GOP hates American freedoms

[Mr. Laz]

GOP Suing to Keep Third Parties Off Ballot in November

Posted on September 6, 2012 by beyondthecurtain

The New American
Around the country, the Republican Party is mounting legal challenges to keep third-party candidates off the ballot in November.
Writer Karl Dickey reports in the Examiner that “in recent weeks, with the full support and legal assistance of the Republican Party, [Gary] Johnson’s ballot status has been challenged in Michigan, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Iowa and now Ohio.” Gary Johnson (pictured) is the former governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president of the United States. As of this writing, Johnson is on the ballot in 43 states.
On September 1 the Ohio voters challenging Johnson’s appearance on the November ballot officially withdrew their opposition. In the one-page notice filed with the office of Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kelly Mills and Cynthia Rees did not explain their decision to drop their protest.
It could be related to the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision handed down on August 31 dismissing the Ohio state legislature’s appeal of a U.S. district court ruling putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot for 2012.
On August 31, a senior advisor to Johnson released a statement regarding the various efforts to block Libertarian ballot access:

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Because it's a close election and they can't afford to be Naderized by any 3P, especially one polling at 7% in some western states.
I mean it's not like they have a Ronald Reagan running to overcome one. Reagan had Anderson to contend with and still won in a landslide.
I hear Obama has the Electoral College edge currently.

I don't think Nader ever cost ANYONE an election...now Perot on the other hand...

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Why would they do this?

Because conservatives aren't as brainwashed as liberals and might vote out of the "party line".

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

Well this is ugly certainly. In my view, any candidate that has signed the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge has disqualified themselves as competent to serve the nation.

Why? It's brilliant politically.

Let's say there was a situation where you had to raise taxes or else everybody would die. Well, then you would ****ing raise taxes, wouldn't you? You're not taking an oath of office or anything. You're promising something to a guy named Grover Norquist.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by fan4ever

Because conservatives aren't as brainwashed as liberals and might vote out of the "party line".

What a load of condescending false bullshit

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by fan4ever

I don't think Nader ever cost ANYONE an election...now Perot on the other hand...

Whether that's true or not, since some think it cost Gore, the Republican Establishment is afraid of this as well as the patriot movement. They aren't taking any chances.

The RNC screwed the pooch using shenanigans to keep Paul delegates out at the state conventions with strong arm tactics or stripping him of delegates when they didn't even need to do that because Romney was still going to win. Those moves could hurt them with more Paul supporters casting a vote for Johnson. They can't win without getting more of those votes and they know it pissed a lot of the Paul folks off. So this strategy makes sense. It's just more of the same.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Why would they do this?

They want to win?

[Hoover]

in 2004 I helped get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Iowa. Worked like a charm.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Whether that's true or not, since some think it cost Gore, the Republican Establishment is afraid of this as well as the patriot movement. They aren't taking any chances.

The butterfly ballot cost Gore the election. Of the actual votes cast GWB won in every version of the recount Gore wanted (and, amusingly, lost in every version of the recount the Bush side wanted). But there is no way that Pat Buchannen won 4x the votes he got anywhere else in the state in the one place that he should have received the least support. It's pretty clear people were confused, and it's pretty clear had there been no confusion Gore would have been in a position to be on top by a decent margin when all the legal challenges began.

Then again, the networks calling the state for Florida probably depressed Bush's vote totals in the pan-handle.

But it is funny that the third-party candidate you'd think would have cost Bush the election actually ended up costing Gore the election (thanks to the idiots in PBC).

The RNC screwed the pooch using shenanigans to keep Paul delegates out at the state conventions with strong arm tactics or stripping him of delegates when they didn't even need to do that because Romney was still going to win. Those moves could hurt them with more Paul supporters casting a vote for Johnson. They can't win without getting more of those votes and they know it pissed a lot of the Paul folks off. So this strategy makes sense. It's just more of the same.

