Rick Perry Campaign Consultant Anthony Holm Worked to Get Green Party on the Ballot

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

While the video is just an odd contradiction in action, I am most confused why she doesn't capitalize her name. I am very disappointed that no reporter asked her that.

If anyone knows the answer, I would love to hear it.  

---

by: M. Eddie Rodriguez @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 15:32:41 PM UTC

Her rejection of the status quo began (0.00 / 0)

in the first grade.

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 21:22:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess its like calling (0.00 / 0)

yourself Ke$ha or The Artist Formerly Know As Prince ... I supposed. I was hoping she fashioned herself to be like ee cummings or some trite derivative of that.

---

by: M. Eddie Rodriguez @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 21:33:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anti-democratic Democrats (0.00 / 0)

While it does not surprise me that Democrats only want themselves and Republicans on the ballot, I see no legal argument here that the Green Party should not exist in this year's Texas election.

The only argument is whether petitions can be collected by a corporation to get a party on the ballot. So, is this an administrative expense or a campaign expense? The Democrats and Republicans need not gather signatures and can begin campaigning. Greens, Libertarians, Constitution, independents, and Tea Partiers can campaign but will garner no votes if the are not on the ballot. Democracy is not capitalism. You can sell products on the black-market, but you cannot garner a black-market vote.

Democrats are claiming that these 92,000+ Green Party petition signers are black-market voters who do not count. Am I the only one who sees this as anti-democratic, or do I need partisan-tinged glasses to see this? (Or Democrat Party reprogramming?)

---

by: Kevinchavis @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 15:56:56 PM UTC

Not surprised you can't see it. (0.00 / 0)

Google Tom DeLay TRMPAC" and you'll see plenty of evidence of the legal precedent established for the case against the Greens' funding source for their ballot petitions. This has nothing to do with the GOP, it is to be noted.

As to your argument in the the second graf, the ends (having more voices in the process) simply don't justify the means (violating election law). Picking the nits associated with the definition of "administrative expenses" is folly here.

And your use of "Democrat" Party, an epithet known to all who use it, reveals you not as someone who wants to see democratic principles employed in this exercise but as another Republican sympathizer.

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 21:37:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Greens Determined to Repeat History? (5.00 / 1)

I had voted Green and Third Party for most of my voting life, well at least from 1980 through 2000.

I would like nothing more than to see a VIABLE third party, all across the country, but that starts at the grassroots, not at the top of the ticket. So where are their candidates for State House and Senate and US House and Senate?

The Greens will not be a VIABLE Political Party until we have Instant Runoff Voting.   As far as that goes, we do not have a runoff in the Gubernatorial Race.  Plurality on November 2 wins.

And that is the reason why the Republicans are so intent in putting the Green Party on the ballot.  It is not because they suddenly had an epiphany and found new respect for Democracy and Ecology.  The latest polls put White and Perry tied, both below 50%.  With the Greens on the ballot, they would pull 3%-5% of the vote away from White.

Perry wins.  We all lose.

The Greens have not learned any lessons from Florida 2000.

---

by: ProgressiveInTexas @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 16:35:42 PM UTC

543 Votes (0.00 / 0)

You would think Nader defeated Gore in Florida ten years ago with all the false rhetoric. Repeat a lie enough times and people believe it. Just as Iraq never had WMDs, Nader did not cause Gore to lose. The truth is more registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than ALL those who voted for Nader.

However, If you want to blame any Florida candidate who received more than 543 votes for electing Bush and not voting Gore you would have to also blame:
*The Socialist Parties (both of them
*Workers World
*Natural Law

The California Greens have a short response with regards to this partisan lie: http://www.cagreens.org/alamed...

We could also ignore the fact that Clinton-Gore policy is responsible for the lack of oversight of the banking industry leading to the near collapse of our economy in 2008. Welfare reform and NAFTA haven't been good deals for the working class either. Do we really need to re-hash reasons people voted Green or is our continual lack of Single-Payer Health-care or excess nuclear waste enough?  

---

by: Kevinchavis @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 17:51:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Greens were one factor in Gore's loss. (3.00 / 1)

Not the only and certainly not the most significant. Theresa LePore's butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, and the disenfranchisement of Florida voters whose names were passingly similar to the ones of convicted felons by the vendor Katherine Harris hired to cull the state's voter rolls, Choicepoint -- to mention just two -- were probably more significant than the Clinton administration policy you cite there at the end.

Refrying those beans is pointless, however.  Still, your hyper-defensiveness to this charge is noted.

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 21:48:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]