McCain - Palin

These videos sum it all up for me. If you are polling, data gathering or simply keeping track...

See more Hayden Panettiere videos at Funny or Die

>

Ralph Nader Takes on Gallup Poll's Black Box

October 5th, 2008
Posted by Toby Heaps at Nader 2008 blog

We do fairly poorly on the Gallup poll, generally registering less than 1 percent (or about 5 times less than the recent WSJ poll). This is probably because they don’t mention Ralph Nader’s name in the question–just Obama and McCain.

So I phoned up Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief (609-924-9600), and asked him if they had any kind of objective threshold which we could strive toward so that Ralph Nader’s name could be included as part of the primary question.

His answer: “No. We use our internal judgment to decide. We do some open-ended questions and variety of other criteria, and then our editorial team makes a decision.” I asked if there were any ballpark levels of support in the open-ended question they looked to as a threshold, and he repeated his mantra, that it was subject to “internal judgment criteria,” and then jumped off to take another call.

He was kind enough to leave me with his e-mail to follow up. Anyone who wants to let Newport know what you think of his internal judegment, please call him or e-mail him at frank_newport@gallup.com."

Thanks to Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report for bringing this entry to my attention.


Here are a few other articles of interest:

Why does the latest poll by the Pew Research Center report that drilling for domestic oil has jumped to the top of Americans' energy priorities? Maybe because Pew didn’t ask respondents if they want the nation to invest in clean energy and efficient cars, instead. So suggests this poll (pdf) by Belden Russonello & Stewart, released last week.
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS-Omnibus-Poll_07-22-08.pdf

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

Polling itself is unpredictable. Polling affects elections. It's sort of like this thing "you can't drop a stone in the same river once [sic]"—as soon as you poll it, you've changed it. What should we really make of polling in this election? http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2111

Polling is a business; the interest of pollsters is not to educate the public.

GOP Resorts to Terrorism

Newspapers Deliver Millions of 'Terror' DVDs to Subscribers -- In 'Swing States':
By Greg Mitchell and Joe Strupp
Published: September 13, 2008 2:00 PM ET

"NEW YORK The arrival of tens of millions of DVDs of a controversial DVD on doorsteps around the nation -- but almost exclusively in election 'swing states' -- via newspaper home delivery continues this weekend, with explanatory articles and subscriber feedback appearing on some of the papers' Web sites. "

"The DVDs of the 60-minute film, made in 2005, and titled 'Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West,' arrived today with, among other papers, the Charlotte Observer and the News & Observer in Raleigh, with delivery with the Miami Herald and other papers set for Sunday." (To watch a clip see link below.)

"It was shown on Fox News just before the 2006 mid-term elections, and conservative activist David Horowitz screened the film on college campuses during 2007. An article at the group's site, www.radicalislam.org, all but endorsed John McCain this past week, then was pulled down."

You can address your comments to the group paying for the 'Campaign of Terror in America' here: The Clarion Fund, 255 West 36th Street Suite 800 New York, NY 10018

And please, feel free to contact the papers distributing the DVD. In the article, they proclaim they must not be biased. But exactly how biased is the 'advertising' they are carrying? It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see the content, the placement and the timing are ALL geared toward creating and developing bias. The only reasonable thing a paper could do in this case is require equalizing counter advertising or refuse the account altogether.

dictionary results for: terrorism dictionary.reference.com
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Conservative Ralph Nader by the Southern Avenger

It appears to me that Mr. Nader is really concerned with fixing the system, removing the corporate buyout and setting things back in order. I'm sure he has personal opinions, but it doesn't seem like he would push those over having the system, unhindered by bias and politics, do it's job. It seems as though he is working, not for the left, or the right but for the Americans. I'm quite certain he would be dismayed to see a majority of his fellow Americans choose not to accept single payor government health care, but I'm sure he'd be the happiest man on earth if that decision was made democratically by the American people without fraud or manipulation.

The explosive video above is produced by a conservative blogger, with whom I have little in common. Faith and hope in the American way and the ability to see the difference between politicians and patriots appear to be two things we do see eye to eye on.

Bush Administration Still Dangerous

Hooking Your Toilet to the Kitchen Tap
-Sierra Club

"Atlanta, GA -- In most states, it's illegal to connect your toilet so that it drains through your tap. But on a larger scale, the Bush EPA is prepared to declare that this is, in effect, allowed under the Clean Water Act. At least that's what the agency told a conference of water managers here will be permitted by a new agency rule.

According to a new agency rule, anyone -- an industry, water agency, municipality -- can take dirty water from any body of water, use it (as long as they don't make it dirtier), and then dump it into a clean body of water -- without applying for a Clean Water Act permit. The industry or agency dumping the water can take as much dirty water as it wants, move it as far as it wants, and dump it wherever it wants -- regardless of the impact on the body of water."


Previously I've blogged about the blatant disregard for our environment demonstrated by our Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Missing in Action, and similar in-actions by other Bush Administration agencies; Crossing a Line and Villainous Nominee . Now we can add that the Department of Defense, under criticism during the Bush Administration for contracting out vital military tasks putting into question the nation's security, has Contracted Out Contractor Oversight. The 'Fly in your Face' attitude doesn't stop there, Bush's FCC is now being asked to probe the Bush administration's Propaganda Program! A bit like having inmates of cell block C check cell block D for paraphernalia. Let's not forget the USDA, that decided to shut down a congressional audit and advise it's employee's not to cooperate.

It seems to me there are an awful lot of 'Long Term Plans' being laid last minute by the bought and corrupted officials placed in our agencies by this administration, especially considering his 'New Rule' of 'No New Rules' from agencies after June 1st.

"While the White House called the deadlines "simply good government," some legal specialists said the policy would ensure that rules the administration wanted to be part of Mr. Bush's legacy would be less subject to being overturned by his successor. Moreover, they said, the deadlines could allow the administration to avoid thorny proposals that are likely to come up in the next few months, including environmental and safety rules that have been in the regulatory pipeline for years. "

The Administrations reach has even made it to NASA, where it's interference will not only effect Americans, but the world, and their view of us.

Considering the mounting effort to both impeach and indict Bush and Cheney;

Bush Faces Domestic Lawsuit for Illegal War

Veterans for Peace Call for Impeachment

Congressional Candidate Calls for Impeachment

Nader Calls for Immediate Impeachment

56 in Congress say Investigate Bush

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles against Bush

you'd think someone would have put a stop to the actions being taken, permanent actions, detrimental actions that if implemented for even a short time will have long lasting devastating effects. In light of these slap in your face words and deeds;

Bush Misused Iraq Intelligence

Bush Wants Immunity for Mercenaries in Iraq

And the Topper: Bush Pardons Self from War Crimes

Extraordinary steps must be taken to stop the last minute actions planned by this criminal administration. A precedent needs to be set for not only the top guy, but all the little trickle down guys and gals as well. Education, communication and technology have opened up the world, we need to pay attention to the faces we present and take responsibility for our voting actions.

Obama Believes (in make believe clean kentucky coal)

"As Kentucky resident Erik Reese reported in Grist, studies in the state have found that children there suffer from 'an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract.'" Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:32 AM on 06 May 2008

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"Clean coal" typically refers to coal burned in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities to bury the plant's greenhouse-gas emissions underground. There are no IGCC plants in Kentucky, and no operational CCS facilities. Technically, there is no "clean Kentucky coal." Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"The Obama campaign has made it clear that they want no new coal plants in the meantime. Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy adviser, told Grist that "the policies we have already articulated make [coal plants without CCS] economically unrealistic."Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"[Obama] is confident... that his carbon cap program ... will make it absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate any type of coal, new coal, that is not 100 percent sequestered. ... if he is unable to get that carbon policy in place quickly, that he will do whatever is necessary to prevent the siting of a new generation of pulverized coal facilities, including setting [emission] standards that would be essentially a moratorium ... "Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

Do YOU believe anything Obama says?

• NAFTA bad - To Americans, NAFTA good - To Canadians .
• Questionable relationship with Rezko verified but denied or forgotten
• His Spiritual leader, supporter of Wrights Church - until Wright hits Media, then disagrees with him and eventually disowns him.
• Tells rich white women poor folk in small towns only cling to guns and religion out of frustration, tells poor small town folk he used poor words/phrasing.
• Tells everyone 'no new coal' 'no dirty coal', then when primary hits says he is for coal despite there being none and little future for any.
  

We don't know enough about this man or the choices and decisions he would make to risk, in this current place in time, placing him in the highest office in the land. He has done nothing so far to relate that he is any different than any other politician, combine that with inexperience and it's a wonder he is on the ballot at all. In a small corner of my mind, the DNC knew this would be a blockbuster year for the D's, knew Clinton would be running, knew their key positions and most all other positions would be safe for the next term and so didn't do much more to foster other more experienced candidates. In this same corner lives the idea that the R's were just as aware of the blockbuster years coming for the D's, and so failed to foster any real candidate of their own instead choosing to try to hold the positions they had and work deals to keep some influence through the next administration.

• Do you want to stop coal until the technology is there?
• Do you want to fund solar power, with NO emissions?
• Do you want to decrease personal income tax (20-50% currently) and increase capital gains tax (10-18% currently)?
• Do you want to bust up the corporate headlock on our government?
• Do you want support to go into our government agencies and have TRUTH and FACTS and JUSTICE come out?
• Do you want to use negotiators and treaties with foreign governments and use the military to protect us AT HOME?
• Do you want penalties on US companies that ship jobs to other countries?
• Do you want warrantless searches and unlawful detainment ended?
• Do you want food, water and products to be inspected and safe?

There is only one way to ensure these things happen, and that is to vote for the man who has been trying to make these things happen for most of his life, virtually on his own. With Lincolnesque determination he has stood against lawsuits, name calling, media slander and 'The Man' and still he stands to fight the good fight. Really.

PolitiFact | A service of the Obama Campaign

A few weeks ago I added the Politifact gadgety thingy to my homepage, as I had come across an interesting article and took a few moments to look over a few of their headlines and thought it might be interesting. And in fact they are interesting, the site itself is well laid out, newsy and not extravagant. I've bookmarked a few of their articles, referred to them for info etc. It began to occur to me recently however, that the frequency of the name Obama over Clinton in the 6-7 headlines that come across the little reader was, well, getting more frequent. Over the next few days I kept my eye on those headlines and also began to notice they were leaning a bit to the Obama not Clinton. Questions and controversies from the headlines sure, but picked and parceled so the Clinton questions whether they turn out to be true or half or pants on fire, always seem to end up with Clinton looking bad, and Obama but not Clinton looking put out and wronged. Today I clicked on a headline from the RSS feed, Focus on the Facts I think, another article letting us know someone had maligned Obama, not Mrs Clinton. So I decided to head to their front page to see what that was like.

Obama word count 20
Clinton word count 9

Obama Pictures 7
Clinton Pictures 3

Rezko - 0

Needless to say, I am deleting the gadgety thingy as I don't need this sort of "Truth".


April 26, 2008 Update:

A couple of links to similar stories:

MediaMatters March 08 Why Politifact Really Emerged

Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul

Nader Advocates Tools of Democracy

Andrew Cross, Daily Vidette Staff

"You have to have a thirst for justice" Ralph Nader, author, attorney and presidential candidate, said while addressing students, faculty and community members on Monday evening.
"You have to have a sense that you matter, that you count," Nader continued, advocating the importance of being an engaged citizen."