Ugh on the Ron Paul delegate BS. Let it go already. If supporters want to give him money then go right ahead, but stop believing he was ever in a position to do anything except cash checks.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Hoover

in 2004 I helped get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Iowa. Worked like a charm.

Even if you gave Kerry all of the votes for Nader AND the Libertarian Party he still would have lost.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

They want to win?

Then win. It certainly can't help one's image to run around trying to get everyone else disqualified. It reeks of desperation.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

The butterfly ballot cost Gore the election.

I was referring to the effect of Nader per what some think. Not the election abnormalities, whatever effect they had. It ended up when they finally counted all the votes to be very, very close.

Of the actual votes cast GWB won in every version of the recount Gore wanted (and, amusingly, lost in every version of the recount the Bush side wanted). But there is no way that Pat Buchannen won 4x the votes he got anywhere else in the state in the one place that he should have received the least support. It's pretty clear people were confused, and it's pretty clear had there been no confusion Gore would have been in a position to be on top by a decent margin when all the legal challenges began.

Then again, the networks calling the state for Florida probably depressed Bush's vote totals in the pan-handle.

I was here and volunteered as a chad counter. I already know most of this.

But it is funny that the third-party candidate you'd think would have cost Bush the election actually ended up costing Gore the election (thanks to the idiots in PBC).

I didn't say it cost Bush the election. I was referring to it costing Gore. Funny how you didn't get that.

Ugh on the Ron Paul delegate BS. Let it go already. If supporters want to give him money then go right ahead, but stop believing he was ever in a position to do anything except cash checks.

You missed my point and skipped reading part of what I wrote. I already have let it go. I was just saying what some Paul supporters would do in the national election because of it as it relates to this topic—not necessarily myself. So you do not tell me what to let go or not or state what you think I've done about it in my mind. I'll determine that. I already said the RNC didn't need to do it because Mitt was going to win. But it was not BS. It's a fact. It happened and they're still trying the same antics. It speaks to their character in trying to bully others off of ballots.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

What a load of condescending false bullshit

The irony

[BucEyedPea]

Gary North is one of the some, who doesn't agree with all of your analysis on the 2000 election regarding Nader, Ringleader. There are others, some on this board I've seen claim it.

Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the approximately 22,000 voters in New Hampshire who voted for Ralph Nader. Bush won New Hampshire by about 7,000 votes. Those four electoral votes were his margin of victory. I have heard no one argue that if Nader had not run, fewer than 15,000 of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore.

The Republicans did not steal the election in Florida. They and the Supreme Court merely kept the networks' TV anchorpersons from having stolen it when they announced the results of Florida's exit polls — Gore has won! — as soon as the polls in Miami closed, conveniently overlooking the fact that western Florida, which was Bush country, was still voting because it was on Central Standard Time. A sufficient number of Bush's supporters there gave up and didn't go to the polls, so the election was close enough to be contested.

Hardly anyone remembers either of these crucial aspects of the 2000 Presidential election.

The Democrats blame Republican chicanery for their loss. They do not publicly blame Nader, who was the real culprit. This resentment against Bush has inserted an element of revenge into the next campaign. Never underestimate revenge as a political motivation. Keeping "them" out is every bit as powerful a political motive as getting "us" in. Given the level of voter commitment generated by Presidential candidates since Reagan, "accentuate the negative" is today the strongest underlying motivation for electoral victory. "Stick it to them!"

[Lightrise]

Yep, butterfly ballot cost Gore the first time, then Katherine Harris executed the coup de etat. She had no justification of certifying that election. It should have been decided in the congress. The republicans would have voted for Bush in the House, the Senate would have been a 50-50 vote, and Gore, as the sitting VP would have had to cast the deciding vote, confirming the will the people and becoming president. If this had happened GW Bush would never have destroyed the world.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

Yep, butterfly ballot cost Gore the first time, then Katherine Harris executed the coup de etat. She had no justification of certifying that election.

Yes, she did. That FSC was known for it's judicial activism and being liberal.