Nader rips Kerry as "Gutless, Spineless, Clueless and Hapless"

[Drbio]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.

Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.

Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."

The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.

Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.

The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.

His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.

Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.

Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.

Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.

Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.

Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,

[dude1394]

Couldn't agree more..

Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.

Might add dishonest, cheating, lying, blame america firsters.

[LRB]

Just saw Kerry on the evening news campaigning in Florida saying that he'd "insure that this time every vote will count." What a crock of Sh!t. Kerry flat out lied. He's actively working to limit the rights of voters. Kerry couldn't be more disingenuousif he tried.

[MavKikiNYC]

I wonder if McAuliffe weren't so close to Clinton if he wouldn't already have been investigated for fraud and racketerring by now. But that Clinton amulet will only last for so long.

The Democrats really need to clean house at the top ranks of their party leadership. They are far more corrupt than anything going on with Republicans.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: LRB
Just saw Kerry on the evening news campaigning in Florida saying that he'd "insure that this time every vote will count." What a crock of Sh!t. Kerry flat out lied. He's actively working to limit the rights of voters. Kerry couldn't be more disingenuousif he tried.

He wants every vote to count, he just wants to control who people have a choice of voting for.

[Drbio]

*bump*

Still no response from the liberals....go figure. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Drbio
*bump*

Still no response from the liberals....go figure. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

They're either just agree that what the DNC and the Kerry campaign are doing against Nader is wrong or they're just too busy filing petitions to get Nader off the ballots around the country.

[Mavdog]

I don't see what the DNC is doing as any different than the RNC is doing. The DNC is seeking for the rule of law on candidates be enforced to aid their chance of success, the RNC is giving aid to someone that is 180 degrees from their agenda to aid their chance of success.

BTW Nader called the Democrats, not just Kerry, "gutless..." etc.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I don't see what the DNC is doing as any different than the RNC is doing. The DNC is seeking for the rule of law on candidates be enforced to aid their chance of success, the RNC is giving aid to someone that is 180 degrees from their agenda to aid their chance of success.

BTW Nader called the Democrats, not just Kerry, "gutless..." etc.

The reason that you can't see any difference is because of your blind partisanship. While I'll agree that I don't think that it's the right nor ethical think for the RNC to get involved with helping the Nader get the signatures to get on the ballot, it is hardly taking away choices from the voters. If the DNC wants to help say Pat Robertson to get on the ballot to take away from Bush's base then that would be equivalent. However when talking about ethical violations, I don't see how any reasonable person could put working to limit the choice of voters in the same category as helping someone get on the ballot who you don't plan on voting for.

BTW last time I checked Kerry was the democrats candidate for President.

[Mavdog]

The reason that you can't see any difference is because of your blind partisanship. While I'll agree that I don't think that it's the right nor ethical think for the RNC to get involved with helping the Nader get the signatures to get on the ballot, it is hardly taking away choices from the voters. If the DNC wants to help say Pat Robertson to get on the ballot to take away from Bush's base then that would be equivalent. However when talking about ethical violations, I don't see how any reasonable person could put working to limit the choice of voters in the same category as helping someone get on the ballot who you don't plan on voting for.

That's very amusing, I "can't see any difference...because of [my] blind partisanship" while you see a great deal of difference because of your "blind partisanship"! that's funny...

There is nothing unethical in the DNC seeking the enforcement of the law on candidate's being placed on a ballot. The law was in place prior to this election cycle so there was no changing of the rules focused on Nader. The other candidates followed the law to be placed on the ballot, Nader should follow the same rules.

How can efforts towards enforcing the law on ballot access be seen as unethical?

BTW last time I checked Kerry was the democrats candidate for President.

uh, yeah, did you not understand "BTW Nader called the Democrats, <u>not just Kerry</u>, "gutless..." etc."?

[LRB]

There is nothing unethical in the DNC seeking the enforcement of the law on candidate's being placed on a ballot. The law was in place prior to this election cycle so there was no changing of the rules focused on Nader. The other candidates followed the law to be placed on the ballot, Nader should follow the same rules.

