- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
ORLANDO, Fla. — Seeking any advantage in their effort to retain control of Congress, Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.
Wade C. Vose, a lawyer for Tea Party activists who say Mr. Guetzloe hijacked their movement, issued a subpoena to Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat with ties to Mr. Guetzloe.
The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.
In California, Republicans have received recorded phone calls from a professed but unidentified “registered Republican” who says she is voting for the American Independent Party’s candidate for a House seat, Bill Lussenheide, not for the incumbent Republican, Mary Bono Mack.
The caller says she is voting that way because “it’s time we show Washington what a true conservative looks like.”
The recording was openly paid for by the Democratic candidate for the seat, Mayor Steve Pougnet of Palm Springs.
In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, Bryan Lentz, admitted this week that his volunteers helped Jim Schneller — a prominent skeptic of President Obama’s citizenship — collect petitions to run against Mr. Lentz and his Republican opponent, Pat Meehan.
In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader.
The ad was sponsored by a group backed by unions and casino and mining companies supporting Mr. Reid.
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23dems.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
I love how the most common reaction to this kind of BS is to always follow this formula:TED,
- Express outrage
- Blame the political party behind the scandal
- Ignore the fact that both parties play dirty pool
- Fail to suggest how to improve the situation
- Feel a sense of accomplishment
:lol:
I didn't say "fix."
I said "improve."
You can't ever really "fix" anything that involves people.
We can actually do quite a lot.
We could do away with electronic voting systems.
We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.
We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.
There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.
We can actually do quite a lot.
We could do away with electronic voting systems.
We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.
We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.
There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.
If not being either a Democrat or Republican nominee doesn't doom you to failure, then supporting you becomes a less effective tactic for hurting the other guy.
We can actually do quite a lot.
We could do away with electronic voting systems.
We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.
We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.
There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.
Oh, yeah, that's right -- because the two sock puppets using election law to keep competitors off the ballot has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
It's a little hard to get worked up over a candidacy you can't even flip a lever for.
Dude.
The third parties are "doomed to failure" because no one cares, not because they're not on the ballot. That ain't gonna change with your suggestions.
I'm okay with absentee balloting. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to vote and still go about your business.
Strangely, if that were true, then there would be no issue HERE.
If enough people want a third party, it'll happen. Until then, it's hopeless, boogeymen notwithstanding.
(Besides, the fantasy of the panacea which will supposedly ensue once the "two-party system" is done away with always amuses me. Does no one actually bother to look to see what entirely different brands of political sludge (dealmaking, payoffs, distorted representation, collapsing governments, et al) having many parties dredges up? Take a look. See what kind of headaches are avoided by not having that.)
I have no problem with 3rd parties. Personally I believe there should an election where everybody runs and then the two candidates with the most votes regardless of party affiliation run in another election.
Yeah its dirty for the democrats to be supporting 3rd parties for the reason of taking away votes from the republicans. Most of all its hypocritical of the democrats seeing how they would be crying fowl and trying to screw over the third parties if they thought the 3rd parties would ruin their chances of winning.
If you currently in the state where your polling place is and not bed ridden then why should you be allowed to vote absentee?
Oh for crying out loud. It's a step. That's what's an improvement is.
If the sock puppets had nothing to fear by opening up the process of getting onto the ballot, why do they make it so hard to run for office?
Oh, whatever.
TED,
Referring you to post #11 ITT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?