So Huckabee would be the only legit candidate on the ballot...?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
While this does reflect poorly on whoever is in charge of McCain's campaign for that state, I'd hardly characterize it as "called in their cronies" to allow the frontrunner on the ballot when the only issue was a minor technicality involving nine votes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: So Huckabee would be the only legit candidate on the ballot...?
Very funny.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
McCain will have secured the nomination by then.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I mean on the Indiana ballot.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
We love our primary, we really do.
Though I'm not sure I trust the news source.
I just looked in our phone book and didn't find a Thomas Cook that would live in the 4th District.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I mean on the Indiana ballot.
You mean you were serious? You do realize that there are three Republican candidates left in the race, right? McCain, Huckabee, and Paul.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I think Dag is right, he'll most likely have it tied up by then.
Which really makes this all the more glaring. I mean, there's no way he'd be able to have this not be a story, but there might have been a way to spin it so it didn't look criminal (or actually BE criminal if that's the case). He could have just said "We've already secured the nomination, and though we won't be on the Indiana ballot due to a mixup or technicality, we've secured victory." Now he'll likely say he had nothing to do with it, but he's still going to have the shadow of it fall on him in some small way, even if it's just in Indiana.
It's a needless mistake, and perfect fodder for Democrats.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So Huckabee would be the only legit candidate on the ballot...?" "You do realize that there are three Republican candidates left in the race, right? McCain, Huckabee, and Paul."
Skipped a word. There are two legit candidates left in the race for the Republican nomination. McCain is facing criminal conviction in federal court.
[ February 26, 2008, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'll be campaign fodder and nothing more. There won't be a quorum in 120 days, and McCain will assert that he can do whatever he wants, but without a quorum, the FEC can't do anything to punish him can they?
But it'll be great material for Obama to use against him. McCain can't even abide by the rules that he himself created. If he can't follow his own laws, what other laws can we expect him to break? Isn't this just more of the same? Yadda yadda yadda, the ads write themselves.
My gut reaction is that McCain is trying to have it both ways, but I don't know the specifics of the law or when he signed onto the program. If the public financing was what got him the loan in the first place, that might have been what vaulted him into the lead after New Hampshire, then I think he's under an obligation to stick with the program. You can't use it to get where you want and abandon it when it stops being convenient. But I'm not entirely sure that's what happened, so, I'd like to hear more details.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Without a quorum, the matter goes before a federal court. Admittedly if legit mattered, Republicans woulda impeached&convicted Dubya in 2004 insteada renominating him.
[ February 26, 2008, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The impression I got from the article is that the FEC itself has to bring charges against them, and that they rarely go that far. If there's no quorum, you're saying the matter automatically goes before the court?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"If the FEC doesn't have a quorum in 120 days, Democrats can ask a federal court to review its complaint." And once a case reaches court, the court itself can refer the matter for further prosecution based upon the testimony.
Mostly, I'm being facetious. There ain't a chance of this going beyond thud&blunder...unless a Huckabee"miracle" occurs. Speaking of which, didja know that ChuckNorris is MikeHuckabee's son? Yep, kept hush-hush due to the surrounding scandal.
[ February 26, 2008, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I didn't realize there were more than two Republican candidates left. All CNN International's reporting is only McCain/Huckabee for some time now. Is there anyone other than Clinton and Obama in the Democratic race?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
CNN has been doing its level best to ignore Ron Paul from the get-go. He came in second to Romney in Nevada, beating both McCain and Huckabee, but the silence was deafening.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Intriguing. I don't think Sky mentions Paul any more, either, now that I think of it. If it ever did.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I believe Kucinich is still in the Democratic race but I could be wrong. In 04 he stayed there until the convention.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
No, Kucinich officially withdrew from the race.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Kucinich dropped out after Nevada. Gavel is still in the race, and still pulling ~0.05% of the vote. And Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson are still each individually pulling in more votes than Gavel.
[ February 26, 2008, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So they are objecting to his failure to fulfill a technicality by accusing him of getting his cronies to "rubberstamp" approval?
He who lives by the bureaucracy may not die by the bureaucracy?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Kucinich dropped out after Nevada. Gavel is still in the race, and still pulling ~0.05% of the vote. And Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson are still each individually pulling in more votes than Gavel.
And they're still listing Gravel, despite how few votes he's getting, and still not listing Ron Paul. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So they are objecting to his failure to fulfill a technicality by accusing him of getting his cronies to "rubberstamp" approval?
He who lives by the bureaucracy may not die by the bureaucracy?
A technicality? There are legal requirements. We have a president right now who doesn't think the rules apply to him. You want another one?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Kucinich dropped out after Nevada. Gavel is still in the race, and still pulling ~0.05% of the vote. And Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson are still each individually pulling in more votes than Gavel.
And they're still listing Gravel
They are? I was surprised to hear that he was still in the race, myself; I haven't heard any mention of him in ages.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So as of the 20th there were still signatures coming in, and all this guy can say is it's "fishy." Does he have grounds to challenge these new signatures or not? It's 6 days later. What's the status?
Without more, sounds like typical conspiracy BS to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just checked CNN. In their nationwide polls, they're not listing Gravel, but they are listing Paul. One thing that should be noted, a lot of the coverage is about contenders, not just candidates. As has been said many times, Ron Paul was never a serious contender for the Republican nomination. He never had a chance of winning.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in this focus in the primaries. They shouldn't just be about who is projected to win where, but a chance to explore multiple perspectives on the issues facing the country. Ron Paul represented something that many Americans got behind. Just because it is not something that a majority of Americans could ever get behind doesn't mean that it should be excluded from the primary discussions the way it has.
Likewise, many of the minority candidates on the Democratic side had some different and provocative things to say. By focusing on the horse race aspects, the media, in my opinion, has forfeited an opportunity to add more depth to American political discourse. We should be considering wider perspectives, even if it is just to reject them, and while it may be unrealistic to expect the major media outlets to take anything but the simplistic, easy way, I think they have a duty to do much more than they have.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've talked way more about Paul's issues than I've talked about Clinton's issues. When it comes to issues, I'm not really sure Obama and Clinton are that different.
There has been a hurricane around McCain's positions on the right.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :