« FYI: Kerry never asked McCain for VP | Main | Is Bush Playing "Chicken" with our economy? »

June 11, 2004

Nader Arizona ballot problems...

This from Dailykos

Consider as rumour until verified, but this has been a solid source in the past.
42 Democratic volunteers in Phoenix are currently checking Nader's Arizona petition signatures. Nader needs a 32 percent bad signature rate to be knocked off the ballot, and so far, after 2,000 checked, the rate is 37 percent.

Of those 2,000 signatures, 5 percent have been Democrats, 3 percent "other" or independent, and 92 percent Republican. If this number is verified, and if it holds up over the full 22,000 petition signatures, it will be a clear indication from where Nader's "support" comes.

Posted by Ed Snook at 04:40 PM in Presidential politics | Permalink

Comments

Pat Buchanan interviews Ralph Nader in "The American Conservative".

You gotta check this out:

[CLIP]...PB: What are the reasons a conservative should vote for Ralph Nader?

RN: Well, largely—

PB: Rather than Kerry.

[Laughter.]

RN: I’m not expecting conservatives to change their minds on certain issues that we disagree on, but if we look at the issues where we have common positions, they reach a level of gravity that would lead conservatives to stop being taken for granted by the corporate Republicans and send them a message by voting for my independent candidacy.

Here are the issues. One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of Bush’s positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to Washington.

Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to corporate welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a wasted use of their taxes.

Conservatives are upset about the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. I wish they had helped us more when we tried to stop them in Congress because, with a modest conservative push, we would have defeated NAFTA because it was narrowly passed. If there was no NAFTA, there wouldn’t have been a WTO.

Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole industries and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China. That is what I mean by the distinction between corporate Republicans and conservative Republicans.

Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and order against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied that the Bush administration has done enough.

Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as big government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance. They are not inaccurate in that respect.

And finally, two other things. They don’t like “Leave No Child Behind” because it is a stupidly conceived federal regulation of local school systems through misguided and very fraudulent multiple-choice testing impositions.

And conservatives are aghast that a born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence directed to children and separating children from their parents and undermining parental authority.

If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told,”You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats,” this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party.

I noticed this a long time ago, Pat. I once said to Bill Bennett, “Would you agree that corporatism is on a collision course with conservative values?” and he said yes.

The impact of giant corporations, commercialism, direct marketing to kids, sidestepping parents, selling them junk food, selling them violence, selling them sex and addictions, selling them the suspension of their socialization process—years ago conservatives spoke out on that, but it was never transformed into a political position. It was always an ethical, religious value position. It is time to take it into the political arena...[CLIP]

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

Posted by: copymark at Jun 12, 2004 11:00:20 AM

if the signatures for mr. nader were by individuals registered as republican, why are the democrats trying to knock mr. nader off the ballot?

these statistics appear to confirm that the frezy of the national and county democrats that mr. nader cost al gore the 2000 election and will take votes away from the friend of jane fonda is just a big lie!!

Posted by: jack k at Jun 12, 2004 2:20:07 PM

You're looking at this the wrong way Jack, think about it, why would a republican sign a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot? Are they likely to support Mr. Nader?

Probably not

Because they know that he takes votes away from Kerry, so they want someone coming from kerry's left.

The converse would also be true, if Buchanan was running as an independent, many democrats would sign to get him on the ballot just because he would take votes from Bush.

Posted by: anonymous at Jun 17, 2004 4:03:09 PM

why would anyone want to hide on this reflector????????

since i am the one person in yuma county who solicited nomination petitions for mr. nader, i think that i have first-hand knowledge of who and why qualified electors signed the petition at the yuma county fair, the library, the taj mahal, and food city. these venues have a diversity of education, background, ethnicity, etc. i met my first contact with a member of the green party by soliciting petitions for mr. nader.

government at any level does not belong to the democrats or the republicans.

of all of the people that i have assisted to register to vote or explained a petition to only one or two percent were rabid in their personal approach to voting. most folks seem frustrated that the problems of this country have been created and sustained by the two parties that believe that they know what is best and that i somehow should be grateful. few seem to support either bush because of the wrongful destruction of iraq or kerry because his words and actions bred distrust.

according to mr. nader, when i met with him in avondale, 250,000 registered democrats voted for bush in florida in 2000 and less than 100,000 voted for nader. does this mean that nader took votes away from bush in 2000?

kudos to william michael smith for becoming a clean election candidate for the district 24 house seat!

tell me just one reason for voting for kerry! will he close the border to invasion of terrorists and illegal aliens? will he seek to take the ccec concept created by the voters of arizona to the federal level?

would anyone like to know about the false information i was provided by the elected and appointed officials of yuma county about who was allowed to sign my nomination petition for yuma county recorder? only two possible reasons. incompetence or an overt attempt to hinder my getting signatures.

power is in the individual vote. as yuma county recorder i will have everyone prove american citizenship and simutaneously work to educate voters.

Posted by: jack k at Jun 17, 2004 11:49:02 PM