Some help, please - what's the issue with some states having to change
their ballots because of something the bushies did this year? Is it because the republi-CONS moved their convention so late? Not sure I understand this one fully. Anybody know?
Rove has scheduled the GOP convention as close as possible to Sept 11 to take advantage of the Sept 11 as an issue. This is later than any past convention.
Many states have requirments that ballots have to be set by Sept. 1 or the end of August. These states had to adopt changes to the law to allow for the nominee of a party to be designated later than normal. Illinois had such a law and amendments were adopted to allow the GOP to still get Bush on the ballot.
One side effect of the late GOP convention is that Bush will get to outsend Senator Kerry and the Democrats. Once a person is the nominee of a major party, then that person gets the $75 million public funds and can only spend out of such funds. Since Senator Kerry was going to be nominated in July, this would give Bush and Rove five weeks to outspend Senator Kerry and the Democrats.
3. Thanks - that does help. I wasn't sure of the details.
Somebody invariably is gonna ask me about it, and I'm just now realizing how MANY MANY details of how MANY MANY issues and scandals here that I do NOT have committed to memory. Thanks again!
5. Yeah, what I also like about that is that it saves another photo op
and more press coverage for just about the time the republi-CONS are yukking it up in NYC. Everyone will still be talking about Kerry and waiting for him to make his acceptance. That may be the "Steal Their Thunder" strategy.
Looks like Kerry may be able to manipulate chess pieces as well as kkkarl thinks he himself can.
I think that the concept of Senator Kerry waiting to accept the nomination to be very interesting and worth pursuing. There is time to still modify the schedule at the convention.
One other related issue is that I saw a piece that the change in the laws to accommodate Bush's late nomination may give Nader grounds or an argument to attack states with laws that were changed. The concept is that a state can not stack the process to make it too difficult for an independent to get on the ballot while making special accommodations to one of the major parties. For what I could tell that this was some sort of equal protection argument.
BTW, I was proud of the Dems in Illinois. Evidently, they got a number of nice compromises and concessions from the GOP members of the Illinois legislature in exchange for the change in the law to let Bush's name be on the ballot.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.