McCain and the GOP Sue Bob Barr

[bamacre]

"McCain and Republican Party Try to Block Barr From Ballot"
linky

:laugh:

All I can really say is, "good."

It is nice to know that the little bit of votes Barr is receiving is hurting the GOP's chances in 2008. I guess the question is, will they learn? Probably not.

 

[frostedflakes]

LOL :laugh:

 

[Deeko]

Pretty funny and goes to show that McCain isn't the straight shooter he claims to be....but there wasn't a lot of info in that link on what actually happened. Just a lot of quotes from 2000 and from his campaign people about why it's bad.

 

[First]

I see zero justification for that sort of lawsuit. There is no fair or democratic reasoning that can possibly be used to support such a move. Barr is a legitimate candidate, he was nominated by his party, paid his fees, and has been a good and long-standing civil service official for many many years now.

 

[dawp]

If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

 

[bdude]

As undemocratic as can be. Quite sad indeed and I hope they don't succeed.

 

[newnameman]

In case anyone cares to read the actual lawsuit:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/ext/Pennsylvania.pdf

IMO, if the facts alleged in the suit are true (that the LP purposefully misled petition signers into thinking that a PA resident would be the nominee) then Barr shouldn't be allowed on the ballot.

 

[libertarian420]

i'm voting for barr. i was going to vote for alan keyes but he wont be on the va ballot.

there's not a huge difference between barr's stances now and keyes stances, but if given the choice i favor keyes over barr because barr was actually once at odds with the lp.

mccain wouldn't have come anywhere close to getting the gop nomination if independents hadn't been able to vote in the primaries. i just hope everyone knows that.

i never vote for who i think has more of a chance, i vote for what one's principles and intentions are. just because dr. paul would always be out voted by liberal unconstitutional idiots, doesn't mean i wouldn't vote for him. he made every effort to stop billshit/bush, and that's what counts.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: newnameman
In case anyone cares to read the actual lawsuit:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/ext/Pennsylvania.pdf

IMO, if the facts alleged in the suit are true (that the LP purposefully misled petition signers into thinking that a PA resident would be the nominee) then Barr shouldn't be allowed on the ballot.

The lawsuit is incredibly weak:

The lawsuit, in essence, is saying that (1) the Libertarian Party - in an attempt to subvert Pennsylvania election law - fraudulently continued to portray Etzel as their nominee for President even after the date Barr was been chosen as the nominee at their convention, and (2) Barr was a party to the fraud.

But the flaws in the lawsuit are:

a) Why would could Barr participate in such a fraud (assuming it occurred), since he couldn't possibly benefit from it? (Note that any signatures collected in support of Etzel were of no value to Barr.)

b) Although the lawsuit alleges that Barr was a party to the fraud, it provides no evidence in support of that allegation; all it does say, in item 10, is that "Party officials" exchanged emails about the alleged scheme.

c) Item 13, says that "The Party collected more than enough signatures to place Barr on the Pennsylvania ballot after the Party's Convention, nominating Barr . . . ." This further shows that Barr would have no reason whatsoever to participate in the alleged fraud, and that even if such a fraud actually occurred, it had no material effect on Barr's getting on the Pennsylvania ballot. That is, regardless of what happened with Etzel, Barr legitimately got on the Pennsylvania ballot.

d) Item 18 says ". . . Barr states under oath that he 'will not knowingly violate any election law..., yet he allowed nominating papers to be circulated in Pennsylvania with Etzel's name as the candidate . . . after he was nominated . . . .'" But Item 18 also says that this affidavit was included with the Substitute Nomination Certificate - filed on August 15, AFTER the alleged fraud took place. Therefore, Barr's "WILL not knowingly violate" is actually a truthful statement, even if he had knowledge of the (earlier) fraud.

In summary, the lawsuit is completely unpersuasive, and I'll bet it's found to not have any merit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

They are relevant because the person I was responding to wasnt aware that the democrats did indeed sue to keep Nader off the ballot in 04. He thought they simply asked him to stay off. In the aftermath they actually set legal precedent that allows the two parties to collect lawyer fee's from 3rd party campaigns should the 3rd party candidate lose that contention in court.

Try reading what I am responding to before adding your 2 cents.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

They are relevant because the person I was responding to wasnt aware that the democrats did indeed sue to keep Nader off the ballot in 04. He thought they simply asked him to stay off. In the aftermath they actually set legal precedent that allows the two parties to collect lawyer fee's from 3rd party campaigns should the 3rd party candidate lose that contention in court.

Try reading what I am responding to before adding your 2 cents.

LOL, you just evaded the point again.

 

[Genx87]

The point which you two are clearly missing is I was responding to dawp, not the OP. Pay attention, this isnt rocket science.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The point which you two are clearly missing is I was responding to dawp, not the OP. Pay attention, this isnt rocket science.

No, you selectively avoided the OP. I didn't miss anything.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

They are relevant because the person I was responding to wasnt aware that the democrats did indeed sue to keep Nader off the ballot in 04. He thought they simply asked him to stay off. In the aftermath they actually set legal precedent that allows the two parties to collect lawyer fee's from 3rd party campaigns should the 3rd party candidate lose that contention in court.

Try reading what I am responding to before adding your 2 cents.

LOL, you just evaded the point again.

