Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, September 23, 2004 09:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2156
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 9:31 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Parties to Injustice
Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot

By Ralph Nader
Sunday, September 5, 2004; Page B03

This summer, swarms of Democratic Party lawyers, propagandists, harassers and assorted operatives have been conducting an unsavory war against my campaign's effort to secure a spot on the presidential ballots in various states. It is not enough that both major parties, in state after state, have used the legislatures to erect huge barriers, unique among Western democracies, to third party and independent candidacies. Now they are engaging in what can only be called dirty tricks and frivolous lawsuits to keep me and my running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, off the ballot while draining precious dollars from our campaign chest.

This contemptuous drive is fueled with large amounts of unregulated money, much of it funneled through the National Progress Fund, an ostensibly independent group led by Toby Moffett, a former Democratic congressman who is currently a partner in a largely Republican lobbying firm called the Livingston Group. By contrast, to defend ourselves from the assault, we have to draw on funds that are limited and regulated by the Federal Election Commission.

See the rest of Mr. Nader's comments from the Sunday Washington Post Op/Ed page here (Note:The Post may require you to sign up before you can view their info):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60689-2004Sep3.html

Does this seem fair?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 10:37 AM

CONNORFLYNN

No it's not fair, but nothing ever is. SO much for progressive thinking LOL.

"If they (the Islamafascists) win, the world loses"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 10:37 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Nope. Not fair at all. If Nader gets enough signatures to be on a state ballot his name should be on that ballot. And, before everyone starts hollering about Republicans signing petitions for Nader, I don't care who signs those petitions - as long as they meet the requirements (registered voters, residents, etc.).

This does bring up an interesting tactic that Republican groups are using. Nader submitted between 5 and 6 thousand signatures in the state of Michigan. The minimum requirement to get on the ballot is 30 thousand. More than 40 thousand signatures were submitted by Michigan Republicans. In my opinion Nader should be on the ballot in Michigan.

Are any of the 40 thousand people whose signatures were turned in by Republican groups planning on voting for Nader in November? Probably not. Why did they sign the petition? It's a safe guess they feel Bush has a better chance with Nader on the ballot. Actually, it's probably better than a guess. Here's a phone script from a conservative group for their work in Oregon to get Nader on the ballot:

Quote:
from http://www.cse.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=863
Washington, D.C. - Oregon CSE members are working to get Ralph Nader on the November ballot! While this sounds completely backwards-- Ralph Nader opposes nearly every issue CSE fights for-- but there's sound logic behind Oregon CSE's actions. CSE does not advocate the election or defeat of political candidates, but Oregon CSE members feel that having Nader on the ballot helps illuminate the strong similarities between the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry. That's why they've been making calls to their friends to sign a petition to get Nader on the ballot by attending a townhall on June 26th, using a phone script that reads:

"Hi, my name is Russ Walker, director of Citizens for a Sound Economy here in Oregon, and I wanted to tell you about an opportunity we have to drive a wedge through the Liberal Left’s base of support.

In this year’s presidential race, Ralph Nader could peel away a lot of Kerry support in Oregon, but he has to be on the ballot first. He will make it if at least 1,000 people show up this Saturday at Benson High school at 4:00 pm and sign the petition to certify his candidacy. [[Please note-- this event already occured on June 26th]

Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support by showing up at Grant High school on Saturday.

Poor Ralph Nader: He just wants to make the ballot here in Oregon. Let’s give him what he wants and just watch what happens in November!"

Personally, I see nothing wrong (in the legal sense of the word) with what these Republican groups are doing. I think that it is in violation of the spirit of the petition process, but not the letter of the regulations.

I feel the same way about those who support Bush and are working to get Nader on as many state ballots as possible as I do about those who support Kerry and are working to keep Nader off as many state ballots as possible. They're scared that their candidate isn't strong enough to win on his own.

On a parting note, Democratic groups should stop trying to keep Nader off and start trying to get Badnarik on as many state ballots as possible. And every other candidate from a group that really isn't idealogically Republican but votes that way because there is no other viable alternative.

The more the merrier.

*editted to add: I was already familiar with the details of this issue since I've been following it over the past many months with amusement. But I decided to use one of the resources Noocyte listed in the "Fact-Checking Resources for Poli Threads" ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=6928 ) rather than the resources I would normally cite. Specifically, I went to FactCheck.org to see what they had to say on the topic. Here is the article that I found with the most relevance: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=216 (This is how I found my way to the Oregon phone script link). Here is the title and sub-title of that article in case anyone is interested:

Quote:
Radio Ad Attacks Nader Over GOP Support

Group run by Democrats says "right-wing Republicans" and "extremists" aid Nader to help Bush. Characterizations aside, they've got a point.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 8:45 PM

ILGREVEN

Mr. Nader, I believe you should try to win your party's nomination before you complain about being "kept off the ballot".

Just that it's funny that Nader is still getting all the press, yet he doesn't have the Green party nomination...Michael Badnarik should be the one getting the press, since he's representing the "legitimate" 3rd party in this election...

"Bye now. Have good sex!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 9:17 PM

SGTGUMP

Nader is running as an Independent this year.

We get 50 choices for Miss America, and only 2 for President. That just doesn't seem right.

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
Vote Libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 2:36 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
Nader is running as an Independent this year.

We get 50 choices for Miss America, and only 2 for President. That just doesn't seem right.

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
Vote Libertarian.

I agree with you 100%. However I propose a change that could possibly make it. We need 100 choices for Miss America. They also need to be alil more scantilly clad.

"Paulie, get the ball cutters" - Tony Soprano

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:29 AM

CONSCIENCE

Here is something else the Demoncrats don't want you to know!

Abortion, in its most common usage, refers to the deliberate early termination of a pregnancy, resulting in the killing of the infant while still in the womb. Although some will say that abortion is not a matter of life and death, arguing that a fetus is not a "person", or a "human being", medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception.

A sperm has 23 chromosomes and no matter what, even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg it can never make another sperm. An egg also has 23 chromosomes and it can never make another egg. A solitary egg or a solitary sperm does not have the complete genetic code for a separate human being. The ovum and the sperm are each a product of another's body: unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity. Neither one is complete. Like cells in someone's hair or fingernails, an egg or sperm does not have the capacity to become other than what it already is. Both are essentially dead-ends, destined to remain what they are until they die in a matter of days. This negates one common argument - that the unborn isn't human, or else every time a man ejaculated, or a woman menstruated, an "unborn" dies. Obviously this is ridiculous - a sperm without an egg and an egg without a sperm does not constitute human life.

Once there is the union of a sperm and egg, the 23 chromosomes are brought together in one cell with 46 chromosomes. Once there are 46 chromosomes, that one cell has all of the DNA, the whole genetic code for a genetically distinct human life. It isn't a "potential" human life, or some "other" type of life because something non-human does not magically become human by getting older and bigger - whatever is human must be human from the beginning. Everything that constitutes a human being is present from that moment forward - the only thing added from that point on is nutrition so the unborn can grow. This new life is not a sperm or an egg, or even a simple combination of both. It is independent with a life of its own, and the development is actually self-directed. A sperm can't do that - neither can an egg. They do not "develop".

The baby's blood supply is also completely separate from the mother's. If they were not separate bodies, the mother and child having different blood types would be impossible. If a child's and mother's blood mix, it can be fatal for the child if the Rh factors are different. There is a shot to prevent this, but if there is not, and the blood of different Rh factors mix, the baby can die.

Even most medical texts and pro-choice doctors agree with pro-choice geneticist Ashley Montagu, who has written: "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but at conception." The beginning of human life is not a religious, moral, or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From the time those 23 chromosomes become 46 onward, the unborn is a living, developing human being with a unique genetic makeup.

Many people think abortion is acceptable because it's done before the fetus is what they consider "viable." However, viability is not something which should be used to determine whether someone is "human enough" to have the right to live, since viability is based on current medical science. Medical science does not determine when someone becomes human. Ten years ago, a 25 week-old fetus could not survive outside the womb. Now it can. Maybe in ten years, a 15 week old fetus will be able to be sustained outside the womb. Does this mean that the fetus, in 1999, is not human, but a fetus of the same age in 2007 is somehow more human? The point of viability constantly changes because it is based on medical technology, not the fetus itself. What if one hospital had the technology to keep a 20 week old fetus alive but another hospital only had the technology to keep a 28 week old fetus alive? Is the fetus "human" and worthy of life in one hospital but not in another?

Abortionists claim that abortion "liberates" women, when in actually it does not, in fact it instead "liberates" men. Abortion on demand liberates men who want sex without strings, promises, or responsibility. And if the woman has the baby? "Hey, that's her problem. She could have obtained an abortion - she chose to carry the child; let her pay for her choice." Abortion also "liberates" others - not the pregnant woman. For instance, employers do not have to make concessions to pregnant women and mothers. Schools do not have to accommodate to the needs of parents, and irresponsible men do not have to commit themselves to their partners or their children.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:48 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Conscience, I did a google search using a paragraph from your post. Imagine my surprise when I discovered at least two other pages where either the entirety of your post is there or the majority of the paragraphs with additional information. (I won't link to the pages but it's easy to reproduce if others are interested). So either you wrote this article and have been going around the web disseminating it or you are passing someone else's work off as your own. If this is not your own work, please use good scholarship and cite where this is coming from and your critique and analysis of the positions presented in the article.

I also noticed that this is your first post and you joined fireflyfans today. This looks suspiciously like trolling behavior. So I have a quick question for you: What are your thoughts on Kaylee's morality after the bit of backstory shown in the episode "Out of Gas"?

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:52 AM

GLICO

Pretty damn trolly, if you ask me. Abortion is not related to anything previously discussed in this thread except in the loose way that the Democratic Party is pro-abortion rights. In response to the article, this argument isn't about life, it's about intelligent life. Or are you in favor of vegetarianism? What exactly are you arguing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:44 AM

SOUPCATCHER

This is kind of going to go in a different direction but ever since I read Conscience's post above it's been rolling around in the back of my head. If you have been on the internet for a while, and paid attention, you know that there are many people who get paid to post. A lot of these people are paid by political organizations to go out and disseminate the talking points of the day. Another group are paid by corporations to hype up their product (a lot of times these corporations are in the entertainment industry). Actually, there are a lot of similarities between the two groups so maybe it's better to say that there are a lot of people on the internet getting paid to advertise.

I have my suspicions that there are a few posters on this site who qualify for this category and have never seen Firefly. Or, at the very least, come to this site only to post in the threads that are not directly related to the show (whether they be Real World Events Discussion threads or posts on other Science Fiction series). There are certainly posters who I have noticed rarely, if ever, post on Firefly topic threads.

So this is a tremendous opportunity. If you are getting paid to post, and you are posting here, congratulations! You've just stumbled upon one of the best television shows of all time! And there is going to be a movie! And there is the opportunity for more movies! So give yourself the best gift you can and buy a copy of the DVD (there is a link to the amazon listing on the main page of the site). Sit down and watch a few episodes. Give it a chance. One thing we have found is that the conversion rate is astronomically high. And once you become a fan of the show (and I'm sure you will) loan your DVD to your boss along with a thank you note. Loan your DVD out to other people who work in the same field as you.

It's like you're getting paid and then won the lottery! It's a win-win for everyone.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE