Should LaRouche be allowed to vote?

[sleipnir]

Seeing as he's a convicted felon and all.

But Lieberman should be convicted soon, so I guess it's all relative.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Lieberman should be convicted of what?

[sleipnir]

11. We all know his crimes, the trial is only inevitable,.

He will be convicted, then he can join the elitist club of Felons with Friends. Lieberman will be exposed and tried publically for all to see.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Being an RNC isn't a legal crime, just a political one.

So maybe you are just joking? Because I don't know any real crimes he's been accused of.

[Padraig18]

2. It's a matter of state law.

Some states disqualify felons permanently, some don't.

[ldoolin]

3. Sure, let him vote

There are only 7 states that disqualify ex-felons from voting, and Virginia is one of them. LaRouche could easily vote in the 2004 election if he wanted, just by moving to another state.

In any case, sure, why not let him vote, and why not admit what few delegates he will pick up in the primaries to the Democratic convention? They're harmless comic relief and nothing more. I'd draw the line at allowing him into the Democratic debates though.

[Kathleen04]

4. What is..

the objective criteria for who is allowed in the debates and who isn't?

[ldoolin]

8. Criteria

I don't know precisely; if somebody is or was a major office holder - Congress, Senate, Vice President, Governor - they are pretty much guaranteed inclusion in the debates.

Minor office holders are usually not, unless they are major national figures. Irvine, California mayor Larry Agran was not allowed into the 1992 debates seeing as how the political office he held was not a major one; however, I would suspect that if a NYC, Chicago, or Los Angeles mayor were to run they would be included.

Those who have never held public office seem to be included only if they demonstrate a major level of national support; e.g. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark. This would exclude LaRouche, whose group is correctly regarded as a tiny fringe political cult. Although it should be noted that LaRouche *was* allowed into at least one of the New Hampshire debates in 1980, probably on the grounds that he had been polling in the double digits there. (He wound up with 2% of the New Hampshire primary vote in 1980 - his support dropped off rapidly after the word got out about his esoteric views.)

There's also a "payback factor" involved, as seen in 1992 when Eugene McCarthy was excluded from the debates. He had been a Democratic senator and 1968 presidential candidate, but made a third party run in 1976, and threw his support behind the Libertarian candidate Ed Clark in 1980. I suspect that if either Ralph Nader or Ross Perot were to announce that they were entering the Democratic primary in 2008 they would get the same cold shoulder that McCarthy got in 1992, for the same reason. This also applies to LaRouche, who always runs as an independent in the general election after first running in the Democratic primaries.

On the other hand, George Wallace was allowed in the 1972 Democratic debates after running as an independent in 1968, so there might be exceptions to that last rule, again, based on what level of national support the candidate can demonstrate.

[Kathleen04]

10. Thanks for all the info..

very interesting. :)

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. as I understand it

Virginia does not allow felons to move out of state as long as they are still on "paper"...I do believe LaRouche is required to stay in Virginia because of this

[JohnKleeb]

6. that bastard lives in the next county

:scared:

[ldoolin]

7. "On paper"?

Don't understand what you mean here, is he still on parole? That would be the only reason I could think of why he couldn't legally move out of state.

[OhioStateProgressive]

9. i think he might be(nt)

[LTR]

13. Is tax evasion considered a 'felony'? (nm)

[BobbyJay]

14. Any crime in which the conviction results in a year or more of jailtime

is a felony.

[truthseeker1]

15. Wait a minute....

Wasn't he convicted of "conspiracy?" That sounds just a bit fishy to me, especially in light of all I've learned about the Bush junta in the last year. Why shouldn't LaRouche be allowed to vote and why shouldn't he be allowed in the debates??

Please fill me in.