The question is over ethics not legality. And just so I understand you, are you arguing that supporting any law dealing with elections is ethical? Does that include poll taxes or grandfather clauses? How about requiring all hispanic looking voters show proof of citizenship before allowing them to vote by having INS stationed outside the polling locations?

How can you honestly argue that trying to keep a candidate off the ballot on a small technicality is ethical. Just because you can do something legally does not make it ethical. You need a better argument than just it's legal.

Hell even Epitome agrees that this is a shady practice by the dems. And can you honestly say if the shoes were reversed and it was the republicans who were trying to keep a candidate off of the ballot through lawsuits that you wouldn't be hollering unethical practice? I seriously doubt it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

The question is over ethics not legality.

perhaps in your partisan mind, however the reality is that the DNC is seeking the rule of law.

And just so I understand you, are you arguing that supporting any law dealing with elections is ethical? Does that include poll taxes or grandfather clauses? How about requiring all hispanic looking voters show proof of citizenship before allowing them to vote by having INS stationed outside the polling locations?

Those are not germaine to the issue at hand, You're drawing comparisons to laws that disenfranchise a voter, not rules on the process of a candidate being qualified to be on a ballot.

How can you honestly argue that trying to keep a candidate off the ballot on a small technicality is ethical. Just because you can do something legally does not make it ethical. You need a better argument than just it's legal.

It isn't an argument of anything being "legal" it is seeking enforcement of the law, which BTW were follwed by all other candidates.

Hell even Epitome agrees that this is a shady practice by the dems. And can you honestly say if the shoes were reversed and it was the republicans who were trying to keep a candidate off of the ballot through lawsuits that you wouldn't be hollering unethical practice? I seriously doubt it.

what a mind reader you are.

There is nothing unethical in seeking enforcement of the law when that law is equitable.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

perhaps in your partisan mind, however the reality is that the DNC is seeking the rule of law.

Those are not germaine to the issue at hand, You're drawing comparisons to laws that disenfranchise a voter, not rules on the process of a candidate being qualified to be on a ballot.

It isn't an argument of anything being "ethical" it is seeking enforcement of the law, which BTW were follwed by all other candidates.

what a mind reader you are.

There is nothing unethical in seeking enforcement of the law when that law is equitable.

edit: word issues

[kg_veteran]

The Democrats ARE cowards on this issue, and I can't believe you're supporting their cowardice, Mavdog. I expected better.

[LRB]

I don't see how any logical person not blinded by party loyalty could not see that what the democrats are doing is attempting to disenfranchise voters. An important right of every voters is to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. The dems are working hard to insure that thousands of voters won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice by removing that candidate from the ballot. It doesn't surprise me that Mavdog supports this unethical and unjust practice because unlike KG I really didn't expect better of him. It wouldn't surprise me that Mavdog would support any thing the dems would do not matter how unethical it is. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Mavdog would fail disapprove of any illegal actions by the dems as well.

Mavdog have you ever dissapproved of anything the democrats have done? I can't remember seeing a single instance if you have.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
The Democrats ARE cowards on this issue, and I can't believe you're supporting their cowardice, Mavdog. I expected better.

do you not support the equitable application of the law? Should the law be ignored based on purely political criteria?

I would be critical of either party if they used their positions of power to erect barriers to a candidate based on their perception of possible damage by having that candidate on the ballot. The DNC however is seeking equal enforcement of the existing law, he law that was on the books prior to Nader's candidacy.

I am surprised that you would support subversion of the law kg.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

do you not support the equitable application of the law?

Nice attempt to create a strawman, but no dice.

If Nader doesn't comply with the election laws in each state and doesn't do his part to get on the ballot, fine. But when Democrats file lawsuits and other legal challenges to try and keep Nader off the ballot, that is a different matter altogether. That demonstrates cowardice and hypocrisy.

Should the law be ignored based on purely political criteria?

I would be critical of either party if they used their positions of power to erect barriers to a candidate based on their perception of possible damage by having that candidate on the ballot. The DNC however is seeking equal enforcement of the existing law, he law that was on the books prior to Nader's candidacy.

I am surprised that you would support subversion of the law kg.

I'm not supporting subversion of the law, Mavdog. I'm arguing that it is hypocritical and cowardly for the Democrats to argue on the one hand that everyone's vote should be counted and then on the other hand try and prevent a candidate that many people will vote for from getting on the ballot. For those folks that want to vote for Nader, are their votes to be counted or not?

But hey, this is an excellent illustration of a dichotomy that exists between liberal and conservative thinking. Liberals think legally, and conservatives think morally. It is immoral and hypocritical for Democrats to challenge Nader's right to be on the ballot, but it is certainly legal.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
I don't see how any logical person not blinded by party loyalty could not see that what the democrats are doing is attempting to disenfranchise voters. An important right of every voters is to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. The dems are working hard to insure that thousands of voters won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice by removing that candidate from the ballot. It doesn't surprise me that Mavdog supports this unethical and unjust practice because unlike KG I really didn't expect better of him. It wouldn't surprise me that Mavdog would support any thing the dems would do not matter how unethical it is. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Mavdog would fail disapprove of any illegal actions by the dems as well.

Mavdog have you ever dissapproved of anything the democrats have done? I can't remember seeing a single instance if you have.

too funny. IMO in the dictionary under "partisan" it should state "LRB"...

A voter is not disenfranchised by the State requiring candidates for office to meet specific criteria to be placed on a ballot. If that were the case then voters have been disenfranchised since the very first election in our country. They haven't.

The voter can always write in a candidate, therefore no one is denied the right to "vote for the candidate of their choice".

The DNC is seeking the equitable application of the law, pure and simple. Nader should follow the rule of law in having his name placed on a ballot just as all other candidates are required to do. Why should Nader be treated any differently? He shouldn't. Nader should have the same rights as any other candidates and the same responsibility to meet the law's requirements as well.

I am baffled how anyone could argue that Nader should be treated differently than other candidates are treated.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Nice attempt to create a strawman, but no dice.

If Nader doesn't comply with the election laws in each state and doesn't do his part to get on the ballot, fine. But when Democrats file lawsuits and other legal challenges to try and keep Nader off the ballot, that is a different matter altogether. That demonstrates cowardice and hypocrisy.

The lawsuits by the DNC are seeking enforcement of the laws on the criteria for being a candidate, so they are doing exactly what you say "fine" to.

Should the law be ignored based on purely political criteria?

I would be critical of either party if they used their positions of power to erect barriers to a candidate based on their perception of possible damage by having that candidate on the ballot. The DNC however is seeking equal enforcement of the existing law, he law that was on the books prior to Nader's candidacy.

I am surprised that you would support subversion of the law kg.

I'm not supporting subversion of the law, Mavdog. I'm arguing that it is hypocritical and cowardly for the Democrats to argue on the one hand that everyone's vote should be counted and then on the other hand try and prevent a candidate that many people will vote for from getting on the ballot. For those folks that want to vote for Nader, are their votes to be counted or not?[/quote]

Those who desire to vote for Nader can do so either by working to place his name on the ballot via the law for a candidate to qualify or by writing in Nader on their ballot. either way their vote will be counted, and the rule of law is maintained.

But hey, this is an excellent illustration of a dichotomy that exists between liberal and conservative thinking. Liberals think legally, and conservatives think morally. It is immoral and hypocritical for Democrats to challenge Nader's right to be on the ballot, but it is certainly legal.

odd, seeking enforcement of the law is seen as "immoral and hypocritical?"

yeah, the conservative thinking is purely moral and not legal. That's shown in all the laws they advocate in respect to victimless crimes.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The lawsuits by the DNC are seeking enforcement of the laws on the criteria for being a candidate, so they are doing exactly what you say "fine" to.

