Ralph Nader.........Legalities

[Bonnie]

I saw a very interesting interview on Fox this morning with Ralph Nader. He claims that the Democrats are using illegal menas to keep him off the ballot, and that he has his lawyers fighting back because he states what the Dems are doing is very illegal.

Im wondering what the dems are using as ammunition to do this.
BTB, Nader added that the Republicans were being very gracious and not causing him any problems.

 

[DKSuddeth]

the democrats have been very successful so far at keeping nader off the texas ticket.

 

[NewGuy]

I find this just absolutely hillarious.

Lets look at a couple of major points we seem to forget.

Who has muscle?

Lets see...................

Dems have union and therefore mafia strength.

Reps have military connections.

Who does the Green party have?

---Trees?

 

[Bonnie]

Im almost tempted to say go Nader..........of course only for self serving reasons..........But no I just can't in good conscious bring my self to say that even if he does siphen away votes from the French loving, i mean French looking candidate.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Bonnie
I saw a very interesting interview on Fox this morning with Ralph Nader. He claims that the Democrats are using illegal menas to keep him off the ballot, and that he has his lawyers fighting back because he states what the Dems are doing is very illegal.

Im wondering what the dems are using as ammunition to do this.
BTB, Nader added that the Republicans were being very gracious and not causing him any problems.

I saw the interview too. He called it a "mini Watergate" and he was very adament about it. He said he personally discussed it with John Kerry but that Kerry had not yet gotten back with him.

He actually said that the democrats are viotating the publics Civil Liberties by trying to block him from getting on the ticket in several states - including Arizona where the dems know they need to win.

FOX did a show last night on the importance of trying to win AZ (10 electors), CO (9 electors), NV (5 electors) and UT (5 electors). If a candidate can take all four states, they FL becomes less important (FL has 27 electors). All four states are pretty strong conservative strongholds, but in AZ the dems have a chance because of the aged living there. Nadar could cost them AZ which then makes FL all the more important.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I saw the interview too. He called it a "mini Watergate" and he was very adament about it. He said he personally discussed it with John Kerry but that Kerry had not yet gotten back with him.

He actually said that the democrats are viotating the publics Civil Liberties by trying to block him from getting on the ticket in several states - including Arizona where the dems know they need to win.

FOX did a show last night on the importance of trying to win AZ (10 electors), CO (9 electors), NV (5 electors) and UT (5 electors). If a candidate can take all four states, they FL becomes less important (FL has 27 electors). All four states are pretty strong conservative strongholds, but in AZ the dems have a chance because of the aged living there. Nadar could cost them AZ which then makes FL all the more important.

That just figures!! The Democrats will do anything to win even if it means trample all over the constitution

 

[NATO AIR]

but like al sharpton, he is a spoiler candidate only intended to divide the democrat vote, or divert as much of it as possible. a careful review of his donor list will reveal he has a vast majority of conservative/republican donors, and though i call myself a republican, i think it is shameful to be invovled in something like that... if the dems are stepping over the line, they're wrong and i hope they get caught doing it by the right controlling authority, but nader has been overstepping it since 2000.

i can only imagine the same uproar would happen if some noted conservative decided to spoil bush's efforts by pulling votes from the right in the same manner as nader is with the dems.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
but like al sharpton, he is a spoiler candidate only intended to divide the democrat vote, or divert as much of it as possible. a careful review of his donor list will reveal he has a vast majority of conservative/republican donors, and though i call myself a republican, i think it is shameful to be invovled in something like that... if the dems are stepping over the line, they're wrong and i hope they get caught doing it by the right controlling authority, but nader has been overstepping it since 2000.

i can only imagine the same uproar would happen if some noted conservative decided to spoil bush's efforts by pulling votes from the right in the same manner as nader is with the dems.

I agree with you.... I think and hope the difference would be that Republicans would fight back in a legal and above board way. Im not suggesting that all Republicans are completely virtous, but at least from my perspective the Dems are just openly and blatantly snubbing their noses at propriety and rubbing our noses in it.

 

[NATO AIR]

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20040630/

the formal complaint by a group about what nader and his rightist supporters were doing in oregon
i realize the group is obviously on the democratic side but their complaint is sound... and its shameful this is being allowed. this kind of shameful dirty tricks is something that sadly, won't ever go away, and both sides are very guilty of.

i'm bitching primarily about nader and the right today though because after learning the truth of sharpton's run, i kept silent and should have screamed bloody murder.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
i can only imagine the same uproar would happen if some noted conservative decided to spoil bush's efforts by pulling votes from the right in the same manner as nader is with the dems.

Are you so memory handicapped that you don't remember what Buchanan did in 2000? Did the GOP try to block him illegally like the dems are doing to Nadar now? (now that we know of! )

:

 

[lilcountriegal]

Originally posted by NewGuy


I find this just absolutely hillarious.

Lets look at a couple of major points we seem to forget.

Who has muscle?

Lets see...................

Dems have union and therefore mafia strength.

Which reminds me... what has the Union said about Kerry's choice of Edwards? Didnt they say they wouldnt be supporting him unless he chose Gephardt?

 

[NATO AIR]

the country was in far better political shape in 2000... now 80% of the country (40% Dem, 40% GOP, 20% undecided by the way) believes the stakes are higher than ever before and neither man was an incumbent... bush is guarding his presidency, kerry is the challenger, different political landscape...

hold on though and i will try to find anything about buchannan (a spoiler candidate as well, and the most anti-israel politician i have ever seen)