I find this whole "keep Nader off the ballot" thing by the Democrats despicable... how can anyone justify specifically trying to silence a political view?
If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.
<sarcasm type='liberal arrogance'> After all, all *intelligent* people vote Democrat anyway, so we shouldn't need all these confusing choices. </sarcasm>
While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."
democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.
<sarcasm type='liberal arrogance'> After all, all *intelligent* people vote Democrat anyway, so we shouldn't need all these confusing choices. </sarcasm>
Re:democrats (Score:2)
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
Re:democrats (Score:2)
A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."