No, they are not. If Nader doesn't comply with state election laws, the governmental agencies in each state that run the elections will deny him access to the ballot. What the Democrats are doing is filing suit to try and force the governmental agencies to deny Nader access to the ballot, presumably because the governmental agencies weren't doing it on their own.

Those who desire to vote for Nader can do so either by working to place his name on the ballot via the law for a candidate to qualify or by writing in Nader on their ballot. either way their vote will be counted, and the rule of law is maintained.

While true, this ignores the issue, and you know it. The simple fact is, there are many people out there who would vote for Nader if they saw his name on the ballot but who won't go to the trouble of writing his name in if they don't see it on the ballot. If it wouldn't make a difference to knock Nader's name off the pre-printed ballots, then why are the Democrats fighting to keep him off? It's because they KNOW it makes a difference. And that's what is hypocritical and cowardly.

odd, seeking enforcement of the law is seen as "immoral and hypocritical?"

See above.

yeah, the conservative thinking is purely moral and not legal. That's shown in all the laws they advocate in respect to victimless crimes.

Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? I doubt it.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

too funny. IMO in the dictionary under "partisan" it should state "LRB"...

Again I can name you serveral cases that I disagree with RNC actions. You need look no further than this thread to see criticism by me of the RNC. I quote: "While I'll agree that I don't think that it's the right nor ethical think for the RNC to get involved with helping the Nader get the signatures to get on the ballot"

Where have you criticized the DNC for unethical behavior? Blind loyalty and refusal to criticize you party of choice is why I refer to you as being a blin partisan. You could give me some examples of where you've posted about unethical behavior by the DNC and prove me wrong, but somehow I seriously doubt that will happen.

A voter is not disenfranchised by the State requiring candidates for office to meet specific criteria to be placed on a ballot. If that were the case then voters have been disenfranchised since the very first election in our country. They haven't.

The state isn't requiring it here. Nader met the states requirements according to the interpretation of appointed and elected state officials who the law delegates the enforcement of the law to. The DNC disagrees with that interpretation and is sueing to overturn it. Why are they doing this. It's pretty clear that their reason is to eliminate the preferred choice of several thousand voters in an attempt to force them to vote for Kerry. I call this disenfranchisement.

The voter can always write in a candidate, therefore no one is denied the right to "vote for the candidate of their choice".

My undestanding is that this is not an valid option because of the electorial college. You don't vote for the Presidential candidate, but for a group of Electorial College Representatives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to write in say 20 someodd names in Florida for Electorial college votes for Nader if the dems successfully get Nader removed there. Even if possible this puts an undue burden on the voter. The clear intent of the DNC is to limit voters choice of candidates ruled to be legitimate by the officals appointed to do so by the very laws you claim to uphold.

The DNC is seeking the equitable application of the law, pure and simple. Nader should follow the rule of law in having his name placed on a ballot just as all other candidates are required to do. Why should Nader be treated any differently? He shouldn't. Nader should have the same rights as any other candidates and the same responsibility to meet the law's requirements as well.

Nader did follow the rules and got his name legally placed on the ballot. I agree that Nader shouldn't be treated any different, so like the other candidates who legally got their names on the ballot, the DNC shouldn't sue to have him removed. Would the DNC be suing to remove Pat Robertson if he got onto the ballot under the same circumstances as Nader? I cannot concieve of any credible argument to suggest that they would.

I am baffled how anyone could argue that Nader should be treated differently than other candidates are treated.

Then why are you arguing that only Nader's name should be the subject of DNC lawsuits to remove him from the ballot? Very hypocritical of you Mavdog.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

No, they are not. If Nader doesn't comply with state election laws, the governmental agencies in each state that run the elections will deny him access to the ballot. What the Democrats are doing is filing suit to try and force the governmental agencies to deny Nader access to the ballot, presumably because the governmental agencies weren't doing it on their own.

