of dirty trick in order to win. It's like any other game in that sense...just like a sports playoff. All the teams work for the same League owners (big business), and the public pays the ticket prices, while the League owners cash in and the players try to destroy each other out on the field. In this case you've got just 2 big teams, both of which want desperately to win the final playoff game and claim the Presidency. This is not what I call democracy, it's what I call a giant scam. Nader is running an upstart little new team that wants very much to join the big League, but most likely never will be allowed to. If you want to read a really funny book about the Democrats and Republicans fighting for election in Florida, read "Orange Crush" by Tim Dorsey. It's a hilarious satire of a system that is already so corrupt that it's a wonder anyone can take it seriously anymore. Face it, folks, you've been robbed. You don't really have a democracy anymore, just the charade of one. I'll say this though...there is sometimes a worse choice on the ballot. Accordingly, vote with care if you do vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jun 04 - 12:12 PM ". . . any tactics are justifiable, so long as you win." Like disenfranchising 57,000 Floridians, most of whom were black, and Tom DeLay's machinations to gerrymander Texas to ensure the election of a majority of Republican representatives from the state? What is it that pots are calling kettles these days? At least the legal challenge in Arizona is a legal challenge and will be decided by the courts, not by Katherine Harris. Do try to get it right. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: M.Ted Date: 24 Jun 04 - 11:56 AM It was Gore who challenged the Bush victory in Florida, not the other way around--- Nader has no chance of winning, and good chance of spoiling--as he did to Gore--he attempting to use his ability to "spoil" as a a lever to force his priorities--I don't doubt for a minute that he would withdraw if Kerry promised him a position in his cabinet--Attorney General, say, or even the head of a newly created Department of Consumer Affairs--and I suspect that Ralph made what he wants clear behind closed doors, was rebuffed, and is making good his threat to spoil-- Don't believe he would do that? Wake up and smell the coffee, GUEST--that's how the game works--and, guess what? You, and all the other "Nader" boosters are his stooges--or should we call you the "Greenshirts"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 11:34 AM Right. All you Democrats are for democracy, unless you are democratically voted out. Then, it's time for banana republic politics, to get your guy back in. Nader is being challenged legally, just like Bush challenged Gore legally in Florida. OK? Is that the game you want to play? I guess that makes you a Kerry man in the neocon mold--any tactics are justifiable, so long as you win. The Dem challenge of Nader is a legal challenge, I'll grant you that. But this sort of political intimidation is never justifiable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: M.Ted Date: 24 Jun 04 - 11:26 AM My opinion--I think that anything done to obstruct Nader is justified--he is a blight on the political system, a hypocrite, and a vicious opportunist who does damage just because he can--the system that we have offers lots of legal and legitimate ways to challenge him, and my hat is off to anyone, democratic, republican, or independent, who finds a way to use them against Nader-- As to GUEST, you are nothing more than a Nader agitator, pretending that a horrible legal, moral injustice is taking place when what is really taking place is that Nader is being challenged legitimately--and he hates it when anyone does that-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 04 - 09:05 AM It is indeed about money. Big parties are backed by big money, and that's why people hear about them and vote for them. Smaller parties have no chance, unless they can somehow get access to equally big money. That's partly why I would be in favour of abolishing all parties and voting for individuals, and having a system where all the campaigning individuals are assigned EQUAL funding from a public trust to do their campaigning...and, of course, limit the number of individual candidates to a reasonable number by some method...say up to 5 of them in a riding. But it won't happen. :-) Why would graft and corruption bow out and legislate themselves out of existence when they don't have to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 04 - 08:47 AM It's all about money and access to the ballot. Ross Perot proved that, when he got over 18% of the vote in 1992. Which also disproves Jim Dixon's theory that Americans don't want third party and independent candidates to be able to participate in our democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 04 - 09:24 PM Yes, McG, the American system of supposed democracy is badly flawed and getting worse. There are a lot of reasons that have contributed to it's downfall. Among them: 1. Campaignes are for the most part privately financed which tends to force parties to go where the money is: corporate and rich America. 2. Corporate and rich America like being rich and only want to get richer. 3. The "winner take all" concept has not served the US well in that compromise isn't really a necessity. 4. Gerrimandering has created way too many uncontested (safe) districts in the House of Representatives where members have no incentive to compromise. 