Kucinich And Co-Plaintiff Singer Willie Nelson Sue Texas Democratic Party for Exclusion From Ballot
January 2, 2008
The Kucinich for President campaign is filing a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party to stop the Party from excluding Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic primary election ballot. A co-plaintiff in the lawsuit is legendary entertainer, longtime Kucinich friend, and Texas voter, Willie Nelson.
The state party notified the Kucinich campaign today that its application for a place on the Texas primary ballot was rejected because Kucinich refused to “swear an oath” to “fully support the Democratic nominee for President, whoever that shall be.”
The lawsuit, and an accompanying request for a temporary restraining order, charges that such a “blind loyalty oath” is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Except for Kucinich’s refusal to sign the “blind loyalty oath,” his application fully complies with state and state party requirements, according to the lawsuit.
Nelson issued a statement through the Kucinich campaign explaining his position:
“Dennis Kucinich is a strong defender of the Constitution, the national security, and the civil liberties of the American people. He’s right to challenge a blind loyalty oath to the Democratic Party because it’s un- American. The irony is that the state Party is trying to exclude him from the ballot even though he’s the one Democrat who’s been the most loyal to this country and to what the Democratic Party should stand for. Dennis’s loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and to the American people — not to the Texas Democratic Party.”
The campaign is awaiting word from the U.S. District Court as to when arguments will be heard for the requested temporary restraining order.
Source: Kucinich for President 2008
[...] Ibhubezi: Roar Against Crime and Other Evils wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
WAKE UP!!!!!
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!!!
PLEASE!!! EMAIL OR GET THIS TO ALL SUPER DELEGATES YOU KNOW OF!!!
(SUPER DELEGATE CLASS #101 - LESSON AND POP QUIZ #001a (REV. May 25, 2008)
Should any “Super Delegate” announce their “vote” or “endorsement” for any candidate prior to the August 2008 Convention???
Should Super Delegates reflect the concience, maturity and wisdom of the party? Should they be the sober and mature reflection or the brains of the Democrats to nominate when necessary their candidate to best represent the Party in the election? Let’s face it, the most Democrat Platformed Democrat would never be elected by all of the people in a General Election, i.e. the “Granddaddy” Ted Kennedy already tried that and screwed up the 1980 Presidential Election and got Jimmy Carter defeated. (N.B. - Democrats, Republicans and Independents get to vote in the same election for the General Election.) Let’s face it! What is needed here is sober and mature reflection and not hype and “tingles up our legs.” I have even heard one Super Delegate say, “I don’t know, there is just something about him.” What??? Please! We need quite a bit more than that; unless the Democrats like “losing” Presidential Elections. There have been only two Democrats elected to two terms since 1932. You got it! Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 and William Jefferson Clinton in 1992. Others have tried and failed. Truman declined his second bid. John Fitzgerald Kennedy very, very unfortunately and tragically and very, very sadly did not get that opportunity to his second term. Lyndon Baines Johnson even had to announce on March 31, 1968 that he would neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination as their president and Jimmy Carter lost his bid (maybe thanks to Ted). In our reflection we would be remiss not to consider soberly the last two Presidential Elections against “the village idiot.” Al Gore and John Kerry could not even get elected for their first term. The “losers” John Kerry and John Edwards I see have announced their early endorsement. Should we listen to these two ”losers”??? What do they know about getting elected? I have heard that the last two-term elected Democrat President supports one of the candidates and made the statement that the candidate he supports in his opinion is the “most qualified” presidential candidate ever – including himself!!! Maybe he knows something worth the Super Delegates checking out. Maybe they should ask the last elected two-term Democrat President what he thinks. After all he left office with a greater than 65% approval rating among all other Presidents (higher ratings than both Kennedy and Reagan). I wonder if the “Reagan Democrats” voted for him. I wonder if he could get them to vote for the candidate he supports? Maybe we should just check that out.
Contrary to popular sentiment the “Nominating Process” or a “Primary Process” is not “a game” or “a contest” in the competitive sense. It is “an evaluation process” to decide and evaluate who is the best candidate to represent the Party in the election. Unlike “a game” where the rules “must” be applied evenly and fairly to determine the valid truthful winner, a “nominating process” is “a process” not “a game”. I know we like to use the term “won the race” but it is neither “a race” nor “a game.” If it is “a process,” then the rules become “procedural” and not “substantive”. In “a game,” the rules are “substantive” and not “procedural.” In a game you can decide who should go first; that’s “procedural.” To know who won the game; we must follow “the substantive rules.” Florida and Michigan violated “procedural rules,” i.e. “when” to vote - not “substantive rules,” i.e. “who” could vote. Therefore to “forfeit” their votes and delegates is not an option! A “penalty” is the “only” option! If you get a speeding ticket on the way to work you still get to go to work and just normally pay a fine later. (Who took their own name off the Michigan ballot?) As was proved in the last two elections the most popular “ party nominee” does not always get elected in the General Election. (Check the last two Democrats.)
The super Delegates are like “the jury” in a “trial.” They are not to declare or indicate whether they support the Plaintiff or the Defendant. They are to wait until “all” the factors are presented and considered, yes, and sometimes they argue behind “closed doors.” Yes, with not only the public excluded, but the trial lawyers and the trial judge are not even privy to their deliberations. (Can you picture the jurors holding “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” during the trial? It would make for great theatre but be bad for business. Even the Romans waited until the fight was over before they did either “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” Maybe we should try that! Who knows, we just might get the most electable candidate ever! After losing two, maybe it’s time for the “Nominating Process” to try something new; unless of course the Democrats like “losing” Presidential Elections. I know, I know, sometimes I am just a smart _ _ _. *) When you consider the issues and crisis and wars at hand, it is time to take very, very serious and sober deliberations, evaluations and considerations as to who is best qualified to not only get elected with all folk but also which candidate has the best and most qualified advisors, support staff and experience to intelligently and maturely deal with those “crisis” which face “Our Beloved United States of America” today.
Had enough? I could go on and on. I am just getting warmed up. If the best and most qualified candidate is not nominated by this Democrat Convention in August 2008 there will be a great exodus of Democrats old and newly signed up ones leaving the Democrat Party till “THE PARTY” gets off their “state of stupid” and returns to sober, mature and intelligent judgment. This is by no means a threat in any way form or fashion. Consider it prophecy or prophetic. No one likes being associated with “stupid” or “loser.” It just tastes bad. It could be worse; the Democrats could be labeled “Stupid Losers.” Yuk!!!! BAA BAA! What do they say about three time “losers?” In California we put three time “losers” in prison for life.
SHAME! SHAME!! SHAME!!! Why - you still ask? The short answer is, it shows that “the inmates” are running “the asylum!”
Thank you and “God Bless” you and your supporters for reading this
and sending it on to other Super Delegates!
PLEASE! CIRCULATE THIS MEMO ASAP WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME!!!
Very, very patriotically and Democratically yours,
jw (jwwilk1@adelphia.net 949-650-7702
Please note: There will be a pop-quiz to follow. (See next page.)
* See what rush to judgment does! The word for the blank is “guy.” Got ya!
POP QUIZ TO TEST FOR “STUPID”! (ON LESSON #001 May 25,2008)
1. Why do we have “Super Delegates?” _________________________________________.
(If it is to follow “the will of the voters” that would be “superfluous” for they would be merely “perfunctory.” Then that’s just “Stupid” at work!)
2. If we eliminated “perfunctory” “Super Delegates” and instead went with the rule that whoever received the most votes in a State gets all the Delegates from that State, who would have more Delegates at the present time? __________________________________________.
(Now isn’t that more “Stupid” not to employ the “winner take all” method, and instead go with “perfunctory” delegates who are not necessarily bound to follow the popular vote of either their State or District?)
3. Which nominee has won more States? __________________________.
(Does that standard make Idaho and Utah equal to New York and California? ____________.
(What about Texas??? One candidate won the Popular Vote and the other candidate won more Pledged Delegates? Who won that State??? _________.) Then that’s really just double “Stupid” at work!) (The “more States” boast has been made by at least the following; Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews, Bill Richardson, David Axelrod and, you got it, by none other than one “Barak Obama” – Now that is a demonstration of “REAL STUPID” at work!)
(In the words of Ron White; “You can’t fix “stupid!” In the words of jw; “It’s grossly “Stupid” to ignore “Stupid” or, at the least, not try to fix “Stupid.”) In the spirit of the words of St. John; “Blessed are those who read and hear these words and take them to heart and keep those things which are written herein; for the time is at hand!”
(POP QUIZ #002) (May 28, 2008)
1. If the “Super Delegates” are supposed to “follow the will of the voters” then, which “voters” are they supposed to follow or uphold? If it is the will of the voters of their own State does that mean that Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Governor Patrick of Massachusetts and Governor Richardson of New Mexico have to vote for Hillary? And does Representative Pete Stark from California have to endorse the candidate that received 57% of the vote in his district or could he endorse he candidate that received only 38% of the vote? (He incidentally did recently endorse the Candidate who received the 38% of the vote.) Probably the worst of all was “Grand-pappy” Robert Byrd. Hillary won his State by 41% (67% to 26%). We really should not find fault with Senator Byrd. He apparently may be trying to “atone” for his early affiliations and conduct. But his endorsement really questions the validity and logic of the rule to “follow the will of the voters.” Or is that just “guilt” or more “Stupid” at work?
