Judge rules Kucinich can't be on Texas ballot

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8U3QJG80.html

"01/11/2008

Associated Press


A federal judge says presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich can't be on the Texas ballot because he refused to sign a state Democratic Party pledge.

Kucinich and supporter Willie Nelson had sued the party to try to get on the March 4 primary election ballot despite the refusal to sign part of the oath committing him to "fully support" the Democrat nominated for president.

Judge Lee Yeakel ruled Friday in Austin that the courts should intervene sparingly in political party rulemaking.

Kucinich's attorney, Donald McTigue, says a paramount issue for Kucinich is opposition to the war in Iraq. The congressman from Ohio does not want to support a candidate with differing views on the war, McTigue says."

[Kucinich4America]

1. A Chimp appointee

What a fucking shock..... :puke:

WRITE IN, Texans!!

[slipslidingaway]

4. Yes :( n/t

[halobeam]

2. k & r

[shance]

3. Where in the heck is the DNC on this?

Hello? Aren't anyone of our so called "Democratic"organizations going to do their job?

When did it become a statute in which candidates had to perform "mother may I" and sign an illegitimate pledge which has no bearing in a national election?

[slipslidingaway]

5. Guess they are in agreement??? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Apperently there was a problem in TX of GOPers running as Democrats and

this pledge is an attempt to try and stop this.

What is really funny is that Kucinich gladly signed this pledge in 2004.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Outrageous! Now they've excluded him from another debate!

Kucinich really challenges the political establishment on the toughest issues--such as war and their goddamned rigged voting machines. No wonder he is marginalized and ridiculed. Well, he can wear this ostracism as a Red Badge of Courage. I was leaning toward voting for Edwards in the CA primary--for what my vote is worth these days--because he's come later to the anti-war, anti-corporate position, and thus the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and the corporate election theft industry haven't had time to erase him, as they have Kucinich (who is possibly too honest--they could see him coming). Edwards was a VP nominee. He debated Cheney. He's a U.S. Senator and has more establishment creds than Kucinich. And he still has a good chance of winning. I was even thinking of sending Edwards a contribution. But not until Edwards objects to this exclusion of Kucinich from debates and from Texas. This is a litmus test for me now. If they don't support fair treatment of candidates and good ideas, to hell with them.

Kucinich is doing Edwards a big favor, by challenging the voting machines early (in NH). Public awareness of the riggable machines, and high vigilance over vote counts, is the only way that Edwards can win. And I think Edwards knows that '04 was rigged. He needs to back Kucinich on his right to debate and to be on the ballot without unamerican loyalty oaths like this putrid thing contrived by establishment Democrats in Texas. I'm waiting. NONE of these so-called Democratic candidates has defended Kucinich's rights thus far.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thanks for the kind words about Kucinich, he really does take

on the toughest issues in challenging the establishment for the benefit of people. I would hope the other candidates would speak out on the unfair treatment in Texas and the debates, although they have remained silent in the past.

:(


Another important issue to me was posted here tonight and again none of the other candidates have spoken out on this issue. Four million plus people displaced, countless dead and injured both in our country and in Iraq, and they remain silent. In good conscience I cannot vote for someone who says nothing.

:cry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2665314

"The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil company would retain control of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oil fields, leaving the rest - including all yet to be discovered oil - under foreign corporate control for 30 years." All in all, a pretty sweet deal for the U.S. and trans-national corporations, paid for in part thus far by the sacrifice of nearly 4,000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqis, a necessary cost of doing business if you don't mind havin gothers get their hands bloody..."

[DesertRat]

9. kick