5. The 2 four year terms for president really prevents a sitting president from giving his all in the first terms since he (or she) spends an inordinate amount of time campaigning for a second term. 6. The anti-governemnt movement within the population cuts down on participation. 7. The media no longer provides complete information to its citizens and seems more intent on entertaining and manipulating them. 8. A third party candidate for president must muster 5% of the national vote in order to be eligible to participate in the following presidential debates. This number is realisticly too low. A 3% figure would enhance democracy rather than twart it. 9. The electorial college is outdated and discourages folks from voting. and 10. Way too much money, corruption and greed in the governemnt for anyone in it to seriously address the first nine I have mentioned. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 04 - 08:11 PM One flaw in that argument is that it appears that the number of people who don't vote at all, either in primaries or in the actual election, is much higher than the number of people who vote for either of the main parties. The other flaw is that, it assumes that getting elected is what it's all about. In reality, running in elections, for minority parties, is primarily an organisational and recruiting mechanism. Not a particularly effective mechanism, and not one I'd ever want to put much energy into, but that's another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 08:04 PM I'll wait for your cites and proof that "Long ago, before anyone ever heard of Ralph Nader, the populace reached a consensus that having many political parties was a bad idea, and so laws were passed that deliberately made it difficult for third parties and independents to get on the ballot. Most people agree this is a good thing." Can you cite some laws that were passed because voters demanded they be passed to keep third parties out of the game? Can you offer some proof of this magic "consensus" reached by "the populus" long ago? Evidence of your contention that "most people" agree that third parties and independent candidates shouldn't be a part of our democratic political process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Jim Dixon Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:46 PM The most intelligent thing I have ever heard anyone say about third parties was this, from Toadfrog, on 24 Jun 03:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:24 PM Ever the literalist, eh McGrath? Political intimidation through the filing of the suit, is what I am referring to by using the word 'brownshirt'. Which, BTW, is the same word used by many Democrats in 2000, when referring to the GOP activists who went to Florida to engage in the same antics of political intimidation. What is good for goose... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:09 PM "behaving like brownshirts" You mean going round beating people up and burning down their offices and so forth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:00 PM Jim Dixon's contentions about third parties is just plain bizarre beyond belief. As to "just following the rules"--that is exactly what Nader has done. And let me add, I can't wait to see the "Anybody But Bush" Democrats, who are behaving like brownshirts, get their comeuppance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: artbrooks Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:13 PM Today is the last day to challenge the petitions. The Democratic Party in AZ is following the rules, as set out in state law. Arizona Republic article here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 04 - 05:49 PM A political party is useless if it doesn't have a chance of winning a majority of votes in some constituency, and voting for it rather than a useful party certainly does do harm. That only applies because you've got a first past the post system, instead of being able to put the candidates in your order of preferance, with a transferable vote. There's no perfect voting system, they all skew the result one way - but arguably the worst of all is first past the post, once you have more than two candidates. ...................... I haven't seen anything about this in the English papers, and the stories I've found on the web seem to avoid going into any details. So would it be the case that there are crowds of Democrats trying to physically disrupt the process of checking the signatures in Arizona, the way it happened back in 2000 in Florida with Bush supporters tyrying to stop people counting the votes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Jim Dixon Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:58 PM "How is this any different from the Florida Republicans removing African Americans from the voter registration list?" That's easy. They're doing it openly and according to law, not secretly and illegally. And they're not seeking to deny anyone the right to vote. Long ago, before anyone ever heard of Ralph Nader, the populace reached a consensus that having many political parties was a bad idea, and so laws were passed that deliberately made it difficult for third parties and independents to get on the ballot. Most people agree this is a good thing. Having many parties to choose from is not the same thing as having many brands of cereal to choose from. If only a small minority of people like a certain brand of cereal, they can still get some nourishment from it, and eating it does no harm. A political party is useless if it doesn't have a chance of winning a majority of votes in some constituency, and voting for it rather than a useful party certainly does do harm. Here's the original article: Dems seek to keep Nader off Ariz. Ballot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:41 PM CapriUni, Each state has it's own rules for getting on the ballot. Yes, I agree, there should be standardization of this for national elections throughout all 50 states, with the bar set very low for the number of valid signatures required--no more than 10,000 I would say, pr 5%of the eligible registered voters, or some such formula, regardless of a state's population. As to Nader's attempt to get on the ballot in Arizona, the deadline has just passed. Nader has complied with all the rules in Arizona. The only thing that remains to be done is for the State of Arizona to complete the process of verifying the required number of signatures, which takes some time. There is little chance that Nader won't have the necessary number of signatures, as over 10,000 extra signatures were gathered as a buffer. This Democratic attack on the process is just anti-democratic, no matter how you look at it, and is completely irrational to boot. But that doesn't stop them from worshipping the patron saint of lost causes, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:09 PM Greg, you are seeing things through the distortion of the media, really. Americans aren't polarized and divided in everyday life like the media makes us out to be. Politics just aren't that powerful. There are forces that do divide some people--mostly cultural and social change forces. But still, I live and work among people with different political views, socialize with them in a lot of different cirucmstances. The current depressingly combative political tone is largely the fault of the Newt phenomenon back in the mid-90s, and the subsequent right wing anti-Clinton hysteria that followed it. If there were any justice in this American political world at all, the Repubs would have toned it down and been much less partisan after the 2000 election debacle and 9/11, but it seems only to have emboldened them even more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:08 PM In your post, Doug, you hit on the crux of the whole problem with political parties...and that is why I wish they were all abolished. They do not work for democracy or make for good government. They work for themselves, period. That is a bad system, guaranteed to turn rotten and betray the ideals on which your democracy was founded. It's the same problem in Canada. The very idea of political parties opens a Pandora's box of corruption and self-serving and cronyism. It is entirely possible to form a city council with no political parties, and it would be equally possible to do the same at any other level of government. And that is why I despise both the Democrats and the Republicans. They are self-serving, tremendously wealthy, morally compromised, power-hungry organizations playing a game called "defraud the voter and devour the spoils of victory by any means possible". It is folly to expect good government to result from such a system. It's a game, but you have all gotten so used to backing the home team that you can't see that it's just a game. They will do or say ANYTHING that they think will get your votes. Once they are elected, you are out of the picture. They choose who runs, they choose how to allocate the money, you rubber stamp their choice every 4 years. It's not a true democracy. It's a sham, like one of those cheap western town sets in the movies...looks great from the front...nothing behind it that is real. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: CapriUni Date: 23 Jun 04 - 02:57 PM Just a question: How much variation is there, state to state, in the rules governing third party candidates on the ballots? If there's a wide variation, that strikes me as unfair, and the laws should be changed. In the meantime, if Nader wants his name printed on the Arizona ballot, he should follow Arizona law. If he can't meet the requirements by the deadline, he should run a strong write-in campaign. And if you ask me, the real shame isn't partisan tricks so much as voter apathy. If only 30% of eligible voters vote, than no one is elected by the majority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Nerd Date: 23 Jun 04 - 02:40 PM The problem with your plan, Chief Chaos, is that if there were only one term, then every president would spend half of it campaigning for his party's chosen successor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: greg stephens Date: 23 Jun 04 - 02:18 PM American politics seem incredibly partisan to me from a trans-Atlantic perspective, particularly as it is often difficult for us to see if there is any difference between Republican and Democrat(much like Labour and Conservative at the moment, really). That Florida election seemed much like Clinton's extra-curricular shagging and terminological inexactitude. Both moral questions, which you wouldnt think would have any correlation with people's party affiliations. You either approve of the goings-on, or you dont. Yet 99.9% of people seem to come up with the opinions that cast their political opponents in a bad light. May be human nature, but it's a pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 02:09 PM "It doesn't matter who is doing this." Oh yes it does. When your sworn political enemies are trying to destroy your campaign by getting you off the ballot, it is the only thing that matters. Everyone can agree that the rules are the rules. But it is the State of Arizona's job to examine the petition signatures, and therefore it is, at this point, counter-productive for the Dems to intervene like this. Once the State of Arizona makes it's determination would be the time to intervene. But not now. This pre-emptive strike is bad PR and strategy for the Dems for a lot of reasons. It presumes that the state officials charged with the job of examining the signatures can't be trusted. Considering that over 22,000 signatures were gathered, and roughly 14,000 are necessary to get on the ballot, it also seems like a long shot that Nader won't make it onto the ballot. Which then begs the question, why bother? A simple but powerful argument can also be made that dwindling campaign time, resources, and Democrat dollars would likely be better spent going after Bush, especially in McCain country. The Democratic National Convention is but a month away, and will give all the Democratic candidates a boost. So again, why bother with Nader now, when he isn't even officially on the ballot, but ESPECIALLY because it makes them look even worse than Republican gerrymanderers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:43 PM I suppose one aspect of Nader running - if in fact he continues to do so - is that it makes it a bit harder for the Republicans to present Kerry as a left-winger, when in fact in most countries his politics would classify him as centre-right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Chief Chaos Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:38 PM If he meets the qualifications then he's fine. If he doesn't, then by law he shouldn't be on the ballot. Period! It doesn't matter who is doing this. If he can't make the qualifications then he is not eligible to run in that state. If there is a problem with the law then it needs to be changed. I for one find it highly likely that the Dems are doing it for the reason asserted but again, rules is rules. If you want to talk about scuzzy things, how about a registered, active republican running the campaign of the only black candidate who just happens to be a democrat? Is he doing that because he really believes Sharpton has a chance at winning? Or is he just trying to skim off a few thousand votes from Kerry from the African Americans who tend to vote democrat? Personally I'm beginning to think that the term of President should be extended to six years and only have one term. No more campaigning from the whitehouse or using taxpayer funded transportation (This is not a jab at the current admin. All incumbent presidents have done this and it's a waste of taxpayer's money). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: DougR Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:37 PM I think you are expecting a bit much, McGrath, even though Don seconds your comments, as he usually does with topics of this sort. Both political parties wanted to win. There are few "gentlemen" in politics and I should think you would know that. No one is going to step aside, in the interest of chivalry, and allow an opposing party , representing views opposit from theirs, to easily slide into office. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:24 PM Agreed, McGrath. Which just makes what the Democrats are doing to Nader and his voters in 2004, even more contemptible than what the Republicans did to the Democrats in 2000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:11 PM On issues such as this, I find McGrath to be the voice of sanity. Well said, sir! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 04 - 01:05 PM Mind, the only people with any right to criticise would be those who have already indicated that they despise the Bush electoral shenanigans. What I found most contemptible about all the stuff in 2000 wasn't so much that people involved in politics were lying and cheating all over the place. After all, that's what a lot of them generally do, and it's not confined to one side. No, it was the way seemingly decent people lined up purely in a partisan spirit when it came to stuff about counting votes, rather than saying "let's stand back, democracy is more important than party loyalties, and that means making sure it's a fair election regardless of the result". I'd have thought you all owed that to each other and to your country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Nerd Date: 23 Jun 04 - 12:50 PM It's not only low, but a PR nightmare. Big mistake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: Bobert Date: 23 Jun 04 - 12:40 PM I agree with you, GUEST... This is cronyism and as un-democratic as any of the Repub tricks, tho the Repubs still are way ahead in the cronyism race... Bobert |
|
Subject: BS: MORE anti-democratic sleaze from Dems From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 04 - 11:19 AM So just how is this any different from the Florida Republicans removing African Americans from the voter registration list? The sad, pathetic, and tragic irony is that these actions by Democratic Party ideaologues are no different in spirit and intent, than what was done by Republicans to steal the 2000 election. From Salon.com: "Arizona Democrats, with the blessing of national party leaders, plan to challenge Ralph Nader's qualifications to appear on the state's ballot as an independent candidate for president... ...Democrats have complained that Nader's candidacy would siphon liberal votes away from John Kerry, the party's expected presidential nominee, and they have actively sought to discourage voters from supporting him. But this would be the first time that party officials in any state use formal means to try remove Nader from a ballot." |
