Comments on: Nader v Blackwell Argued in 6th Circuit

By: DonLake@sbcglo bal.net

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:52:56 +0000

Any one whom knows …..

Anyone who knows anything about Nader knows he and his know it all staff can be stumbling bumbling idiots in these endeavors.

By: Bob Marston

Bob Marston — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:03:56 +0000

Steve Z wrote::I’ve always said that I never believed Nader was entering the 2004 and 2008 elections to win it,”

Anyone who knows anything about Nader knows he forecloses on nothing when he undertakes these endeavors.

Maybe winning isn’t realistic at this stage but if you rule it out you only wind up creating the rationalization in your mind to justify a less than 100% effort and in the process guarantee that winning will never happen.

There are numerous goals the represent significant achievements. For instance, if Nader can garner 7% of the popular vote he will be granted the Federal Matching Funds to support a national party.

If Nader can make it into the Presidential Debates then winning does become an achievable goal. But it will never happen if Nader and the people sell him short.

By: Steve Z

Steve Z — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:36 +0000

I’ve always said that I never believed Nader was entering the 2004 and 2008 elections to win it, but rather his primary reason was to open up ballot access and threaten those that keep it closed with personal liability. For that, I give him credit. If the courts start holding these ballot restrictors personally liable, they, and others, would be less likely to do it again in the future.

By: DonLake@sbcglo bal.net

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:43:30 +0000

How the world might have changed in 1968 if RFK would have set aside the Kennedy ambition and humbly gone to Senator McCarthy and said, “hey, what can I do to help: run as your vp, stay in the senate, or resign and contribute as a non political person or candidate” [like his sister's 'Special Olympics]! How things might have changed with President McCarthy instead of a bullet riddled RFK lying on the kitchen floor!

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:23:27 +0000

Nevertheless, Richard – my good friend – your message made it sound like CCP/McCarthy ‘76 did not continue on. In reality, it went on doing the hard work and “fighting the good fight” for a long time. As a veteran of that political organization, I am still fighting on and keeping alive the name of that great man, the late Eugene J. McCarthy.

By: Cris Ericson

Cris Ericson — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:09:10 +0000

Peter Diamondstone is a major party candidate in Vermont for the Liberty Union Party.
He was not invited to the first Governor debate in Vermont which was advertised as a debate for major party candidates.

A candidate who used to be with a major party, but is not longer, was invited to participate in the debate.

Anthony Pollina is not officially or legally a candidate yet in Vermont, but he used to be with the Progressive Party, which is a major party in Vermont.

Because Anthony Pollina did not file ballot access petition signatures to get on the ballot as a major party candidate, he should NOT have been invited to the first governor candidate debate this season in Vermont.

Peter Diamondstone, who SHOULD have been invited, was taken away by state police for trying to attend!

Cris Ericson, who is also a legal candidate in Vermont and who has filed her ballot access petitions, was also not invited.

She is a candidate for United States Marijuana Party.

You can see who IS and who ISN’T on the ballot
by going to
http://www.sec.state.vt.us
and click on the left, Elections
then scroll down to Candidate Lists
for the General Election where
Cris Ericson
is listed for the United States Marijuana Party for Governor and for U.S. Rep.
and Peter Diamondstone is listed in the PRIMARY
election list as a major party candidate for governor.

Anthony Pollina is NOT listed at all!

Political debates and forums in Vermont
are run in a corrupt way.

By: Pro-Democracy

Pro-Democracy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:03:43 +0000

You have to scroll over Oklahoma on the map to see more info. He acknowledges that there are no write-in candidates, says that they filed petitions, and indicates that there will be a law suit regarding Oklahoma’s rules for ballot access.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:51:01 +0000

That must be a mistake on Nader’s web page, that Nader filed for write-in status in Oklahoma. Oklahoma doesn’t permit write-ins.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:49:54 +0000

What Eugene McCarthy was talking about was finishing his lawsuits saying states must have procedures for independent presidential candidates. Many of those McCarthy cases were won after the election. But that hadn’t been what I was talking about. I was talking about suing the people who kept you off the ballot, for damages. McCarthy never did that.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:41:50 +0000

Please, Richard, check your history again. The Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ‘76 never quit the fight! Here is a quotation from the very end of a two-page Committee leaflet that was printed in January of 1977:

We are grateful to the many local chapters of the American Civil Liberies Union which supported challenges to state ballot laws. And we are indebted to attorneys througout the country who volunteered their services, often at great sacrifice, to establish the political rights of independents.

The major political parties have long used state and national laws as a weapon against dissent. In the McCarthy campaign the independents struck back, using an older and more powerful law, the Constitution of the United States.

The effort, just begun, will continue until all discriminatory laws have been struck down.

The above leaflet was also reprinted by McCarthy ‘76-CA, Third Congressional District (Philip Sawyer, Treasurer).