Sunday, July 11, 2004
where there's a republican, there's a way
As has already been done in Illinois, I’m sure West Virginia, Alabama, California, and the District of Columbia will find a way to get President Bush onto the ballot for the upcoming election. I mean, imagine the uproar if they stick to the law and force Bush (I think he’s still allowed) to get on the ballot as an Independent! or, worse (depending on point of view) make Bush supporters Write Him In! Why would they not be on the ballot, you ask? Well, there seems to be a little bit of a problem. The problem is that the Bush-Cheney team is despicably slimy.
You see, the Bush-rallying-cry date of infamy is drawing near. The Bush team wanted to hold their convention close to that date (and place, as the republican convention will be in New York City) to be able to exploit the emotions of that tragic day, as well as encourage support for the republican led war on terrorism that will only succeed with republican leadership and republican convictions (nevermind that Bush opposed the creation of a department of homeland security, pushed for by Senator Lieberman (and here), blocking Lieberman’s bill because it granted certain worker’s rights, including the right to join a union, to the eventual workers in the Department, only jumping on board after public opinion clearly favored the creation of such a department, later passing through Congress a bill nearly identical to Lieberman’s.). Aaannnnnnnnyyyywayyy, besides shamefully and shamelessly playing on the tragedy of 9/11, there are financial political reasons to hold a late convention as well – after accepting the nomination, a candidate must either accept or reject public funding, totally 75 million dollars, for the duration of the campaign. Staging the convention as late as possible allows them to spend their fundraised campaign war-chest until a later date, and then have 75 million for the last two months. Meanwhile, due to the democratic convention scheduled at the end of July, Senator Kerry will have to spread his 75 million over 3 months. (And the Bush-Cheney team will not accept a joint-pledge with Kerry to accept public funds, despite gaining an advantage by doing so. They will hold out in case there is a bigger advantage by using their own money, or to bait Kerry into rejecting public funds so they can use that against him in the campaign.)
What does this have to do with the President being a write in candidate? Well, the problem is that the republican convention isn’t planned for the latest date possible – it is happening even later. According to state election laws in the previously mentioned states, the deadline to file with the state to get on their ballot passes before Bush will accept his party’s nomination on September 2nd. Illinois has already taken care of this “mistake,” but this issue should not go quietly. There can be no doubt that the Bush-Cheney people knew the deadlines of all the states; not only are these deadlines something obvious to check out if you are interested in running for office, but they have run a somewhat successful national campaign before. They flaunted the law in order to gain a financial and, more contemptibly, sentimental advantage. They would not have done this unless they expected these states to bend their laws and grant exceptions for the Bush-Cheney ticket. These states should take a stand to such condescension and irreverence to their autonomy. Hell, I’ll even make a deal: West Virginia, if you are reading this, if you stand up to the President and his men, I promise to come visit you before I die. Alabama, well, I’ll think about it.
You see, the Bush-rallying-cry date of infamy is drawing near. The Bush team wanted to hold their convention close to that date (and place, as the republican convention will be in New York City) to be able to exploit the emotions of that tragic day, as well as encourage support for the republican led war on terrorism that will only succeed with republican leadership and republican convictions (nevermind that Bush opposed the creation of a department of homeland security, pushed for by Senator Lieberman (and here), blocking Lieberman’s bill because it granted certain worker’s rights, including the right to join a union, to the eventual workers in the Department, only jumping on board after public opinion clearly favored the creation of such a department, later passing through Congress a bill nearly identical to Lieberman’s.). Aaannnnnnnnyyyywayyy, besides shamefully and shamelessly playing on the tragedy of 9/11, there are financial political reasons to hold a late convention as well – after accepting the nomination, a candidate must either accept or reject public funding, totally 75 million dollars, for the duration of the campaign. Staging the convention as late as possible allows them to spend their fundraised campaign war-chest until a later date, and then have 75 million for the last two months. Meanwhile, due to the democratic convention scheduled at the end of July, Senator Kerry will have to spread his 75 million over 3 months. (And the Bush-Cheney team will not accept a joint-pledge with Kerry to accept public funds, despite gaining an advantage by doing so. They will hold out in case there is a bigger advantage by using their own money, or to bait Kerry into rejecting public funds so they can use that against him in the campaign.)
