Nader Fails To Make Calif. Cut





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Nader Fails To Make Calif. Cut
By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

State election officials said Nader fell far short of the 153,035 signatures needed by Friday's deadline. He submitted 82,923 with 56 of the state's 58 counties reporting, said Lauren Hersh, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office

story at

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/politics/main625114.shtml

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

[Nelson] HA!HA! [Nelson]

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

don't worry. his republican friends will come to his aid and suddenly 100,000 more signatures will appear, and with it a deadline extension from a court.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

thank you paulhomework, because what thread would be complete without a dig at the Republicans and how they are all corrupt and evil...

*rolls eyes*

By Massdad (Massdad) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Hunter, I guess you didn't follow the situation in Michigan?

*rolls eyes*

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Massdad,

What "situation" would that be? Are Republicans doing evil nasty things to old people and little kids again?

Seriously, you're not going to convince me that half of the USA is evil and/or corrupt, or that one of the two major set of political beliefs in the country is bad/evil/corrupt..

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Nader accepting GOP signatures in Michigan

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- In an about face, Ralph Nader decided Monday to accept thousands of petition signatures collected by Michigan Republicans if that is the only way he can qualify for the state's presidential ballot.

Last Thursday, Michigan Republican Party officials submitted 43,000 signatures -- far more than the 30,000 needed -- to ensure Nader could appear on the ballot as an independent.

Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate for president.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/nader.signatures.ap/

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

[Mr. Burns] Eeeeexcellent [Mr. Burns}

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

OK, thanks for posting the story, Simba.

I don't see the big scandal here...the Republican Party wants to win just as much as the Dems do, so they're doing what they can to help their cause. They submitted the signatures on time- it was not shady/corrupt dealings- it was strategy. Welcome to the world of 3rd party candidate exploitation. Nader is the Ross Perot for the Dems, so the world is balancing itself out. The Dems are trying to pressure him OUT of the race, so why can't the GOP help him INTO the race? Both sides play to win and will stoop equally as low as the other in their quest for power, this just happens to be "point, Republicans." It doesn't make Republicans bad/corrupt, it shows that they're smart, as are the Dems trying to force Nader out.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

You are losing traction. You are welcome.

By Brzrk (Brzrk) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

It doesn't matter. California is a lock for Kerry regardless of whether Nader is in the race or not.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Simba...huh? I'm losing traction? How? Because I didn't see the story? I've stuck by my claim that no party is better than the other in terms of goodness/badness/coruptness/etc-ness: BOTH PLAY TO WIN. I'm sorry, but you didn't address my post at all, and simply made a refuting statement without backing it up. Clarification please.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

How can a dem attack the republicans for supporting nader for strategy when their own party has hired hundreds of lawyers to keep him off the ballot for stategy?

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Hunter, you're not making much sense.

Paulhomework never said the Republicans were evil - he predicted they would do something they have already done. Then you accuse him of labeling Republicans "evil" or whatever so Simba posts the article proving they did what paulhomework accuses, then you say you don't see the big deal because they only did what paulhomework said they did in the first place! And Massdad simply said that who weren't following and you bring up all this BS about him not being able to convince you (which he made no attempt to do) about Republicans being corrupt.

If that sounded confusing, it's because you're obfuscating the issue just so you can have something to be defensive about. No one said anything about Republicans being evil, so stop pretending to be offended.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

"don't worry. his republican friends will come to his aid and suddenly 100,000 more signatures will appear, and with it a deadline extension from a court. "

This implies corruption- manipulating the courts, magically coming up with 100,000 signatures. Whereas the story massdad posted was not manipulating courts, etc. They were working within the deadline, legitimately getting signatures, the big deal was whether or not Nader would accept them, which he decided to do. Two different situations.

A lot of my anger comes from not only this thread, but a lot of other political threads that, no matter what the issue, seem to turn into a "trash the Republicans"-a-thon. It's frustrating where, again no matter what the issue, someone twists it into, "oh, it's all because the Republicans are so bad." Just a general frustration from reading the political threads here (especially the "Swift Boat Ad Bashes Carry" thread).

