Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some help, please - what's the issue with some states having to change

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:16 PM
Original message
Some help, please - what's the issue with some states having to change
their ballots because of something the bushies did this year? Is it because the republi-CONS moved their convention so late? Not sure I understand this one fully. Anybody know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gotta kick this - I could use some help.
Thanks in advance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gothmog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Mostly moot issue now
Rove has scheduled the GOP convention as close as possible to Sept 11 to take advantage of the Sept 11 as an issue. This is later than any past convention.

Many states have requirments that ballots have to be set by Sept. 1 or the end of August. These states had to adopt changes to the law to allow for the nominee of a party to be designated later than normal. Illinois had such a law and amendments were adopted to allow the GOP to still get Bush on the ballot.

One side effect of the late GOP convention is that Bush will get to outsend Senator Kerry and the Democrats. Once a person is the nominee of a major party, then that person gets the $75 million public funds and can only spend out of such funds. Since Senator Kerry was going to be nominated in July, this would give Bush and Rove five weeks to outspend Senator Kerry and the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks - that does help. I wasn't sure of the details.
Somebody invariably is gonna ask me about it, and I'm just now realizing how MANY MANY details of how MANY MANY issues and scandals here that I do NOT have committed to memory. Thanks again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billybob537 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Another sneaky trick foiled !
Kerry doesn't have to accept the nomination until SHRUBCO does! Too bad SHRUB*. Say good bye whistle ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yeah, what I also like about that is that it saves another photo op
and more press coverage for just about the time the republi-CONS are yukking it up in NYC. Everyone will still be talking about Kerry and waiting for him to make his acceptance. That may be the "Steal Their Thunder" strategy.

Looks like Kerry may be able to manipulate chess pieces as well as kkkarl thinks he himself can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Since their earlier ad efforts failed in regards to Junior and the WTC...
...they're certainly not going to get any mileage out of any association with September 11th at their convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gothmog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. You are welcome
I think that the concept of Senator Kerry waiting to accept the nomination to be very interesting and worth pursuing. There is time to still modify the schedule at the convention.

One other related issue is that I saw a piece that the change in the laws to accommodate Bush's late nomination may give Nader grounds or an argument to attack states with laws that were changed. The concept is that a state can not stack the process to make it too difficult for an independent to get on the ballot while making special accommodations to one of the major parties. For what I could tell that this was some sort of equal protection argument.

BTW, I was proud of the Dems in Illinois. Evidently, they got a number of nice compromises and concessions from the GOP members of the Illinois legislature in exchange for the change in the law to let Bush's name be on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC