The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Bush Campaigning in Small-Town Pennsylvania | Main | Bloggers Come Of Age »
July 09, 2004
| Michigan GOP Gathering Names For Nader

Michigan Republicans are collecting signatures for Nader to appear on the ballot in November.

“It’s another example of state Republicans willing to try every unethical trick in the book to hold power,” Democratic Executive Chairman Mark Brewer said Thursday. “This clearly shows that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to re-elect George Bush. The Republicans know that, and that’s why they are desperate to have Nader on the Michigan ballot.”

Greg McNeilly of the state Republican Party said the GOP is doing nothing wrong and hopes Nader will draw votes from the Democratic candidate. Republicans will make sure Nader has more than the 30,000 valid signatures he needs by July 15 to qualify for the Michigan ballot, McNeilly said.

“Unlike the Democratic Party, where ‘D’ stands for disenfranchisement, we want voters to have choices,” he said.

Brewer sent a letter to Nader on Thursday asking that he refuse the GOP’s assistance and any petition signatures collected by the Republican Party, its staff or volunteers.

“We’re not out there focusing on getting Libertarians on the ballot,” Brewer said. “If the Republicans refuse to stop their efforts and Nader accepts their help, we will have no choice but to oppose his petition effort, review every signature and challenge his petitions if they are insufficient in any way.”



Posted by Nathan Hamm at July 9, 2004 09:32 AM | TrackBack
Comments

This is just too funny. Nader whines about the Democrats using legal tricks to keep him off the ballot, now the Democrats whine about Republicans helping Nader.

Just too delicious, the hypocrasy of the Democrats is one again laid bare for all to see.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 09:50 AM

Unethical?

What happened to let every vote be counted?

Posted by: jones [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 10:04 AM

If “a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to re-elect George Bush”, does that mean we can add the Nader votes to the Bush totals when it comes to divying electoral college votes?

The crass use of illogic in support of partisan goals disgusts me.

Posted by: Tomorrowist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 10:05 AM

I think there ought to be some kind of agreement on what’s unethical. Legally trying to get somebody on the ballot is not unethical. Heck when the (usually left-leaning) petition guys want you to sign to get their referrenum on the ballot, they usually say “signing doesn’t mean you agree, it’s just to let the people decide.” Why doesn’t the same thing hold true with Nader?

By the same token, Ralphie, it’s not “unethical” for Democrats to challenge petitions that are insufficient. That’s what the law’s there for.

What is unethical is to use deception - like the Dems filling convention halls pretending to be Nader supporters to keep Nader people out.

Posted by: samuelv [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 10:10 AM

It’s also unethical for R’s to pretend to support someone they have No intention of ever actually supporting.

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Posted by: Don [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 10:44 AM

Don, I think “disingenuous” is a better word.

It’s a shame that Nader is facing the difficulties he is. I would never vote for him, but he deserves ballot access. The Republicans supporting him aren’t doing it for the sake of accessible ballots, but they’re not doing anything heinous or reprehensible either (and not suing to keep certain candidates off that I’m aware of…).

Posted by: Nathan Hamm [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 11:35 AM

jones sez: “Unethical?

What happened to let every vote be counted?”

Because they really mean “only let every Democrat vote be counted”. Bought to you from the fine party that attempted to disenfranchise deployed military personnel in the 2000 presidential elections.

Bucky Katt

Posted by: Bucky Katt [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 12:26 PM

NH: Pick whatever word you like, the activity remains, regardless of the face that’s put on it.

The Rs in this case are not doing this for the sake of Everyone/Anyone having ballot access. They said as much when they started this attempt in various places across the nation. Kidding yourself on this is really is disingenuous, as the term is properly used.

Posted by: Don [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 12:27 PM

so Don, what’s your position on the Mini Watergate charge that Nader has leveled against the DNC?

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 04:14 PM

I want to meet the reader using the Bucky Katt nic … great reference. I didn’t even know he could type.

Posted by: Alan @ TCP [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2004 05:54 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)