So yeah, that's as best as I can explain my own personal motives, so please don't bother replying in response to me, but rather address the issue and question that Jlq3d3 posed:

How can a dem attack the republicans for supporting nader for strategy when their own party has hired hundreds of lawyers to keep him off the ballot for stategy?

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Hunter,

There are a lot of folks on the other side (a majority, if I recall the numbers correctly...) that believe the Bush administration has close ties to the Supreme Court (remember Cheney's hunting trip with Scalia? Don't recall Scalia, or any other justice, going with any Dems for a long time), which led to an unusual, to say the least, decision by the Supreme Court in deciding the 2000 election. Hence the mild sarcasm.

Heck, we Dems are actually nice people. We even think some Republicans are. I even have friends who are Republicans. Even had some over to my house once. My D even dated one recently, but fortunately, they stopped.

Now to answer your question:

There is no answer. Who ever said politics was a rational sport? I sure didn't. Sorry. Both sides get to pick their arguments and data that support their position and ignore the rest. That's just the ground rule.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit

OK, fair enough, thank you Massdad.

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I even have friends who are Republicans. Even had some over to my house once.

That is funny

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

"Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate for president. "

Haha, that's just good politics. Don't think that the Dems wouldn't pull the same thing if they had the chance.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

exactly yackityyack. Republicans just want to win, and what they are doing is perfectly fine. I'm sure Democrats would do something like this if they were faced in a similar situation.


:)

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

assumptions = accept or believe something to be true, something taken for granted, not fact based.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit

"I'm sure Democrats would do something like this if they were faced in a similar situation. "

yea, but they didn't have the chance. Where is Ross Perot when Kerry needs him? I'm sure the dems would help ross collect signatures, even at this late date...

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

Ross perot got you 2 terms of Clinton.

By Simba (Simba) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 09:12 am: Edit

we were not officially signing him up. Don't forget he was pulling 15-20%

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit

Jlg,

Exactly. Would you rather have Bill's relative peace, dramatically rising stock market, low unemployment, or Goeorge's stagnant economy, with job losses, global tensions etc?

Never mind, I know the answer. 9-11 is the root of all evil! George is just making the best of a bad situation.

Sigh. Based on much popular wisdom, that Bill was no more responsible for the good things in his admin than George is for the bad in his, I guess it doesn't matter who is in office. Maybe I can just sleep through the next few months?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit

Well I'd rather have Bush. Clinton's stock market was a bubble which went into reccesion at the end of his second term. I do not know where you get low unemployment from, when Clinton was touting the economy in 96, the unemployment rate was what it is now, 5.5%. There were global tensions. Do you remember the World trade center bombing? The cole bombing? The firing at US planes by Saddam? The war in Kosovo? The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? The Somalia disaster? Do you think Al quaida started planning the second wtc attakcs only after Bush got into office? You are naive.
Would you rather have the relative peace under Ford or the "global tensions" we had under rosevelt and truman. Of coarse one wants peace, but it is not to the fault of, it is to the credit of Rosevelt and Truman for engaging in this "world strife".

The only thing you can blame Bush for is the war in Iraq, if you disagree with it. In no way is he responsible for the reccession that started during clinton and 9/11 which started soon after he got into office.

By Simba (Simba) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

T think some people are calling it a jobless recovery !!

republicans are milking 9/11 to justify everything, and we are getting tired of it.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

" Do you remember the World trade center bombing? The cole bombing? The firing at US planes by Saddam? The war in Kosovo? The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? The Somalia disaster? "

Come to think of it, I DO remember those! Interesting though, that we had no suspension of civil liberties, no color coded terror alerts conveniently timed to "unrelated" political events, no "outing" of intelligence resources (twice now under Bush!) to justify "nonpolitical" terror announcements, and so forth.

Yea, I guess I'm just a naive bumpkin that should just spend more time listening to the pronouncements of threats everywhere. Gee, the world is a scary place! That's why I felt so much better when GWB showed up on the aircraft carrier in a flight suit, even if the ship was only a few miles off the coast, and was held there for the photo op. Gee, I feel much better knowing he said the mission was accomplished. Just what the world needs, a few more Iraq missions to be accomplished.

Thanks, jlg, for setting me straight.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Why do you compare the Clinton and Bush administrations? That is an exercise in futility because they were so obviously different and Clinton isn't running for President again (read "yet").

And why so cynical? Dry sarcasm may work in New York City and Daily Show reports, but in a reasonable debate it makes you sound somewhat childish. And while I would perhaps expect that out of some, both liberal and conservative, I would expect better of you, a father and a veteran. Not to pontificate on your way of expressing your beliefs, of course, but I think it would help allay any tensions that might form as discussions become more heated.

If Wild Billy Clinton were running, I would certainly vote for him. Even though I'm not a Democrat, I thought he was a great president. But unfortunately, he is not. And Senator Kerry is nowhere near Clinton in my mind.

And the accusation that Republicans are milking 9/11 as the root of all evil and are using it as an excuse for everything? Well, last time I checked, no one ever said that until you brought it up. And you can't deny that it was, well, a significant event that had implications in the lives of all Americans and the subsequent actions of the Administration. To write it off as a distant piece of history or a Republican excuse is folly.

Honestly, when people make half-baked accusations as such and when Michael Moore offers the truth through a tinted lens, it's considered noble whistle-blowing. If and when someone questions Kerry or the Democratic Party, it's considered below-the-belt mudslinging. Double standards abound!

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

"You are naive." "you sound somewhat childish." "I would expect better of you, a father and a veteran. "

Seems certain folks must make every discussion a personal affront. And you folks talk about double standards? Seems you can't handle a different view without going to personal attacks. Then again, that seems to be the RNC playbook - attack Kerry's service record. Attack values. Accuse others of statements they did not even say, like "And the accusation that Republicans are milking 9/11 as the root of all evil"

All I can say is: Quite a nerve here. Pretty defensive, especially when one needs to get so personal. Sheesh.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit

By Simba:"republicans are milking 9/11 to justify everything, and we are getting tired of it."

By Massad: "Accuse others of statements they did not even say, like "And the accusation that Republicans are milking 9/11 as the root of all evil"

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Sigh. I somehow knew you'd take offense at such an innocent suggestion. All I'm asking is to tone down the "your opinion is so absurd that I refuse to justify it with a sincere statement" attitude that so often pervades these threads.

On Tuesday August 10, 2004 - 09:38 am, Massdad said:
"Never mind, I know the answer. 9-11 is the root of all evil! George is just making the best of a bad situation."

I believe that I am "accusing" you of saying statements that you did indeed say. No need to get all huffy about it.

A note: I have noticed, and I'm not singling out Massdad here, that many liberals, when confronted with questions about Democratic double standards and Kerry's service record, indignantly start accusing those dirty Republicans about anything and everything while ignoring the issue at hand. For example, Jlq3d3 wrote some statements questioning the effectiveness of Clinton's administration. The next two posts, rather abruptly, start pounding the Republican-9/11 connection and George Bush's ill-timed aircraft carrier landing, without ever really acknowledging Jlq3d3's points.

Conversely, or perhaps consequently, the Republicans spend most of their time defending their incumbent, occasionally throwing a gratuitous frustrated potshot at John Kerry. With the overwhelming majority of CC posters being Kerry supporters, it's definitely not easy being well-adjusted and non-insulting. I think it's hard to deny that the political left does most of the personal attacking, and to hear them accuse Republicans of not playing nice is most frustrating.

While I admire the concern and patriotism and anti-bigotism that Democrats exhibit on this board, I feel that much tension and all of these personal affronts, real or imagined, could be eliminated if you would just step off your lofty self-perceived moral high ground. I'm not asking you to agree with Republican ideals: just to respect them a little more.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page