Nader files 45,000 names (Pennsylvania)

[Freddie Stubbs]

Democrats have till Aug. 9 to present objections. They hope to find irregularities to keep the activist off the Pa. ballot.

By Thomas Fitzgerald

Inquirer Staff Writer


Ralph Nader filed about 45,000 signatures yesterday in his bid to qualify as an independent candidate for president in Pennsylvania, but prominent Democrats were preparing a challenge even before the petitions were stamped "received" at the Department of State in Harrisburg.

Twenty minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline, Nader volunteers brought in boxes containing what they said were well over the 25,697 signatures needed to get the consumer activist a line on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Party volunteers and lawyers, marshaled by the top Democrats in the state House, plan to scrub the signatures for irregularities, hoping to keep Nader out of the electoral mix in one of the most closely contested states in the nation.

"We're ready to go to war," said Mike Manzo, chief of staff to House Minority Leader Bill DeWeese (D., Fayette).

more: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/9308683.htm

[gatlingforme]

1. Good, Nader is a bafoon to think we would roll over since he

did not get the nod of the Green Party. Ha. he actually has to work now to get the votes. hmmm, I still do not know what his platform is or if he even has one. All I hear from that moron is "I am not a Dem or Republican." His only issue is bashing both parties. He has established the ultimate "nothingness" candidacy I have ever seen.

[Poiuyt]

5. Nader does have a platform

It's to hurt the Democrats so much that Bush wins in November. He wants the country to go into anarchy.

If Nader helps Bush win PA, that could really hurt Kerry's chances of winning the presidency.

[Surf Cowboy]

2. On Real Time

with Bill Maher, both Bill and Michael Moore got down on their knees and begged Nader not to run, right in front of a Repug hack and a Dem consultant. Very funny, and Nader was obviously uncomfortable. I wonder if he knows how much most of us hate him now. I will never, ever again contribute to ANY of his charities or groups. NEVER. He used to be my favorite, but after 2000 and now this, I hope the sonofabitch gets hit by a bus.

[mzmolly]

3. Well according to polls, Nader could swing Pennsylvania to Bush.

Seems he's being strategic. :(

www.dontvoteralph.net

http://www.dontvoteralph.net/pollwatch.htm

In addition to national polls, we found state and special-interest polls that similarly compared Bush and Kerry head-to-head and with Nader added to the mix. Here the results were even more striking. Among other things, these polls ... show Nader flipping New Jersey and Pennsylvania from Kerry to Bush, and causing an 8% surge for Bush among the large Arab-American vote in four critical swing states. These results alone would almost certainly swing the election to Bush.

So we shouldn't worry about Nader huh? My ass.
I hope like hell we keep him off the ballot there.

[liberalnurse]

4. Probably all are republican signatures...

and when it comes to actually voting....thoes who signed will vote *bush....not Nader.....


Nader won't get 1% in my guess.......

[ClintonTyree]

7. And how many...................

were obtained under false pretenses? Asking people to sign a petition to allow Independents to be on the ballot. These people were not told they were signing a petition for Nader.

Dishonest to the core. What the hell is Nader thinking? I think he has serious psychological problems, he should seek professional help.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Although Democrats are pretty much doing the same thing

[Almost_there]

6. Uncomfortable with one aspect...

The one aspect of the "we're ready to go to war" aspect of this is that if we suppress people like Nadar, what is the impetus for change in the future? We do live in a democracy, and having a viable third candidate is something that isn't new. Hell, ol' big eared Perot got 20% of the vote when he ran, and I think that suppressing anyone in this aspect is wrong.

Sure, asking him not to run since he will surely take away from Kerry is fine, but, acting like the rethugs and "going to war" ESPECIALLY if this is a legal route he's taken (he needed 25,000 to get on, and if he has 45,000, I see virtually no way to knock out 20,000 signatures), then let the best candidate win. I think Kerry will do fine in PA, hell, even if Nader gets 3%, all Kerry needs is 48.6% and we're fine.

I believe more than just two voices sometimes need to be heard, and while I am A)Not from a swing state, and B)Would not vote for Nader, I abhor trying to get him kicked out through heavy handed tactics.

~Almost

[Teaser]

8. I applaud heavy handed tactics

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[sandnsea]

18. If it's legal, it's legal

If not, not. Ralph isn't being ethical about his campaign, where's the uproar about that? Always, always, always, Democrats are held to a different standard.

[progressivebydesign]

21. They would not be acting like this is Nader was being a decent person..

.. but he's become the GOP whore, once again. Only THIS TIME, it's been revealed that he is accepting GOP money and manpower. He's a charlatain. The values he espouses are just words, and he's simply a tool for the republicans. THat's why the Green Party dumped his ass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. If all of the signatures are valid

Nader has nothing to worry about.

[apnu]

9. funny that... hot on the heels of them closing down the Philly office

see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=593126

[Mighty Undecided]

10. "Read my lips: I won't campaign in swing states" 2000, 2004 versions

[CPops57]

12. The fact that Democrats are trying to supress democracy.....

....is really starting to tick me off.

Its bad enough that they want to keep all legitimate third party candidates out of the Presidential debates, but to have Democrats try and work to keep Nader off of the ballot as well is not something I want to be associated with.

That Democrats are trying every little dirty trick to keep him off of as many ballots as possible; to me that is wrong.

They're lucky that Bush is so horrible that I'm forced to support Kerry this time around.

[Surf Cowboy]

13. Yeah, we're really lucky about Bush...

Knucklehead.

[CPops57]

15. Why are you being so impolite?

Is it necessary to call me a knucklehead?

I dislike Bush and don't want him to be elected.

That being said, don't expect me to applaud for dirty tricks and underhanded activities. I will not support the Democratic party's activities when they do these types of things.

Republicans should be known as the party of weasels and tricksters and Democrats should be known as the party of principle and democracy and fairness. I'm sad to see that the Democrats are adopting the GOP's tactics.

I don't support Ralph. I support Kerry as Bush needs to go. But this sort of tactic is just wrong to me.

Feel free to have a different opinion, but please lay off of the namecalling.

[Surf Cowboy]

17. If you were seriously offended by "knucklehead,"

I'm glad I didn't call you a "dumbass." I don't get offended when people call me a knucklehead, especially after I say knuckleheaded things. You shouldn't either.

As far as Dems suppressing the Nader vote, I'm all for it. It's great to have principles and be 100% pure, but is it better to be 70% pure and 100% in power, or 100% pure and completely powerless.

I think we should save our pie-in-the-sky poop until after we regain control.

[Almost_there]

22. So, what you're saying here is...

I just want to make sure I got your statement right...

"It's great to have principles and be 100% pure, but is it better to be 70% pure and 100% in power, or 100% pure and completely powerless."

So, basically, it is better to subvert democracy in search of power, better to violate a few human rights in the cause of power, and its ok to cheat, lie, steal, etc in order to get Kerry into office? Now, I am not calling anyone any names, but, I think your statement needs to be rethought. Seriously, the saying of "Power corrupts, and abosolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to apply to your philosophy.

When we heard about the votes in Florida's minority neighborhoods that were tossed out for various reasons, the uproar was tremendous. When any group is discriminated against, well, it is a victory for none. If Kerry wins the election by playing unfairly with Nader's supporters, be they rethugs or true supporters, and their votes don't count because of that 30% "unpure" part, well, I would be terribly ashamed to associate myself with this party, board, or anyone that supports that. I may as well sign up as a brown shirt and get me some jackboots and start saluting Bush.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us" -Pogo

[Surf Cowboy]

24. You said it, not me...

"I may as well sign up as a brown shirt and get me some jackboots and start saluting Bush."

Either you want to get this dangerous sonofabitch out of office or you don't. If we get involved in WWIII because he got "four more years," are you gonna feel better about it because we didn't beat up on Nader?

If so, then please send me a bag of whatever it is you're smoking, apparently it works well on Bush-related anxiety.

[Almost_there]

26. You are literally advocating anarchy...

Well, I guess we should get some sharpshooters in here to dispell any candidate that we don't like, right?

"I said it not you"? What the hell are you talking about? I was using a device known as "SARCASM" in which you take an example so far fetched as to be ridiculous in order to make a point. The point I was making is that if we keep Nader off through "any means necessary" and get Kerry in, even if it's not 100% legal, but, its what we think is best for us and the country, well, then I guess this is what? The Fourth Reich? Head back over to freeperville if that's the way that you like to play.

This is still a democracy, and assuming that Nader's signatures are legal (be they his own supporters or Republicans, that is 100% immaterial, they don't ask party support, you don't have to vote for the person, simply approve them to be on a ballot), what would you propose be done? Perhaps disenfranchise the people that signed the petition, since "they don't know what's best for them, we'll tell them what's good for them". That is such a dangerous thought, it brings to mind George Orwell... I believe in democracy, I believe in fair play, and I believe that if Kerry runs the better campaign, performs better in the debates, and pushes hard in swing states, Nader will perform the service of a third party that doesn't really make a difference in this election.

Are we all so short memoried to have forgotten that Clinton won with significantly less than a majority when Perot was running? Should we have forced Perot's name off the ballot? Everyone that enters the race fairly is entitled to run. If you disagree, start your own country, make yourself "President for Life", and hold elections where you can vote yourself in for another term however frequently you like. Otherwise, the rules are for everyone, they are clear, concise, and fair.

~Almost

[Surf Cowboy]

32. Actually, I'm advocating

not letting some egotistical jackass like Nader screw us up the cornhole again.

Let's get something straight: had Nader not selfishly kept himself in the race, which of the following would not be true:

1. We may have listened to the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to attack within U.S.;
2. We would not have invaded Iraq;
3. We would not have tax-cut ourselves into the greatest deficit in history;
4. We would not have had Camp X-ray or Abu-Gharib scandals;
5. We would not have lost the support of all the countries who were with us after 9/11 and in Afghanistan;
6. We would not be pulling troops from NK;
7. We would not be sending family men and women from the National Guard away for years at a time;
8. Oil would not be uncontrollably rising in cost;
9. We would still have functional environmental protections;
10. Halliburton and friends would not be running our country into the ground.

And you're willing to continue with this for 4 years because you're too morally superior to consider that sometimes one must fight fire with fire. In a way, I admire your turn the other cheek attitude. Overall however, it bears pointing out that the one who turns the other cheek typically gets it broken.

[LizW]

14. How is making sure the rules are followed

suppressing Democracy?

Republicans cheat. We know this, we expect it. They are absolutely blatant about it. Why would you have us lie down and let them steal another election?

If Ralph's signatures are all verifiable and genuine and the laws regarding the collection of signatures have been followed, then fine, even if they are all Republicans. But why would we just blindly accept them when we know that Republicans are cheaters?

I don't know what's wrong with Ralph and why he's allowing himself to be used like this, but it doesn't matter. The fact is that he is doing it, and he could swing Pennsylvania to Bush. If we sit by and allow that to happen without making sure every t is crossed an every i is dotted, then we are fools.

[trogdor]

16. Is it more or less wrong...

...than what the Republicans are doing to get him on the ballot in the first place? IMO, having people sign your petition who have no intention of supporting you is wrong. Big time. We called him on it, and he keeps on doing it. It's like trying to explain nuclear physics to your cat.

[progressivebydesign]

20. Dirty tricks???? Confirming signatures, and challenging them..

.. is TOTALLY legal, ethical, and in keeping with our Democracy. WHat IS supressing Democracy is having one party, who is the antithesis of everything Ralph supposedly embodies, use money to promote that man in hopes of defeating their opponent.. through the back door. You want to talk pure motives? You want to talk supressing democracy? You're barking at the donkey, when you should be spanking the elephant!!

[TommyO]

33. Just making sure...

that Nader followed the law when he gathered his signatures. If he didn't, and gathered invalid signatures, that would be subverting democracy. If Republicans and Democrats need to follow the laws, so does Ralphie.

[John_H]

35. I love it when Dems enable the GOP thet're Bush-Lite. When they

try to stop nader from both enabling the GOP and breaking the law, they're "suppressing democracy."

Maybe what makes hypocrite liar Ralph so attractive to the minions is just that--he's a liar and a hypocrite.

[gatlingforme]

36. Gee, I wonder what Bush did to win the Pres. ? If you think that

politics are for nice people you are hoping for something that comes candy wrapped.

[progressivebydesign]

19. How nice.. he found 45,000 Republicans there...

.. that DOESN'T mean that 45,000 will vote for him. They're just mean spirited, America-haters, who hate us for our democracy. People who are willing to feign support for a man whose policies they detest, in order to win an election in the filthiest, most underhanded way possible. If they guy can't even garner enough signatures from his own (supposed) followers, then why should we worry?

[AlFrankenFan]

25. Hmff...The same sigs he had homeless people collect...

and not pay them for working? Shame on him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. The campaign said that they would mail the checks

[AlFrankenFan]

28. They better n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. The rub is that most homeless people don't have mailboxes

[tkmorris]

31. To homeless people??

Are they hoping the checks will be returned?

[Flint-oid]

29. Republican signatures

How many do you think were Republicans?

[oneighty]

34. How many

do you suspect signed a petition for another candidate as well. How many are registered voters? How many are fictitious? All petitions must be looked at closely. It is that way where I live.

180