With the decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to bar Ralph Nader from the ballot in Pennsylvania, Nader's campaign for President has moved from the comical to the pathetic.
Supported by Republicans who hope that Nader will allow Bush to "win" with a bare plurality of the vote (or perhaps not even that), Nader employed a less-than-ethical group of people to collect signatures to put his name on the Pennsylvania ballot. The court reviewed each of the 51,273 signatures submitted, and found 32,455 of them (63.3%) to be invalid because of forgeries, fictitious addresses, and other reasons.
The court characterized the signature gathering process as "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court," and stated that the conduct of Nader and his running-mate "shocks the conscience of the Court."
(The full opinion can be found at http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/out/568MD04_10-13-04.pdf)
It's one thing to engage in a futile campaign for President. It's another thing to accept the aid of the Republicans and become their pawn. But to become a party to fraud and corruption of the ballot process itself?
Has Nader no shame whatsoever?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Kerry's Threat
One of the bizarre claims by many right-wing Republicans is that Kerry as President could endanger or damage the country.
But what could he possibly do?
Could he:
1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?
2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?
3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?
4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?
Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.
So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.
That's some threat.
But what could he possibly do?
Could he:
1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?
2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?
3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?
4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?
Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.
So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.
That's some threat.
Kerry's Threat
One of the bizarre claims by many right-wing Republicans is that Kerry as President could endanger or damage the country.
But what could he possibly do?
Could he:
1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?
2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?
3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?
4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?
Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.
So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.
That's some threat.
But what could he possibly do?
Could he:
1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?
2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?
3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?
4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?
Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.
So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.
That's some threat.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Showing Up
I've heard that 80% of life is just showing up.
So some of the controversy about John Kerry's military service is a little hard to understand.
Most of the controversy seems to be whether or not he "deserves" the medals he got, and there are some people who were in Vietnam at around the same time (although not on John Kerry's boat) who seem to have some strong opinions about that.
But he was there, right? He showed up.
Can George Bush say the same?
So some of the controversy about John Kerry's military service is a little hard to understand.
Most of the controversy seems to be whether or not he "deserves" the medals he got, and there are some people who were in Vietnam at around the same time (although not on John Kerry's boat) who seem to have some strong opinions about that.
But he was there, right? He showed up.
Can George Bush say the same?
Terrorism in Iraq
The idea that there are terrorists in Iraq seems to have come as a great shock to the Bush Administration.
And the Bush Administration is now THE authority on terrorism. They know best how to protect us from terrorists.
And yet the idea that there might be terrorists in Iraq seems to have come as a surprise.
Let's see, we'll invade a mid-east country that is predominantly Muslim, and they'll greet us with flowers and happily do whatever we say to build a western-style democracy. Attacks on American soldiers? Attacks on the government installed by the United States? Anti-American terrorism by Muslims in the mid-east? Who would have thought such a thing? Who could have guessed?
Even weirder is that there are reports that the Israelis PLEADED with the Bush Administration to seal the Iraqi border after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, saying that there were foreign activists pouring into the country. But we couldn't be bothered. After all, what harm could a few foreigners do?
Well, now we're beginning to find out. And the Iraqis are beginning to hate us for it.
President Bush keeps talking about the number of innocents that Hussein killed during his years in power. How many have we killed during our months in power?
Do we get to leave when we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein?
And the Bush Administration is now THE authority on terrorism. They know best how to protect us from terrorists.
And yet the idea that there might be terrorists in Iraq seems to have come as a surprise.
Let's see, we'll invade a mid-east country that is predominantly Muslim, and they'll greet us with flowers and happily do whatever we say to build a western-style democracy. Attacks on American soldiers? Attacks on the government installed by the United States? Anti-American terrorism by Muslims in the mid-east? Who would have thought such a thing? Who could have guessed?
Even weirder is that there are reports that the Israelis PLEADED with the Bush Administration to seal the Iraqi border after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, saying that there were foreign activists pouring into the country. But we couldn't be bothered. After all, what harm could a few foreigners do?
Well, now we're beginning to find out. And the Iraqis are beginning to hate us for it.
President Bush keeps talking about the number of innocents that Hussein killed during his years in power. How many have we killed during our months in power?
Do we get to leave when we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
