Judge removes Nader from the ballot in Arizona

[they don't love you like i love you]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_el_pr/nader_arizona_1

good. Let's hope this continues in other states. Keep him off the ballot by any means neccesary, that worthless little fascist.

[ATFFL]

I expect an organiztion runs ads against the democrats based on this.  The good is Nader is off the ballot.  The bad is you kept him off with a lawsuit.

[they don't love you like i love you]

He was violating Arizona election laws. Should we have just let him stay on?

[Inmate Trump]

It's a sad day for the Democrats when they feel they can't win without bullying others away.

[Smash255]

It's a sad day for the Democrats when they feel they can't win without bullying others away.

Its a sad day when Republicans break state laws to try & get a third partry on the ballot.


My whole feeling on the Nader issuue.  Do I want him on the ballots?  No.  Does he have a right to be on the ballots?  Yes, but if it is done LEGALLY

[Nation]

Somehow, I can't see my fellow Democrats being this vocal about -- oh, hypothetically, Roy Moore trying to get on the ballot for the Constitution Party. I just can't see it.

[The Dowager Mod]

Somehow, I can't see my fellow Democrats being this vocal about -- oh, hypothetically, Roy Moore trying to get on the ballot for the Constitution Party. I just can't see it.

if he did it legally.

[they don't love you like i love you]

see, my problems with Nader are many.

First of all like was stated here, he violated Arizona law in collecting many of the signatures, which is why they were thrown out.

But besides that, Nader knows he's helping Republicans, and he doesn't care. The Green candidate this year says he'll pursue a "safe state" strategy and will use his campaign as a second front against Bush. Nader on the other hand just wants as many votes as possible to fill his giant ego, and doesn't care about the results. He also doesn't care who helps him. There are many documented cases of his biggest donors and people helping on his campaign being Republicans. He has no problem siding with the right wing. He's not campaigning for the left, just himself. He's said he doesn't care about Bush being in office now, and would have no problems if he got in again.

And the thing that made me most mad about him was after he announced his campaign, he said Gore would've invaded Iraq as well. Gore was one of the invasions most vocal critics, even before it started. Yet he makes a baseless and silly claim. One fine example of a "useful idiot"

[Akno21]

Nader is power hungry. If he cared about his principles he would support the Democrats. On almost all issues, the Republicans are a 0, the Democrats are a 6, and the Greens are a 10. Instead of supporting the party who would put most of his iniatives on the table, he supports the one that is the exact oppiste of most of his principles. The guy just doesn't get it.

[Inmate Trump]

Legal or not, you Democrats have just made Nader angry at you.  Now there will be no dropping out as was first hinted at when he decided to run (that he might consider dropping out if it was going to be so close that he might cause the Dem to lose again).

You guys hate Nader so much for 2000 (even though in reality it was really Gore who beat Gore--not Nader).  Now he hates you guys as well.  Score 1 for the Democrats!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Legal or not, you Democrats have just made Nader angry at you.  Now there will be no dropping out as was first hinted at when he decided to run (that he might consider dropping out if it was going to be so close that he might cause the Dem to lose again).

You guys hate Nader so much for 2000 (even though in reality it was really Gore who beat Gore--not Nader).  Now he hates you guys as well.  Score 1 for the Democrats!

Nader pourposefully concentrated on swing states to defeat Al Gore in 2000. We owe Nader nothing but hatred.

[The Duke]

Excuse me, but Ralph Nader has a right to run a campaign, you know.  The world doesn't revelve around your single minded desire to beat George W. Bush.

This is the problem with Democrats, they have little in the way of ideas, just a lot of anger at Republicans because a Republican beat them up in grade school or some crap.  So they go out and find neutered candidates like Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who bent over backwards to give my side anything we wanted in terms of legislation.  Then you get mad that Nader hands us an election, never mind that the policies are little different.

You guys believe in nothing but winning elections.  The right lesson to learn from Nader 2000 is not, "Hey, lets disqualify him on a technicality!", but rather, "Hey, let's get some spine and some principles."  But no, even though Ralph told you that if you nominated Dean and not Kerry, he'd stay home.  But you had to send us the flippy floppy Jean Francois Kerry.  You never learn, do you?

[Akno21]

Excuse me, but Ralph Nader has a right to run a campaign, you know.  The world doesn't revelve around your single minded desire to beat George W. Bush.

This is the problem with Democrats, they have little in the way of ideas, just a lot of anger at Republicans because a Republican beat them up in grade school or some crap.  So they go out and find neutered candidates like Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who bent over backwards to give my side anything we wanted in terms of legislation.  Then you get mad that Nader hands us an election, never mind that the policies are little different.

You guys believe in nothing but winning elections.  The right lesson to learn from Nader 2000 is not, "Hey, lets disqualify him on a technicality!", but rather, "Hey, let's get some spine and some principles."  But no, even though Ralph told you that if you nominated Dean and not Kerry, he'd stay home.  But you had to send us the flippy floppy Jean Francois Kerry.  You never learn, do you?

Bill Clinton did not give you guys anything you wanted. Especially before 1994, when the Dems controlled Congress. We would do better with Kerry and Nader on every ballot than with Dean and no Nader on every ballot. He has the right to run a campaign yes, but LEGALLY. And he should shut up about the theory that he'll take more votes from Bush and Kerry. We all know that is BS.

[CARLHAYDEN]

He was violating Arizona election laws. Should we have just let him stay on?

Your terminology is a little over the top.

Nader didn't have enought valid signatures.

Typically candidates calculate that they should file at least 115% of the number of signatures required in order to have enough valid signatures to avoid a legal challenge.

Invalid signatures can run as high as fifty per cent.

Contrary to unfounded rumors, the nader operation in Arizona did not have Republican help, was incompetent, and failed to file a sufficent number of valid signatures.  Hence, when challenged, the naderites (the few of them that there are), lost.  If they had received Republican help they would have had sufficent valid signatures.

[The Duke]

Akno,

Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA before we took congress, after having campaigned against it in 1992.  Then he caved on health care.  Yes, we got what we wanted.

[Akno21]

Akno,

Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA before we took congress, after having campaigned against it in 1992.  Then he caved on health care.  Yes, we got what we wanted.

Did the Republicans want the gun-control laws passed?

[ATFFL]

Akno,

Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA before we took congress, after having campaigned against it in 1992.  Then he caved on health care.  Yes, we got what we wanted.

Did the Republicans want the gun-control laws passed?

Actually, yes, to an extent.  It gave the Republicans ammo to use against Clinton on the national stage.

Legally the Dems were right to keep Nader off the abllot, but they may come to regret it witha good ad campaign.

[ilikeverin]

You guys hate Nader so much for 2000 (even though in reality it was really Gore who beat Gore--not Nader).

Actually, some of us supported him, and aren't ashamed to admit it

[Seawolf]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_el_pr/nader_arizona_1

good. Let's hope this continues in other states. Keep him off the ballot by any means neccesary, that worthless little fascist.

Haha God forbid someone try to run for President besides the anointed one, John F. Kerry.

[they don't love you like i love you]

He couldn't get the health care plan passed because lots of conservative Democrats in Congress opposed it. But you know how much Republicans whine about his first budget which passed without a single Republican vote. And of course, Republicans think he's the spawn of Satan the way they talk about him, just do a search for "Clinton" on Free Republic to see what they think. He had to do something to piss them off.

I don't see what CARLHAYDEN is trying to point out aside from the obvious, since Nader didn't have enough valid signatures, he does not have a right to be on the ballot. Not too difficult to understand. Yet for some reason the Republicans are defending him. I'm sure they wouldn't argue some looney LaRouche type kook should be on the ballot if he didn't have enough valid signatures.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term you used, "violating" with respect to Arizona elections laws.

If the Nader people had submitted forged signatures, that would be a "violation," while merely submitting an insufficent number of valid signatures does NOT constitute a "violation," but merely results in not being listed on the ballot.

"Violating" Arizona election laws is a criminal offense.  Failing to submit enought valid signatures is NOT a criminal offense.

BTW, most initiative proposals where generated by the public fail to gather enought valid signatures to make the ballot.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yeah, I don't see how Nader violated the law.  But he didn't fail to make the ballot because of a "technicality" either (as John Ford claimed).

In order to get on the ballot, you need a certain number of valid signatures.   This is the fundamental standard for ballot access, not an incidental technicality.  

The number of valid signitures is the only method by which independent candidates get on the ballot, and Nader didn't have enough.  How else should this situation be evaluated?