That is not at all what I have seen. The suits have been by both Nader (to gain access when denied) and by DNC seeking compliance with election rules when he's been added. Both actions are relative to compliance with the law, which is what I have been advocating. Just follow the law. That is neither hypocritical nor cowardly.

Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? I doubt it.

smoking pot is a victimless crime.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Where have you criticized the DNC for unethical behavior? Blind loyalty and refusal to criticize you party of choice is why I refer to you as being a blin partisan. You could give me some examples of where you've posted about unethical behavior by the DNC and prove me wrong, but somehow I seriously doubt that will happen.

I criticized both parties for delving into the candidate's records of 30 years ago.

The state isn't requiring it here. Nader met the states requirements according to the interpretation of appointed and elected state officials who the law delegates the enforcement of the law to. The DNC disagrees with that interpretation and is sueing to overturn it. Why are they doing this. It's pretty clear that their reason is to eliminate the preferred choice of several thousand voters in an attempt to force them to vote for Kerry. I call this disenfranchisement.

Seeking remedy through the judicial branch is the only recourse if government officials act in error, it's inconceivable that anyone would criticize someone appealing to the courts when that perceived error occurs.

You can call it disenfranchisement, but it isn't. The voter can still vote, and they can vote for anyone they want. Nader may just not be printed on the ballot. This situation does not meet the meaning of disenfranchisement, for one of those must be denied, which they aren't.

My undestanding is that this is not an valid option because of the electorial college. You don't vote for the Presidential candidate, but for a group of Electorial College Representatives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to write in say 20 someodd names in Florida for Electorial college votes for Nader if the dems successfully get Nader removed there. Even if possible this puts an undue burden on the voter. The clear intent of the DNC is to limit voters choice of candidates ruled to be legitimate by the officals appointed to do so by the very laws you claim to uphold.

what? yes, the vote for President is not a vote for the person actually, as we use the Electoral College made up of Electors, and the voter is actually voting for the slate who orally committed for a candidate. The electors aren't on the ballot tho, the candidate is, so no one needs to "write in say 20 someodd names", just like before all they need to do is designate a candidate (like Bush, Kerry, Nader, is laRouce running this year?)) to cast their vote.

"Undue burden on a voter" to designate who their vote is for? I think not..

Nader did follow the rules and got his name legally placed on the ballot. I agree that Nader shouldn't be treated any different, so like the other candidates who legally got their names on the ballot, the DNC shouldn't sue to have him removed. Would the DNC be suing to remove Pat Robertson if he got onto the ballot under the same circumstances as Nader? I cannot concieve of any credible argument to suggest that they would.

That is what the judiciary is here for, to determine if Nader is following the rule of law. The court will place him on the ballot if he did, and they will not place him on the ballot if he didn't. To sue and seek the court's decision is a right that anyone should seek if they feel justice is needed.

I can't answer your question about the DNC any more than anyone can say that the RNC wouldn't sue to make certain the rule of law was observed about Robertson. That would be the RNC's right, and they should exercise their rights if they see the need. That wouldn't be unethical.

I am baffled how anyone could argue that Nader should be treated differently than other candidates are treated.

Then why are you arguing that only Nader's name should be the subject of DNC lawsuits to remove him from the ballot? Very hypocritical of you Mavdog.[/quote]

"only nader's name"???? what a nonsense sentence.

the lawsuits by nader are to force the election administrator to put him on the ballot in spite of apparent non compliance (administrator determined) with the election rules.
The DNC lawsuits are when they see the administrator not following the rule of law and placing nader on the ballot.

Either party has the right to go to court. I say follow the law. How can anyone claim that the DNC is unethical merely by seeking the court's decision? The court is there to determine the rule of law.

[dude1394]

Since it's so easy for nader supporters to write his name in then we should take kerry's name off and see how he does. silliness.

