Replies

You know what I’ve always found so strange about that statement, especially coming from a judge now. When I was with the LP working on a Presidential Campaign, and a US Senate campaign, and a CO House campaign — I didn’t know ANYONE who ever said as a candidate (one I was volunteering or working for or otherwise), or a campaign volunteer that wanted to NOT win, or was in the race just to hurt Republicans (as many Conservatives think - of all 3rd parties that is, not just the LP and the Rep “equation”...).

In fact, when I sat on the BOD for LPCO there wasn’t one of us in that room that EVER made a decision based on “losing” an election. There are SO many “natural” obstacles in place for 3rd parties to overcome — especially in the media (think we had it bad trying to expose Obama? Imagine just trying to get your candidate OUT there in a 3rd party!).

Now, I will admit that in states where one has to win a certain percentage of the state’s percentage in a Statewide and/or National election a 3rd party may run a candidate in some states and not others. Then, there is also getting ON the ballot in some states which was hard — even for the LP which had money to pay workers (I know nothing of other 3rd parties) we STILL had to work our BUTTS off like CRAZY to go around (walking) and getting petition signatures in MANY states — no small number of signatures when you are talking about ballot access in a Presidential election. We were lucky in Colorado as our candidates had done pretty well in past elections, and we had a public citizenry as well as politicians who encouraged 3rd party involvement in the process. As a matter of fact, the year I sat on the BOD we ran MORE candidates than the DEMOCRATS did that year — and again, not ONE of them didn’t WANT to win - their actual real prospect of winning due to various campaign problems notwithstanding. And, it had nothing to do with viewpoints as much as non-professional politicians wanting to SERVE their communities who just didn’t know what to do in order to get “in the game” so to speak, those who had no real idea how to raise money for their campaign (it’s not as easy as it would seem - 3rd party candidates run on issues not on party recognition in most cases), or just those who plain did NOT understand the time committment required to RUN a good campaign (especially without enough money to pay professionals salary to help!).

I just wanted to put this out there because I got SO tired of hearing this attitude/belief when I was with the LP, and even now — even when I no longer support any particular party and consider myself an Independent Conservative — it STILL bothers me. As Conservatives we should NEVER undervalue a 3rd party candidate. If people valued party name over CONTENT of CHARACTER (as the Dems did in this last election in fact) the GOP would not exist, and may NEVER have existed.

Knowing that Judge Carter has said this now makes me actually a LOT more upset with this judgment because he made this ruling without considering the fact that had Obama been HONEST it would’ve been an entirely different ballgame for EVERY candidate in EVERY race, really... No-one can really KNOW what would’ve happened had Obama been forthright at the same time McCain was right after the primaries. I don’t know for sure, but depending upon the deadlines in various states for ballot access, etc... Third party candidates might have found themselves with potential HUGE turnouts had Obama been exposed as a fraud.

OK, I know this response is SO much longer than your quick one. I apologize for that. Honestly thought it ticks me off that a judge would use this line of BS within his ruling and when looking upon standing of Keyes.

To me, hearing this line of argument against 3rd parties, is like the Obama blinded trolls continually making fun of ALL of us so-called “birthers” on these threads, and elsewhere.

It also sort of reminds me of the feeling I got when that other judge said this issue had been “decided” in the blogs and on twitter so why should he consider it? (Sorry I don’t remember his name now...).

[I hope this makes sense I may not have explained this as clearly as perhaps I could have, please ask me to explain if I’ve confused you (or anyone else reading this) — I’ve got a killer headache from running errands in stores filled with hyper Halloween shoppers, and kids! I don’t like Wal-mart during this time of year — not even for a quick “pick-up”.]

"Knowing that Judge Carter has said this now makes me actually a LOT more upset with this judgment because he made this ruling without considering the fact that had Obama been HONEST it would’ve been an entirely different ballgame for EVERY candidate "

Your comment (quoted above) indicates that you have not read Judge Carter's opinion in it's entirety.

He did not dismiss standing for the other candidates. In fact, he went to great lengths to discredit the defendants' arguments and bolster the plaintiffs' arguments. His ruling pertaining to the other candidates was based on redressability and justiciability. The following quote is directly from the ruling (which you should get and read in it's entirety.

"Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability."