Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said phone banks encouraging Bush supporters to attend a Nader nominating convention last Saturday amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Nader campaign by the Oregon Family Council and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy.
Bush's re-election campaign and the Oregon Republican Party were also named in the complaint for allegedly participating in the effort. The complaint alleges the groups worked together to promote Nader and siphon potential votes away from Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
I wonder what Republicans have to say about that? If they are so sure of victory, why all this?
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 930 times:
Every little bit helps.
Nader can do to the Democrats, what Perot did to the Republicans in 1992. If I was handed a Nader petition, I would gladly sign it, signing it just means that I want him on the ballot not that contract that I have to vote for him. Your kidding yourself if you think that Democrats would do any differently if there was a viable 3rd party conservative candidate.
I do think that they went about it in the wrong way, they did it in a way that is possibly illegal.
QIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 856 times:
I agree this is a redicilous aqusition.
Specially when the Democrats did exactly the same thing.
But is exactly the same thing here in Denmark. There are only 2 candidates for the Prime minister post. And that irritates me alot. Especially if you don't like any of them.
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 40 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 843 times:
The reason (and there are far more than just this simple one) that an Independent Party Candidate has not succeeded yet is because they are always the "fringe" politicians. Previously, the George Wallace, Ross Perot, Pat Buchannan and Ralph Nader types are the ones we normally get for Independent Party candidates. If we had someone more mainstream, the Democrats & Republicans would be in trouble.
Also, consider the political ramifications if the White House were run by someone not controlled by either main political party!
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 836 times:
You know what I find fucking disgusting is president Bush's use of the CHURCH to garner support. Bush-biased voter registration, bush parties, soliticiting church membership lists for campaign use.....all having the effect of making this election a religious issue while risking the tax-exempt status of said churches. The IRS, i understand, is looking into it and likely to give a wrist-slap to the bush campaign, but the same shit will keep going on.
THAT, is the mark of a desperate campaign, they'll do any goddamn thing to win. That man by claming religious superiority and saying it's his god-given right to be re-elected is the most despicable and unworthy presidential scumbag since Richard Nixon. The doesn't DESERVE to win, he deserves a swift kick in the ass. Or at the very lease, a rebuke from the POPE.
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 832 times:
I'm a big GOP supporter and I've given $100 to Ralph. Run Ralph Run.
Why?? I don't understand how you can support these people? Perhaps this radical right extremism somehow appealing to you, or the reversal of pollution controls, or how about the country's deficit which, you probably aren't concerned with; how about such things as the patriot act pushed through congress right in the wake of 9/11 when such legislation would never pass today which is being abused to trample on our civil liberties, etc.
How, I ask you, can you possibly support these people?
VectorVictor From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 811 times:
...soliticiting church membership lists for campaign use.....all having the effect of making this election a religious issue
Did you know that many predominantly African American religious congregations often invite those seeking public office to address their services? Are you aware that almost never is the invitation extended to the republican candidate or to a non-African American who's running against an African American for the same office from the same party?
Democrats have been "Sunday Solicitors" for decades. Where are your complaints about the tax status of these churches?
Nancy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 467 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 790 times:
*Can't have it both ways, folks. Why is what was fair four years ago an underhanded tactic today?
When did the Democrats use illegal soft money contributions to support Buchanan or Perot? Maybe they did, but I'm not aware of it.
*Why is this illegal? Here in Canada, we have 4 major political parties, and they often play one off against the other.
It is illegal if they violated OR's campaign funding laws. There are legal ways to fund a campaign. This may not have been one of them. It's pretty clear in the article. If they didn't do it, then it's fine. Encouraging people to attend to political event legal, using illegal sources funding for publicity is.
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 768 times:
Did you know that many predominantly African American religious congregations often invite those seeking public office to address their services?
BIG difference there. These candidates were invited to ADDRESS SERVICES. However, I don't see them actively soliciting church membership lists, I don't see them asking bishops to preach in favour of them in churches across the nation, and I CERTAINLY do not see them asking the POPE for political intervention.
So, partner, I believe there's a difference. What Bush is doing is just sick. If he had just been invited to speak at a few churches...by the people of those churches, with no other religious intervention, fine. The church solicited him.
But it's the other way around now. Bush is trying to infiltrate the churches himself...forcing them to turn over their membership lists...to "be a good christian". He's trying to make it look "unfaithful" for those of a religious nature to vote for John Kerry. THAT is despicable. There is a big difference here and Bush has crossed the line and a nice healthy rebuke from the Pope oughtta nip this shit in the bud right now and expose yet another desperate disgusting measure by this waste of a president. As I hear, the pope wasn't all rosy about Bush. I'd LOVE a rebuke for Bush trying to make FAITH ITSELF a campaign issue by guilt-tripping believers out of voting for Kerry because Bush is "god's choice".
Yeah, some god's choice. Sure has a sense of humor.