[dude1394]

The DNC and Kerry is doing the same thing to ralph nader that they did to all of the miliary voters in florida in 2000. They are challenging every vote, trying to use coercian and legal maneuvers to keep peoples vote from being cast. Same thing.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
The DNC and Kerry is doing the same thing to ralph nader that they did to all of the miliary voters in florida in 2000. They are challenging every vote, trying to use coercian and legal maneuvers to keep peoples vote from being cast. Same thing.

uh huh, and going to court to stop the recounts in FL was not "coertion and legal maneuvers to keep peoples vote from being cast"....you have a very short and selective memory.

[dude1394]

Nope going to court in florida to stop the "selective" recounts that gore was doing to try and steal the election is completely different from trying to get soldiers (WHO ARE SERVING ON THE FRONT LINES GETTING STINKING SHOT AT) votes thrown out.

[Max Power]

There were very few Republicans who wouldn't have supported a general recount of Florida. Gore pushing for only selective counties to be recounted was the reason for the court's intervention.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Nope going to court in florida to stop the "selective" recounts that gore was doing to try and steal the election is completely different from trying to get soldiers (WHO ARE SERVING ON THE FRONT LINES GETTING STINKING SHOT AT) votes thrown out.

Everybody's vote is equal. nobody's vote is worth more than anyone else's.

like I said, selective memory.

[dude1394]

Open eyes now, look carefully dude.

1. Stopping a partisan recount in selective counties is NOT the same as
2. Throwing out someones ballot.

Good grief.

[Mavdog]

those voters whose ballots were not counted was the same as "throwing out someone's ballot"...theirs.

you're still looking thru partisan, selective eyes.

[dude1394]

Sorry voters who either didn't punch the chads out, voted twice or were "randomly" rejected by a counting machine is NOWHERE near the same as having your military ballot challenged by a slimey democrat lawyer.

You are not looking at all.

[Mavdog]

so you see that those whose chad didn't fall or the machine kicked out vote is not worth the same as the rest?

pathetic.

everybody's vote should be counted, every vote is worth the same as any other's.

[dude1394]

Wow...Let's try this on for size..

1. The mean old gop takes african american ballots and throws them in the trash.
2. Folks who did not complete their ballot correctly or the machine spit them out RANDOMLY. You know RANDOMLY. + and -..

So which one is the democrats in this picture. 1!! You tell me that it's the same, okay. Well I don't think so, one is throwing out a legally cast ballot, the second is a random act of counting them.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I criticized both parties for delving into the candidate's records of 30 years ago.

So you admit that Kerry and the DNC are unethical in attacking Bush's National Guard record?

Seeking remedy through the judicial branch is the only recourse if government officials act in error, it's inconceivable that anyone would criticize someone appealing to the courts when that perceived error occurs.

You can call it disenfranchisement, but it isn't. The voter can still vote, and they can vote for anyone they want. Nader may just not be printed on the ballot. This situation does not meet the meaning of disenfranchisement, for one of those must be denied, which they aren't.

Why is the DNC bringing law suits other than to try and limit the voters choice? No other credible reason IMO.

what? yes, the vote for President is not a vote for the person actually, as we use the Electoral College made up of Electors, and the voter is actually voting for the slate who orally committed for a candidate. The electors aren't on the ballot tho, the candidate is, so no one needs to "write in say 20 someodd names", just like before all they need to do is designate a candidate (like Bush, Kerry, Nader, is laRouce running this year?)) to cast their vote.

"Undue burden on a voter" to designate who their vote is for? I think not..

This is not how it works according to my understanding of the subject from 12 years ago when Perot 1st ran. The state will only recognize the votes for candidates with their names on the ballot. To write in a candidate you would need to write in his electoral college voters. How will the state know who these people are if they have rejected his ballot application as not being valid? Only candidates with valid ballot applications do the state recognize their electoral college candidates.

