The Democrats are just wrong

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-08-02 11:05am

I was reading this in the friday july 30th issue of the Wall Street Journal. I couldnt find a link to it.

The article was talking about the different approches being taken by both Bush and Kerry in terms of money that is being spent and where Kerry is spending his time trying to get votes. What made me mad though was this statment.

"In addition Democrats think they've picked up votes by keeping Ralph Nader off the ballet in swing states."

Now I'm not a fan Nader but this dosent speak well for the Democrats and the democratic process when they had a canadate removed from the ballet because they think ihe might harm their chances. The Republicans even after Bush senor lost the election to Clinton because of Ross Perot'b bid never atampted to keep him off the ballet.

One of the main concepts the this countrys political system is that anyone can vote or run for an office. But that is showning to be a concept the two major partys dont like that much. The whole politcal system has grown accustemed to being a two party system and because of that indepentes are have a hard if not inpossable time of getting elected. The system needs to get changes to a true mult party system where we have many different partys running and not two.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-08-02 12:15pm

How the fuck do you "remove" a candidate from the ballot? And I'm sorry, I'll requiure a link to the article itself, not to mention some confirmation by a source other than the right wing Wall Street Journal

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-02 01:00pm

fgalkin wrote:How the fuck do you "remove" a candidate from the ballot? And I'm sorry, I'll requiure a link to the article itself, not to mention some confirmation by a source other than the right wing Wall Street Journal

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

It depends on the state. In order to get a candidate on the ballot in some states, you have to have a certain number of verified signatures. Well a number of Republicans have not only given money to Nader, but have signed phony names to these petitions to get Nader on the ballot on the assumption that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Democrats went through these petitions and found a number of the signatures were fake, signed multiple times by the same person and so on. They had every right to do so.

I think Nader and other candidates should be included in the debates, though. I'm not holding my breath.

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-08-02 01:31pm

And I'm sorry, I'll requiure a link to the article itself, not to mention some confirmation by a source other than the right wing Wall Street Journal

If you want a link then you can go pay the $80 a year for their subscripton.

And waht happen to people reading the paper?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-08-02 01:51pm

m112880 wrote:
And I'm sorry, I'll requiure a link to the article itself, not to mention some confirmation by a source other than the right wing Wall Street Journal
If you want a link then you can go pay the $80 a year for their subscripton.

And waht happen to people reading the paper?

No, if I want a link, you give it to me (or at least the full text of the article), or you STFU. This board is not in the habit of accepting unverified claims

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-08-02 01:59pm

*sigh* As an economics student who was required to subscribe to the WSJ, I can say it's extremely expensive to subscribe to it. And it is highly right-wing (so much so that even my Republican friends don't read the editorials page because it disgusts them). I do read the local paper, and on occasion USA Today (the college supplies it while I'm on campus).

That said, if the signatures are forged, then the Democrats have every right to insist that Nader be removed, up until the point that enough legitimate signatures have been gathered for him to be a legal candidate.

According to azcentral.com

Nader's legal team conceded that because of too many "technical errors," he would not have the required 14,694 signatures needed to get on the Arizona ballot. A Nader volunteer said the litigious battle would have been too expensive.

The article does state that two Democrats sued, challenging the validity of the petitions. However, Nader chose to withdraw rather than attempt to show they were valid.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-02 02:14pm

m112880 wrote:
And I'm sorry, I'll requiure a link to the article itself, not to mention some confirmation by a source other than the right wing Wall Street Journal
If you want a link then you can go pay the $80 a year for their subscripton.

And if you want to reference them, then provide the full text of the article if it is not publicly available. Otherwise, we're forced to rely on your account of what an article from a right-slanted paper says and what facts from it you choose to grace us with. Has it ever occurred to you that posting the article you're referencing is standard practice here?

And waht happen to people reading the paper?

Sorry, pal, not everyone wants to spend $80 per year just so we can verify someone's story on a message board. You made the reference, you provide the article. It's just that simple. By telling everyone to blow $80 per year to verify what you're saying, you're being an elusive little pussy.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-02 05:21pm

The Wall Street Journal is right-leaning, but that doesn't mean their reporting is bad (their op-ed page can get obnoxious at times, but so can leftie papers like the New York Times). I think I remember the article he's referring to, but I can't post the text because i don't have an online subscription either and I'm damn well not going to fish through the recycling bin so I can transcribe the article online.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-02 06:14pm

It's amazing what happens when you type "Nader Ballot Democrats challenge" into Google's news search.

Newsday wrote:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ Ralph Nader will appear as an independent presidential candidate on New Jersey's ballot, according to the state Division of Elections.

One challenge to keep Nader off the ballot was denied, said Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office. Loriquet did not know who filed the challenge. The deadline for filing challenges to a person's candidacy was Monday.

Democratic organizations in several states, including Arizona and Pennsylvania, have waged legal battles to keep Nader's name off the ballot.

Many Democrats believe Nader cost them the White House in the 2000 presidential election.

They contend that Nader's Green Party candidacy took votes from Vice President Al Gore in Florida, where George W. Bush won by 537 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida.

Nader expects to be on the ballot in 43 states, enough to win the presidency

or you can look at the San Diego Tribune or perhaps glance over MSNBC

It's fine to bitch and moan if the person's referencing something that most will not or can not have access to. But this is current event, the New York Times will not be the only news outlet that will have picked up on it.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-02 06:18pm

Here is the relevant quote to the NYT article

Mr. Moffett said that he and Elizabeth Holtzman, the former congresswoman from New York, were coordinating with election lawyers in several states to challenge Mr. Nader's ballot petitions. Their strategy, he said, is to try to undercut Mr. Nader not only in swing states where he could make a difference but in safe states, "to drain him of resources and force him to spend his time and money."

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-08-02 10:29pm

and i would scan the article and post it other then the fact that my scanner is not working.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-02 11:41pm

m112880 wrote:and i would scan the article and post it other then the fact that my scanner is not working.

You could simply type the relevant quote the text from the WSJ (I'm assuming it's similar to what I quoted from the NYT) and cited the source as you would for a research paper.

For example, I should have listed the source for my above NYT qoute like this:

Katherine Q. Seelye
"Convictions Intact, Nader Soldiers On"
New York Times. 2 August 2004. Link (or page number as you would be quoting from the hardcopy)

That way, even if they can't access the source themselves, it satisfies their need to know the source of the info.