2. If the voters in the early States such as Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota and Wyoming were Independents and Republicans crossing over to get the Democrats to nominate the poorest Democrat candidate for the Republicans to run against then, should the “Super Delegates” “follow the will of the voters” in that case as well? (Hummm!!! I am not real sure, but I think that is a whole lot of “Stupid” going on there.)
3. Does that mean under the “non-existent rule” that the “Super Delegates” are “obligated” and “must” “follow the will of the voters,” “obligate” the “Super Delegates” to nominate the candidates the Republicans and Independents want to run against to assure a Republican victory in November? Dahhhhhhh!!!!!!!
NOTE: Chris Matthews on his 5/23/08 “Hardball” show stated that: “The Hillary Clinton haters in the Republican Party will come out in droves to defeat her for Vice President or President!
QUERRY: Is that what happened in the early “Open Primary States” when Obama got more votes than Hillary. E.g. In Virginia, there was 950,000 votes in the Democrat Primary as compared to 450,000 votes in the Republican Primary. This is a State that Senator Jim Webb won by a very, very slim margin. What is that about??????
4. Should we ask the original genius, Dan Abrams who I think first came up with this “non-existent rule” what he was thinking? I am sure he did so without checking with Floyd. Or should we check with some others such as Chris Matthews (you know the guy who has a tingle up his leg) and Keith Olbermann who seems to think the “follow the will of the voters” rule is not “idiotic.” If the rule is not “idiotic” it is at the very least very, very “Stupid” at work!
(PLEASE NOTE: Keith Olbermann in “his commentary” on Friday May 24, 2008 perpetrated a “political character assassination” of Hillary Clinton which “commentary was then immediately circulated by the press people of Barak Obama’s Campaign. George Stephanopoulos two days later questioned David Axelrod last Sunday about the circulation of the “Olberman Commentary” – Does circulating a “political character assassination” of a candidate “unite” or “divide” the Democrat Party??? How “vile” is that???)
5. A little side note or query. How many “Super Delegates” are there in California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia and Texas (i.e. “Blue States”)? ______. As compared with the number of Super Delegates in Idaho, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming (i.e. “Red States”)? _______________. (“Inquiry minds want to know!” Careful don’t get ahead of me here!)
6. Since we are having such a turmoil about “Super Delegates,” and how or who should get them, let’s do away with them and go by “winner take all” of each State’s Pledged Delegates for that State. How many Pledged Delegates would each candidate have under that system? Oh! I guess that system would disfavor one of the Candidates too much. That’s what happens when you run two candidates one who is “qualified” and one who is only merely “qualifiable!”)
7. You really want to put this in perspective??? Just switch each of the two candidates Senatorial experience and life experiences and spouse’s experiences. Now you got “perspective.” Borrowing a line from “Spinal Tap” a movie by Rob Reiner, “That’s too f—— much perspective!” I didn’t originate that phrase, Rob Reiner put it in a movie! Get on his _ _ _ _. * After reviewing that comparison, what would the Political Analysts and the Candidates’ Operatives and Spokesman be saying if Hillary only had Obama’s accomplishments and credentials or lack thereof and Obama had all of Hillary’s – would anybody be suggesting that Obama quit or drop out? I don’t think so!!!
CLOSING NOTES:
John Edwards was mightily criticized in 2004 for having less than only one term, less than six years, in the Senate before his candidacy for President. Likewise, Bill Clinton was criticized and scrutinized for only having been a governor, although multi-term, and no Federal Government experience. Yet one of the candidates today has only been a State Representative and less than two years in the United States Senate before announcing his candidacy. There is just something mightily “discriminatory” about that!
The problems have arisen since certain elements of the Democrat Party have been framing much “mischief” under the guise of “the law,” putting “quantity” over “quality” and “form” over “substance.” There is room in the Democrat Party for: Closed Primaries, Open Primaries, Caucuses, Apportionment of Delegates and Super Delegates. It only works, however, if each “process” works “independent” of each other “process.” Let each “process” do what it was set-up to do and everything will be just fine.
Proverb 21: 7 (NLT) says;
“Because the wicked refuse to do what is just, their violence boomerangs and destroys them.”
Thank you and God Bless you for your time, concern and caring!
Very, very patriotically and Democratically yours, jw (jwwilk1@adelphia.net 949-650-7702)
P.S. Next POP QUIZ will cover the Delegates earned via the Caucus States and the validity of their disproportion as to comparison to the Primary Voting System.
· By your “rush to judgment,” I got ya again!!! The word for the blanks is “butt!”
PLEASE LIST AND ATTACH YOUR COMMENTS OR REASONS HERE: