Jump to content

Musical Chairs

WPB Dawg Fan

Recommended Posts

2004, the Democratic Party decided that the people of Massachusetts were best served by NOT being represented for a period of as many as 5 months.


In a pair of votes that lacked suspense but not passion, Beacon Hill Democrats yesterday stripped Governor Mitt Romney of his power to choose a replacement for Senator John F. Kerry if the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee wins the White House.


The vote on the bill, which would establish a special election to fill the Senate vacancy, ends more than six months of wrangling, arguing, and maneuvering over the issue. A number of ambitious Massachusetts Democrats are eager to run for the post if it becomes open, and national Democratic leaders believe that the seat could make a difference in their drive to reclaim the Senate.


Fast forward to today...and the very same Democratic Party is telling us that the people of Massachusetts MUST have representation NOW...that it cannot wait for the special election that THEY in fact sponsored just 5 years ago.


This is politics at it's best...because the flip side of this is that the Republicans fought long and hard for the rights of the Governor to appoint the new seat in 2004...and now they are crying foul...that in fact the process should remain the same.


With this one little, seemingly insignificant, drama....the 2 parties have just conclusively proven what I (and many others) have been saying.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

and many still think health care reform is about helping people.


Health care reform should be about helping people.


While im not 100% sure and hence also do not agree with Obama health care, I feel that there is a need to improve the health care system and that need should not be forgotten. Health care is a drain on our resource and we need to make it more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is....in Washington...most of this is NOT about people and their healthcare. It is about enforcing the will of the party. If it was about healthcare, we would not be hearing stupid stuff like:


Socialist Medicine (Rep) - Please, it isn't socialist unless EVERYONE gets FREE healthcare...and that is not what we are talking about

Now or Never (Dem) - Why? Seriously, isn't it about getting it right instead of right NOW?!?!

Death Panels (Rep) - End of life counseling is helping people make decisions, not telling them they have no life

Zero Impact to Debt (Dem) - Really? They haven't even found 1/2 of the $1+ Trillion it will cost...and have been forced to admit that they may need to include middle class taxes just to come close (that is $30k and more)

Rationing (Rep) - At least not literally. Everything will be available...you just might not have coverage for it and YOU pay for it

No Raise in Private Insurance Rates - Again, REALLY? Medicare payments are so low that they often don't even cover the expense of providing a service. This forces hospitals/physicians to charge more to private payers and insurances. If another 50 million people (Medicare covers 35 million) are on an NHI, it will force hospitals to charge more to the remaining self pays/inurances which will then drive up premiums...which in turn will cause more to go on the NIH...see the cycle???


These are just a few of the lies by BOTH parties about healthcare. They don't care if they tell half truths or outright lies, as long as THEIR PARTY comes out on the winning side...and again, WE ARE THE ONES LEFT HOLDING THE EMPTY BAG AND PAYING FOR IT!!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice try dan....15 seconds in google will give ya the equivalent story by the Dims.


its an old trick...used by BOTH parties.



you forget this already?





face it, boith parties, and the majority in them, aren't worth the flesh they inhabit. this partisan hackery has to stop if we are to gain our country back from these xxxxing nitwits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We missed our chance in 2004. That was the first election that had the internet available to everyone with NEITHER party really utilizing it. We, as a people, could have put forth ANYONE and possibly gotten them into the Whitehouse...but there are more blocks to that than most of us even know.


In many states, you MUST be either a Republican or Democrat even to be on the ballot. In others, there is a long, drawn out process in which you have to get thousands of signatures


How Ballot Access Restrictions Harm Minor Presidential Candidates

Each state makes its own laws governing how a candidate gets on the ballot. This is true even for candidates for president.


Rules vary widely. Some states make it very easy for candidates to get on the ballot; other states make it very difficult. Typically, a candidate for president running in the Democratic or Republican primary can get on the ballot by paying a filing fee, although a substantial minority of states require the primary candidate to submit a petition signed by some specified number of voters. By contrast, a candidate running as an independent in the general election in November, or a candidate running as the nominee of a new, or previously unrecognized, political party is usually required to obtain thousands of petition signatures in each state to be included on the general election ballot.


Further, they even differentiate on whether somebody is 'important' or not:


Ballot Access Laws Governing the Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries

To be included on all state primary ballots, presidential candidates must pay total filing fees of $8,100. In addition, candidates must submit petition signatures from registered voters, but the number of signatures required depends upon whether the candidate is "important" or "unimportant ."


An "important" candidate running in the Democratic primary must submit 26,000 signatures nationwide; an "important" Republican must submit 54,750.


However, if the candidate is "unimportant," he or she needs 112,251 petition signatures to qualify for access to the Democratic primary ballot or 141,001 signatures for the Republican.


"Important" candidates need fewer signatures than "unimportant" candidates because many states waive signature requirements for "important" candidates. But no state uses the term "important candidates" or "unimportant candidates." Instead, their laws refer to "candidates recognized in the news media" and "other candidates." In other words, if a candidate is acknowledged by television newsmen and major newspaper reporters as someone worth covering, then that candidate has a much easier time getting on the ballot.


Even in states which make no distinction between "candidates recognized by the media" and "other candidates," the former have an advantage getting on the ballot. For example, in 1988 Republican presidential candidates needed 5,000 signatures to get on the Texas primary ballot. Most of the Republican contenders, including Senator Robert Dole, failed to get these signatures. It turned out that many of the Republican candidates had hired the same petition-gathering firm to obtain the needed signatures. In turn, this particular petition-gathering firm hired unscrupulous petitioners who forged names on the petitions. When the forgeries were discovered and invalidated, the state Republican Party and the Texas Secretary of State quickly announced that all the candidates would be placed on the ballot anyway, even though most of them did not have enough valid signatures. "Unimportant" candidates never get such royal treatment when they fail to get enough signatures.


And Independants need even MORE:


Ballot Access Laws Governing Third Party and Independent Candidates

Following the primaries, independent candidates and nominees of third parties must gain access to the general election ballot. For independents and third party nominees, the laws are more severe than for candidates running as Democrats or Republicans. Independent presidential candidates and third party nominees need approximately 750,000 valid signatures in order to get on the general election ballots of all states. For Democrats and Republicans, access is automatic. In 1924, third party presidential candidates needed only 75,000 signatures to get on the ballot of all states. The population of the United States since doubled, but ballot access laws are many times more diffficult. Change began during the 1930s when major party politicians were eager to discourage labor from starting its own party.


The laws were again made more restrictive during the period 1948-1953 when fear and hatred of the Communist Party were very strong. Ballot access laws were tightened further during 1969-1975 after George Wallace's 1968 third party showing of 13% shocked Democratic and Republican Party politicians. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court stated for the first time that overly strict ballot access laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1971, the Court made it plain that they were only willing to declare such laws unconstitutional if the laws were so diffficult that virtually no one could ever use them. The Court has ruled that ballot access laws can require candidates to obtain the signatures of 5 % of the number of registered voters. Five percent of the number of registered voters in the U.S. at this time is approximately 7,500,000. Since petition gathering costs about $1.00 per signature, the Court's ruling means that it is constitutionally permissible for states to erect ballot access hurdles costing candidates over $7,000,000 to comply.


So you can see...our entire system is built to PROTECT THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM. It goes out of it's way to ensure that we cannot get another party in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...