Third Party & Independents: Archives

Adam,

So what you’re saying is that a convicted felon can run for president but yet has lost the right to vote entirely, sounds uniquely republican. I mean we know they can be appointed to cabinet positions in an administration such as John Poindexter was.

Wow, I’m awestruck. Are you sure you have this info correct? Mumia and Peltier? Man, we have lowered the bar.

I’m waiting for the next reality show by MTV. Swartzeneggar, Tammy Faye, and Eric Estrada running for President. Peltier is a natural for that one.

Greg,

Swartzeneggar cannot run, luckily. I’d rather have Peltier that the Gropenfurer.

Errand Boy,

This is from their website: “The winner of the non-binding March primary election was Native American political prisoner Leonard Peltier. The final decision will be made by the Party’s convention.”

Politics1 mentions that Mumia was a potential too, and the party website has a section dedicated to them. This is a socialist party. Breezing through their platform I see calls for 30 hour work week at 40 hour pay, a bunch of pro-union and strike conditions, equal rights for race, gender, disabilities, co-equal status for Spanish as an official language in California (they are California based it seems), and some pro-environment stuff. They want to remove the Electoral College, give equal access for candidates, and legislative representation for many viewpoints.

Anyway, the party is interesting, but I don’t live in California. It is interesting that you mentioned felons not being able to vote. Does it matter if you can run for election and but not be able to vote? It brings up a few more questions. Can George Bush vote for himself even though he is president? Or does living in Washington D.C. prohibit that? If someone like Mumia or Peltier got elected, would they have to stay in jail, or could they pardon themselves? I guess if they were confined to a jail cell, someone might finally beat Bush’s record time away from the Whitehouse. I’m kinda having an embarrassing amount of fun with this subject. Hmm…

I don’t see why Nader isn’t a “strange candidate”, while Michael Badnarik, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, is. Badnarik is the only candidate besides Bush and Kerry with a theoretical possibility of winning the election (on the ballot in enough states to get a majority of the electoral college), while Nader and the others are marginal.

What’s up with the “Personal Choice Party”??? A bookie and a porn-star!! They’ve got my vote!

I’m on their site and trying to find their issues…seems pretty much in line with the libertarians. But jeez, a porn star for VP???

John,

I never said Michael Badnarik was strange, just that he was more well known. Nader is well known too. Peltier and Mumia are just strange candidates.

Daniel Waldman,

Good point about Marilyn Chambers. I mean, who here isn’t a huge fan of cult porn films like Behind the Green Door?

Ah, resist, resist. Critique the Message, Not the Messenger…

Adam-
I misinterpretted your first paragraph. I see what you intended now.

There will be three televised debates this fall, and right now only Bush and Kerry will be allowed to participate. Without Ralph Nader’s inclusion, the critical issues facing our country - including the war in Iraq - will not be fully discussed.

50% of Americans have stopped voting because “slash and burn” politics has completely taken over. The major parties have made it clear that their primary commitment is to themselves and doing whatever it takes to win. It’s clear that if there’s going to be any change, ordinary citizens are going to have to take back control of our electoral process.

At the Democratic Party Convention, 93% of the delegates were against the war, and yet they uniformly, in knee-jerk fashion, nominated 2 pro-war candidates. Everything has become subsumed under the issue of beating Bush at any cost. To do that, so it goes, you can sacrifice anything, including whatever was left of the principles of the Democratic Party.

A new campaign www.letnaderdebate.org has formed to insist that Nader be allowed to debate. Democrats, Republicans and Independents who favor democracy over partisanship are signing an open letter to President Bush asking him to use his political clout to ensure that Nader is included. Please sign the letter today at www.letnaderdebate.org and send an email to everyone you know asking them to do the same!

Thanks.
Gwen

Gwen,

I agree. There has been all this “scandal” recently about Nader getting Republican signatures when both parties know full well they implement systems which hold other candidates back. I say give him signatures of any person willing whether or not they vote for Nader in the end. To me it’s more important to get these candidates out there and on ballots to increase representation than to hold back my signature in fear of “spoiler” bullcrap. I typically sign most petitions I run across on the street to get odd candidates in just because I feel that is the important first step in the democratic election process.