What does this have to do with the President being a write in candidate? Well, the problem is that the republican convention isn’t planned for the latest date possible – it is happening even later. According to state election laws in the previously mentioned states, the deadline to file with the state to get on their ballot passes before Bush will accept his party’s nomination on September 2nd. Illinois has already taken care of this “mistake,” but this issue should not go quietly. There can be no doubt that the Bush-Cheney people knew the deadlines of all the states; not only are these deadlines something obvious to check out if you are interested in running for office, but they have run a somewhat successful national campaign before. They flaunted the law in order to gain a financial and, more contemptibly, sentimental advantage. They would not have done this unless they expected these states to bend their laws and grant exceptions for the Bush-Cheney ticket. These states should take a stand to such condescension and irreverence to their autonomy. Hell, I’ll even make a deal: West Virginia, if you are reading this, if you stand up to the President and his men, I promise to come visit you before I die. Alabama, well, I’ll think about it.
# posted by Anonymous @ 3:49 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
a couple of comments:
1) Do you know how they got around the rules in Illinois? Illinois has both a Democratic governor and Democrat controlled state general assembly, so I would expect them to naturally oppose a change in the state law.
2) For a while there was talk that the Democrats would not actually nominate Kerry at their convention, and instead wait until sometime in August, in order to give him more time to spend his own money (and less time to spend the 'limited' $75 million). I have not heard anything about this in a while, so I guess they have abandoned it.
3) So far this election year has done a good job of grabbing people's attention by polarizing them. In the past there has been lots of talk about the 'swing voter'. I am not sure that this group of people exists anymore. It seems as if most people hate one candidate and love the other, there are not many people still up in the air. I think that this election will come down to which party does the better job motivating people to vote and gets the most of its followers to the polls on Nov 2.
1) Do you know how they got around the rules in Illinois? Illinois has both a Democratic governor and Democrat controlled state general assembly, so I would expect them to naturally oppose a change in the state law.
2) For a while there was talk that the Democrats would not actually nominate Kerry at their convention, and instead wait until sometime in August, in order to give him more time to spend his own money (and less time to spend the 'limited' $75 million). I have not heard anything about this in a while, so I guess they have abandoned it.
3) So far this election year has done a good job of grabbing people's attention by polarizing them. In the past there has been lots of talk about the 'swing voter'. I am not sure that this group of people exists anymore. It seems as if most people hate one candidate and love the other, there are not many people still up in the air. I think that this election will come down to which party does the better job motivating people to vote and gets the most of its followers to the polls on Nov 2.
# posted by 
: 2:48 PM
: 2:48 PM
Hi Anonymous. Just to quickly comment, I would like to say that while I hate Bush, I dont love Kerry. As a liberal, this has been a problem for me for years; Democrats selling out and going to the middle to capture swing voters rather than standing up and saying, "I am a liberal and fucking proud of it." But, its what they think they have to do to win. And they know I'll vote for them anyways. Unless its 2000 and i vote for Nader. That's right.
you bastard! (marmar, not anonymous). Well, at least your one vote didn't count for anything, right?
As for anonymous:
1 - Illinois passed a bill granting the president an exception by a vote of 90-23. I think most democrats didn't want to look silly keeping him off the ballot. They did try to get a lot of democratic friendly riders onto the bill the first time around, and the republicans were able to vote it down. so this time there wasn't much in terms of a deal for the dems - there was a provision allowing a bunch of state agencies that serve low-income families to be able to register voters in future elections, as well as requiring state universities to offer voter registration. republicans aren't happy about that since, though sensible measures, those tend to be more liberal demographics. but hey, thats what you get when the leader of your party so arrogantly disregards the law.
2 - yeah, there was talk among some democratic leaders about postponing Kerry's acceptance of the nomination to try to offset the President's financial advantage from having his convention so late, but that was immediately dropped once it hit drew some negative press. I think it was a bad idea - though they will be at a disadvantage, it was just seemed too much of a political game.
3 - well, marmar addressed that. I think "swing voters" this year are still there - they've just been bush supporters for most of the last three years so it's hard to spot them. I think a lote of moderate republicans, as well as traditional conservative ones (though they won't vote for a dem), do not like what Bush has done while in office and can be convinced to vote for Kerry if he runs a very good campaign the rest of the way. The chances of him doing that, sadly, are slim.
As for anonymous:
1 - Illinois passed a bill granting the president an exception by a vote of 90-23. I think most democrats didn't want to look silly keeping him off the ballot. They did try to get a lot of democratic friendly riders onto the bill the first time around, and the republicans were able to vote it down. so this time there wasn't much in terms of a deal for the dems - there was a provision allowing a bunch of state agencies that serve low-income families to be able to register voters in future elections, as well as requiring state universities to offer voter registration. republicans aren't happy about that since, though sensible measures, those tend to be more liberal demographics. but hey, thats what you get when the leader of your party so arrogantly disregards the law.
2 - yeah, there was talk among some democratic leaders about postponing Kerry's acceptance of the nomination to try to offset the President's financial advantage from having his convention so late, but that was immediately dropped once it hit drew some negative press. I think it was a bad idea - though they will be at a disadvantage, it was just seemed too much of a political game.
3 - well, marmar addressed that. I think "swing voters" this year are still there - they've just been bush supporters for most of the last three years so it's hard to spot them. I think a lote of moderate republicans, as well as traditional conservative ones (though they won't vote for a dem), do not like what Bush has done while in office and can be convinced to vote for Kerry if he runs a very good campaign the rest of the way. The chances of him doing that, sadly, are slim.
# posted by : 8:20 AM
: 8:20 AM
also - anonymous isn't me, and assuming its not marmar or stu or caldwell, we have a new commenter! this is exciting.
# posted by : 8:21 AM
: 8:21 AM
To clarify my 3rd comment about the swing voter:
The way that the camplaigns have been run so far, I do not think that there are many people in America who feel indifferent to both candidates and could go either way. I do think that there are lots of people who dislike both, and face the choice of 'the lesser of two evils'. I guess then these would be the 'swing voters' which would include as Dave mentioned the moderate republicans who do not like what Bush has done, but would not be caught dead voting for a Democrat.
To Marmar, it is always interesting to watch the Democrats try to be the most liberal candidate during the primaries, and once the nomination is sealed, sprint to the middle to try and capture those voters without alienating the rest of the party. Then Nader swoops in and appeals to the liberal end of the party that has just been left behind as Kerry tries to cover too much ground.
Other thoughts-
So far the Democrats have done a good job motivating the party to vote under the 'anyone but Bush' platform. While Bush does have his faithful following, I wonder if the moderate republicans will show up to vote, or voice their disapproval by skipping the vote.
Here is a quote from Winston Churchill for Stuart about the entire not voting articles, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
The way that the camplaigns have been run so far, I do not think that there are many people in America who feel indifferent to both candidates and could go either way. I do think that there are lots of people who dislike both, and face the choice of 'the lesser of two evils'. I guess then these would be the 'swing voters' which would include as Dave mentioned the moderate republicans who do not like what Bush has done, but would not be caught dead voting for a Democrat.
To Marmar, it is always interesting to watch the Democrats try to be the most liberal candidate during the primaries, and once the nomination is sealed, sprint to the middle to try and capture those voters without alienating the rest of the party. Then Nader swoops in and appeals to the liberal end of the party that has just been left behind as Kerry tries to cover too much ground.
Other thoughts-
So far the Democrats have done a good job motivating the party to vote under the 'anyone but Bush' platform. While Bush does have his faithful following, I wonder if the moderate republicans will show up to vote, or voice their disapproval by skipping the vote.
Here is a quote from Winston Churchill for Stuart about the entire not voting articles, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
# posted by : 11:50 AM
: 11:50 AM
but there are other ways to be part of the solution that have more effect than voting. if stu does this, well, that's another story.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 6:18 PM
: 6:18 PM << Home