Which point, that you moveon leftist koolaid drinkers freely play dodge and weave with the truth or that you are a blindf imbecile as there is nothing incorrect with what he stated.


But don't worry, your messiah would never do such a thing.



Oh wait....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
The point which you two are clearly missing is I was responding to dawp, not the OP. Pay attention, this isnt rocket science.

No, you selectively avoided the OP. I didn't miss anything.

Well no shit sherlock. That will happen when you dont respond to the OP.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: libertarian420
i'm voting for barr. i was going to vote for alan keyes but he wont be on the va ballot.

there's not a huge difference between barr's stances now and keyes stances, but if given the choice i favor keyes over barr because barr was actually once at odds with the lp.

mccain wouldn't have come anywhere close to getting the gop nomination if independents hadn't been able to vote in the primaries. i just hope everyone knows that.

i never vote for who i think has more of a chance, i vote for what one's principles and intentions are. just because dr. paul would always be out voted by liberal unconstitutional idiots, doesn't mean i wouldn't vote for him. he made every effort to stop billshit/bush, and that's what counts.

Considering Dr. Paul's principles include theocracy, I don't see how you could support him.

 

[libertarian420]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: libertarian420
i'm voting for barr. i was going to vote for alan keyes but he wont be on the va ballot.

there's not a huge difference between barr's stances now and keyes stances, but if given the choice i favor keyes over barr because barr was actually once at odds with the lp.

mccain wouldn't have come anywhere close to getting the gop nomination if independents hadn't been able to vote in the primaries. i just hope everyone knows that.

i never vote for who i think has more of a chance, i vote for what one's principles and intentions are. just because dr. paul would always be out voted by liberal unconstitutional idiots, doesn't mean i wouldn't vote for him. he made every effort to stop billshit/bush, and that's what counts.

Considering Dr. Paul's principles include theocracy, I don't see how you could support him.

What exactly do you mean by that? I agree with him on every single issue, contributed to his campaign, and regularly receive emails from his campaign.

As for my faith, I'm a christian, but i don't really follow the bible, and I would never belong to an organized denomination of christianity.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is just a fine how do you do. Here the Libertarian party gets hijacked by a Republican and now the Republicans are trying to keep them off the ballot. As a Libertarian this puts me in a real quandary. I want to drive a nail into my flesh somewhere to add to my martyrdom complex but with my hands and feet already nailed, I can't get to the hammer. Oh man, everything just sucks.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is just a fine how do you do. Here the Libertarian party gets hijacked by a Republican and now the Republicans are trying to keep them off the ballot. As a Libertarian this puts me in a real quandary. I want to drive a nail into my flesh somewhere to add to my martyrdom complex but with my hands and feet already nailed, I can't get to the hammer. Oh man, everything just sucks.

Sounds like you have a Jesus complex. Maybe that's why you like Obama so much. Birds of a feather...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
The point which you two are clearly missing is I was responding to dawp, not the OP. Pay attention, this isnt rocket science.

No, you selectively avoided the OP. I didn't miss anything.

Well no shit sherlock. That will happen when you dont respond to the OP.

Well, OK. Let's cut thought the sh!t:

First, here's some more info about the allegations and counter-allegations related to this lawsuit:

More info

Cumberland County GOP chairman Victor Stabile, an attorney who filed suit to remove Barr, said he?s fine with third-party candidates, but is crying foul because Libertarians listed Rochelle Etzel of Clarion County as their prospective presidential candidate when gathering petition signatures to put a nominee on the ballot.

Stabile acknowledged that state law allows parties to replace a candidate who withdraws, but said Pennsylvania Libertarians never intended for Etzel to run.

?The problem we have is that, as we understand it, and based upon the evidence that I?ve seen is that they circulated these petitions with Etzel?s name, never intending her to be the candidate,? Stabile said. ?They went to the convention, nominated Barr, and then she withdrew.?

Stabile said his court filing cites internal Libertarian e-mail indicating that they intended to nominate Barr, not Etzel, and likened it to voter fraud.

But Pennsylvania Libertarian Party Chair Mik Robertson decries the allegations based on the timeline of the Libertarian nomination process. Robertson said the state party decided to nominate Etzel in February, at which time the party started gathering the 25,000 signatures necessary to put a candidate on the ballot. Barr announced his intention to run for president in mid-May, and the Libertarian national convention wasn?t held until the weekend of May 26.

?There was no way to know that (Barr) was even in contention,? Robertson said. ?Much less the national party nominee at the time we started gathering signatures.

Now, let's agree that Dems have tried to keep Nader off the ballot in past elections, but that they never promised NOT to do so. So we can conclude bupkis about the Dems' integrity with respect to this issue.

Let's also agree that it's established fact that McCain promised to NOT allow any supporter of his to challenge an opponent's right to be on the ballot, yet we know that just such a challenge (begun August 20th), from a McCain supporter (Pennsylvania GOP official Victor P. Stabile), is taking place right now and to our best knowledge McCain has not issued orders for that action to be stopped.

So, Genx, what do you conclude about McCain's integrity in light of these facts?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lupi



But don't worry, your messiah would never do such a thing.

Heh, yeah didn't he have someone removed from the ballot during one of his runs in Illinois?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

Zing

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

Zing

Well shucks. I guess mccain should just go and decline public financing now.