It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Un-Democratic party preventing Nader from being on Nov Ballot

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I couldn't believe what I read in these articles showing the Democratic party's effort to keep Ralph Nader off of the November Presidential election ballot.

In an interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now (an independent media outlet)
Nader said:

When I talked to John Kerry, I talked basically about the dirty tricks that the democratic parties at the state level are using to try to keep us off the ballot on technicalities, drain our resources. In Arizona, the democrats hired three corporate law firms. They filed suit against us. They had filed suit on such things like one of our signature gatherers-- it takes 14,500 signatures to get on the Arizona ballot. One of the signature gatherers collected 550 signatures. He happened to be an ex-felon who paid his debt to society. He had been on juries. He was a registered voter. They found that he did not pay allegedly a $400 fine to the state, and they wanted to knock off 550 signatures. That would have cost us long days in litigation, and we had to drop our effort. We have limited funds under Federal Election Commission regulation. The democrats have unlimited funds outside of any regulation. That's what they're doing in Oregon and elsewhere. I told John Kerry to-- words to the wise. He may be presiding over a situation, whether he knows it or not, that can be a mini Watergate.


When asked about the claims in Oregon that conservatives in Oregon were organizing and getting signatures for Nader's application, he replied,


This group should be called Citizens for Irresponsibility. They filed these complaints based on newspaper clippings. There's no coordination at all with the republicans. We had no evidence in our convention in a high school auditorium in Portland, Oregon the other day, that they were in any way supporting us. We did have evidence that the democrats had infiltrated the auditorium to swell our number above the required 1,000 supporters, and as a result gave us the impression, and the impression also was conveyed to Oregon state election authorities who were there with their counters, that we could close the doors and start the balloting. Then when the doors were closed and some latecomers were left out, the 100 or so democrats refused to sign the nomination forms. So, they were like trojan horses. The democrats did obstruct. The republicans put out press releases but didn't engage in any results. But I think that the Committee on so-called Responsibility, that is going to be coming under strong scrutiny, because they're engaging in reckless harassment.

Democracy now

There are many stories of this effort by the Democrats to keep Nader off the ballot, in one article it states:

Failed presidential screamer Howard Dean demanded that Nader cancel the Oregon nominating convention and immediately "get out of the race." In a hastily organized conference call press event, Dean denounced Nader as a black-hearted tool of the right wing.

Story

Also in a Fox interview Nader suggested that the Democrats are restricting his effort to give Americans another choice in November.

When asked if Republicans are working behind the scenes to get him on the ballot, Nader said he doesn't know much about that but "we've seen lots of examples of Democrats trying to obstruct us this is a fight for all third parties and independent candidates."

And with a reported 42 percent of Americans wanting troops to return from Iraq; over half of whom think it was mistake to send them there, Nader said, "there's no candidacy except the Nader-Camejo ticket speaking for them," adding that he provides the only anti-war platform for voters this year.

Story

Even in this Socialist website article which points to Republican interference, the Democrat party is the main focus, even highlighting a local election challenged by the Democrats. In this snippet it describes the Kerry campaign as trying to limit voters choices in this years election.

The principal function of the Kerry campaign, as far as the US ruling elite is concerned, is to exclude any challenge to the legitimacy of the war in Iraq from the official debate in the 2004 elections. Opinion polls show the majority of the American people oppose the war in Iraq, and 40 percent favor an immediate withdrawal of all American troops. Those tens of millions of people are entirely unrepresented in the contest between Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards, four multi-millionaire politicians who are all pledged to maintain the US occupation and suppress Iraqi resistance, no matter what the cost in money and lives.

Story

Here's some from another article:

Last weekend, Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe used his time on CBSs Face the Nation to highlight rumors and gossip that Nader is taking money from the Republicans. He neglected to mention that the Democrats had organized a concerted effort to keep Nader off the ballot in every state where he has tried to qualify.

As Florida's Republican Party Chair Carole Jean Jordan told a reporter, "Democrats are quick to use the issue of voter disenfranchisement to their benefit, and yet have no problem unleashing their legal sharks on Ralph Nader." You know the Democrats have sunk to new depths when a Republican from Florida can claim to be a defender of democratic rights.

Story


I find it hard to believe that the Democrats are trying to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot thinking that they will receive the votes from people who wanted Nader. It appears to me that Nader is the only candidate who has a platform which is easily different from the Reps and Dems, I haven't decided how I am going to vote this year, I am frustrated like most of you, my wife is not going to vote at all this year because she is fed up with the status quo of politics in DC. Personally I would want a viable third party choice on the ballot, but if these efforts by the Dems this year and both parties in the past, continue, it won't happen.
But the Democrats thinking that their tactics will guarantee a victory in November seem sceptical at best. I think these would-be voters would react as my wife has and not vote at all, and that my friends, is a shame.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by JacKatMtn]




posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
It is funny that no one thinks this is worthy of comment. Are there too many sources that tell the story here. I see many people jump on a story which is definitely slanted, wild conspiracy theories, uncorraborated accusations, and outright propaganda.

For those who would like a third party choice, this type of activity must stop, otherwise we will have nothing but the status quo partisan politics which we have been suffering from for decades.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Sorry, read this earlier but no comment because you did a great job and I had nothing to add.

Nader cracks me up sometimes, though I agree with a few of the positions he takes. The brainwashed Democrats up to their usual thuggery...



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I hate to see this stuff done too the the third party. On the news I always see people complaining that a vote for Nader is stealing votes for Kerry. Maybe people just want to vote for nader and the third party. As the right and the left drift more and more to the far wings of their party I think they get farther away from the common american. In many ways both the right and the left are very much the same too. I think the United states is long over due for a real third party choice.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It seems there is no place for moderation these days, only political exteremism. Republicans want Nader on the ballot, Democrats want to take him off. Why cant they just third parties be? We need a strong third party, although I doubt it will come from Nader's Reform Party (Is that who he is running for this year?) will take the charge. It seems the only way to ensure a third party is engrained in people's minds is to have them on the ballot consistently and in the news. So, in a way, these tactics may be doing some good in the long run. Although, Democrats shouldn't be mad that Nader makes it on the ballot, thats just dirty man.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Americans have a right to have a third, fourth, fifth (and so on) party
on the ballot. The Dems are disenfranchising voters who don't want
to vote Democrat. The Dems are trying to force them to vote for
someone (Kerry) that they don't want to vote for.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
La Rouche is in the same boat.

Expose Attemp To Shut LaRouche Youth Out Of The Democratic Convention



July 22Representatives of the LaRouche Youth Movement will be joined by leading Democrats from around the country, at a press conference on Sunday, July 25, at 4:30 PM, to expose attempts to lock members of the LaRouche Youth Movement out of Boston during the Democratic National Convention. The press conference will be held in the George Washington room at the John Hancock Conference Center in downtown Boston.
Signs of the attempted lockout against the LaRouche Youth surfaced on July 12, when the LaRouche Campaign had rooms at the Marriott Copley Hotel cancelled, for which it had already paid and contracted. The rooms were intended to be used as a central coordinating center for the LaRouche Youth Movement during the Democratic Convention.
The campaign was told by hotel personnel that the rental had been cancelled upon the decision of the Democratic National Committee, whose representative had conveyed the idea that the LaRouche campaign and youth were some kind of security threat. When a campaign representative called another hotel, after hearing this news, she was told by a hotel employee that the DNC had also denied their ability to rent to the LaRouche Campaign, with an "explanation" also citing "security" concerns
larouchein2004.net...

It seems the Democratic National Committee is the real problem


[edit on 25-7-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Nader really needs to put his attention to amending the voting system and abolishing the electrorial college! As long as the college in place, the system will always be two party; squeezing out the minority of the third.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
JacKatMtn, quoting Ralph Nader


quote: When asked if Republicans are working behind the scenes to get him on the ballot, Nader said he doesn't know much about that


LOL. I bet he doesn't know much about Republicans helping him. A significant amount of the money and manpower to get Nader on the ballot is coming from Republicans. They just filed enough petitions with signatures in Michigan to get Nader on the ballot when Nader came up short.

JacKatMtn, you are misleading us by labelling the Democrats the Un-Democratic party. Please explain what is undemocratic about challenging signatures on petitions to make sure they are valid. It turns out that many of the signatures submitted by Nader in Arizona were not valid. Enough so that he did not make the ballot in Arizona. Would it have been more democratic if Nader had gotten on the ballot with invalid signatures?

Please explain why anything else the Democrats have done to impede Nader is undemocratic? Everything they are doing is perfectly legal. How is it undemocratic to work within the law to achieve political objectives?

Meanwhile, Republicans are donating a lot of money and manpower to help Nader. These Republicans do not agree with Ralph Nader politically, and they do not want to see him elected President. When your actions contradict your beliefs, that is called hypocrisy.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Please explain why anything else the Democrats have done to impede Nader is undemocratic? Everything they are doing is perfectly legal. How is it undemocratic to work within the law to achieve political objectives?


It seems the Democrats are becoming great friends with litigators these days.
Being Democratic is to allow everyone to have their voice heard, Claiming that what the DNC is doing is "legal" doesn't excuse the fact that their efforts are to prevent this from happening.

Just because they call themselves the Democratic party, it doesn't mean they represent Democracy.



[edit on 25-7-2004 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

It seems the Democrats are becoming great friends with litigators these days.


Yes. The Democrats observed how skillfully the Republicans used litigators to get the Supreme Court to steal the Presidential Election in 2000.


Being Democratic is to allow everyone to have their voice heard, Claiming that what the DNC is doing is "legal" doesn't excuse the fact that their efforts are to prevent this from happening.


The Democrats are trying to keep Nader off as many state ballots as possible, using legal means. How is anyone's voice not allowed to be heard? Nader has his day in court and is heard in every one of these situations. As far as the people who want to vote for Nader, it is ridiculous to claim that their voices are not being heard because they cannot vote for a candidate who failed to meet the legal requirements to get on the ballot. I could claim my voice is not being heard because I want to vote for Michael Moore for President. Every voter's voice is heard in exactly the same way. Here is a list of the candidates who have met the legal requirements to be on the ballot. Choose one.

One poster, in this thread or the other Nader thread, suggested that the Nader voters were being disenfranchised. Please. Disenfranchisement means taking away the right to vote. Like the Republican election officials in Florida disenfranchised large numbers of black Democratic voters because their names erroneously appeared on a list of convicted felons. Not to mention the large number of registered black Democratic voters who were not allowed to vote because, mysteriously, there was no record of them being registered. That is real disenfranchisement, as practiced by the Republicans in Florida in 2000. No one is being disenfranchised in this situation with Nader.



Just because they call themselves the Democratic party, it doesn't mean they represent Democracy.

[edit on 25-7-2004 by JacKatMtn]


The Democrats certainly represent democracy to a much greater extent than the Republican Party, which is bought and paid for by large corporations.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
the dems want nader out cause a vote for nader is a vote for bush. they know if nader runs they wont win. i say let nader run, he has a right to, and the dems are all about peoples rights.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
This is exactly why I will continue to vote for Nader!



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
This is exactly why I will continue to vote for Nader!


Good for you, you should have that opportunity, Unlike DG I am not a biased in politics, as shown by the numerous sources I quoted in my original post. I do not claim either the Democrats or Republicans as my choice of party, They both have taken for granted the very people who have put them in power and will do anything to keep this power.

Notice that when Donguillermo responded to my post, he could only bash the Republican party and offer no legitimate response. This happens both ways as you have seen on the board, and solves nothing.

I will not participate in the bashing, I merely posted information which is important for those like myself, who are undecided. The bashing only steers me further and further away from each party.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Good for you, you should have that opportunity, Unlike DG I am not a biased in politics, as shown by the numerous sources I quoted in my original post. I do not claim either the Democrats or Republicans as my choice of party, They both have taken for granted the very people who have put them in power and will do anything to keep this power.


You make a lengthy post bashing hell out of the Democrats, then claim not to be biased. You have a great future as a standup comedian.


Notice that when Donguillermo responded to my post, he could only bash the Republican party and offer no legitimate response. This happens both ways as you have seen on the board, and solves nothing.


I offered no legitimate response??? In case you hadn't noticed, your post I replied to has been chopped into little pieces and is lying bleeding on the floor. Rather than reply to my post, I notice you just mention to another poster that I had no legitimate response. Care to address the points I made in my last response to you?



I will not participate in the bashing, I merely posted information which is important for those like myself, who are undecided. The bashing only steers me further and further away from each party.


You have already participated in the bashing with your lengthy opening post bashing Democrats. As far as your being undecided, I call BS. You are a partisan Republican propagandist. You and several other posters on ATS claim to be undecided, centrist, moderate, or independent. Yet you are all Republican propagandists. I guess you think the gullible readers of ATS will be more inclined to believe your Republican propaganda and misinformation.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join