That is what the judiciary is here for, to determine if Nader is following the rule of law. The court will place him on the ballot if he did, and they will not place him on the ballot if he didn't. To sue and seek the court's decision is a right that anyone should seek if they feel justice is needed.

I can't answer your question about the DNC any more than anyone can say that the RNC wouldn't sue to make certain the rule of law was observed about Robertson. That would be the RNC's right, and they should exercise their rights if they see the need. That wouldn't be unethical.

How incredibly naive of you. The courts aren't about who is right or not, it's about who presents the better case. Very often it the side with the most money to spend on lawyers who wins. Throw in the fact that many of the judges are politically motivated and it's a total crap shoot.

If the RNC would sue Robertson it would be totally unethical IMO. Let me ask you this, would it be ethical for the Swiftvets to sue to keep Kerry off the ballot?

"only nader's name"???? what a nonsense sentence.

the lawsuits by nader are to force the election administrator to put him on the ballot in spite of apparent non compliance (administrator determined) with the election rules.
The DNC lawsuits are when they see the administrator not following the rule of law and placing nader on the ballot.

Either party has the right to go to court. I say follow the law. How can anyone claim that the DNC is unethical merely by seeking the court's decision? The court is there to determine the rule of law.

If Nader is suing it's to give voters more, not less, options. But your entire argument is that if it's "legal" then it's ethical. I guess you think that it's ethical to walk up to a gay man on the street and call him a "faggot"? I certainly don't think it's eithical, but it's certainly legal.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

So you admit that Kerry and the DNC are unethical in attacking Bush's National Guard record?

I wouldn't call <u>both parties </u>resurrection of the candidate's military records as "unethical" as much as counterproductive.

Why is the DNC bringing law suits other than to try and limit the voters choice? No other credible reason IMO.

yeah, maintaining the rule of law isn't "credible" is it? sheesh...

This is not how it works according to my understanding of the subject from 12 years ago when Perot 1st ran. The state will only recognize the votes for candidates with their names on the ballot. To write in a candidate you would need to write in his electoral college voters. How will the state know who these people are if they have rejected his ballot application as not being valid? Only candidates with valid ballot applications do the state recognize their electoral college candidates.

the candidates provide their list of electors, so Nader would do the same.

How incredibly naive of you. The courts aren't about who is right or not, it's about who presents the better case. Very often it the side with the most money to spend on lawyers who wins. Throw in the fact that many of the judges are politically motivated and it's a total crap shoot.

LMAO. Now you are characterizing the judicial branch of our government as incapable and irresponsible.

If the RNC would sue Robertson it would be totally unethical IMO. Let me ask you this, would it be ethical for the Swiftvets to sue to keep Kerry off the ballot?

If they have a cause for his disqualification it would not be unethical.

If Nader is suing it's to give voters more, not less, options. But your entire argument is that if it's "legal" then it's ethical. I guess you think that it's ethical to walk up to a gay man on the street and call him a "faggot"? I certainly don't think it's eithical, but it's certainly legal.

You misunderstand and miss the point. The point is not "if it's legal then it's ethical", the point is that the appeal to the courts is exactly how these disputes should be handled, and it is a recourse available and needed. That each side is exercising their rights is in no way "unethical" or even a question of ethics, it is seeking what country is based on, the rule of law and equal application of the law.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - If you honestly believe that Democrats are filing lawsuits and making legal challenges to keep Nader off the ballot because they want to "maintain the rule of law", you're not nearly as smart as I thought.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
so you see that those whose chad didn't fall or the machine kicked out vote is not worth the same as the rest?

pathetic.

everybody's vote should be counted, every vote is worth the same as any other's.

Again a general recount would have solved that problem. In fact it would have solved problems in other counties where the vote was miscounted. Why selectively correct the problem?

[Mavdog]

no KG, the DNC is acting out of self interest, just as Nader is doing and as the RNC is doing in providing support to Nader.

The pursuit of the court's interdiction is however appealing to the rule of law.

[Drbio]

sheesh