How do you know your Independent run is having an impact? Major party candidates pick up one your primary platform issues.
Unfortunately for this candidate however, he's 2 strikes and a foul down on the count. He's been caught saying one thing to the American people about his stand on NAFTA, and reassuring Canadians it's all just campaign talk. Now he's been caught saying one thing to endear himself to a special interest group while trying to tell the American people of "what he really meant". Nothing new here, politician willing to say anything to anyone to get the ticket. I'm considering the Wright deal the foul ball, in case your keeping tally.
There are many people living in big white houses on the hill that have bet their future against impeachment. If this were any other period in time, they might have been right. But these people have caused the deterioration of our country's good name. We as a people are kind, generous, compassionate, hopeful and forgiving. They have set in motion actions that are counter to that which we hold dear and the hope we have in our hearts for the future of our country and our ideals. They have compromised the Constitution of these United States, breaching a trust that touches the heart of every single person living in America today. Politics are one thing, if poor judgement were the only issue here they would be safe in their assumptions. But the situation they find themselves in today, the situation they thought they would never see, which no doubt gave them their courage, is nothing so petty as that. The lines that have been crossed need to be addressed.

Our reputation MUST be restored for us to proceed interacting with the world outside our door. Our confidence must be restored for us to once again begin doing the great things this country is capable of. Our constitution must be restored to the liberty ensuring document that has MADE this country the leader it has been in the past and the leader it will be, MUST be, in the future.

EPA Missing in Action - and FEC and FHA and ...

By Margaret Kriz The National Journal
Monday 14 April 2008
"The Environmental Protection Agency is failing to live up to its name these days, its legions of critics agree. At a time when the nation's top environmental regulators face increasingly complex pollution problems, President Bush is pushing for dramatic cuts in EPA's budget, his administration's strained, pro-industry interpretations of environmental laws have repeatedly been laughed out of court, and the White House is widely perceived to be running roughshod over agency scientists and lawyers.

Environmental experts charge that the agency's vanishing act is undercutting environmental statutes and delaying much-needed new efforts to clean up the nation's air, water, and land as well as aggressively tackle global warming. "There has been a steady drumbeat of actions that this administration has taken to weaken clean-air protections in this country," says S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local pollution control officials. "Their actions have had very serious and substantial adverse impacts on our ability to provide health protection in this country." "


Democrats Sue FEC over Mccain Finances

by Peter Overby
Morning Edition, April 15, 2008 · "The Democratic National Committee has sued the Federal Election Commission, saying the commission failed in its obligation to investigate Republican John McCain's campaign finances. It's another consequence of the FEC's being nonfunctional in the midst of the biggest fundraising season in history — unable to act because it lacks the necessary number of commissioners. "

"Here's the legal part of the case: Democrats say McCain has violated campaign finance law and that he's getting away with it because the enforcement agency, the FEC, has not been able to function. The panel needs four commissioners to make decisions, but it only has two, thanks to a standoff between Senate Democrats and the White House over confirmation of three nominees. "

"Meanwhile, as if to emphasize the plight of the FEC, former chairman Robert Lenhard has asked that the White House withdraw his name from nomination to one of those empty seats on the commission. While he was waiting to be confirmed, he was hired by one of Washington's top law firms. "

"FEC watchers say that if the stalemate isn't broken before the Senate's July recess, the commission will be out of business for the rest of this election year. "


What do these scenarios have in common? 8 years of republican leadership. Less government, let the 'free market' take care of things. Well, there you go. Take away the money for government agencies and things will go downhill, FAST. We all complain about paying taxes, but we aren't really against taxes and the things they provide, we are just against all of the waste, overspending and abuse. We all like the sewer and water systems, decent roads to drive our cars on, police to show up when something goes wrong, firemen when things catch on fire and yes, election commissions to keep us informed and candidates honest, environmental protection agencies to ensure our home is safe and thriving for us and our children, a housing agency to keep home ownership, one of the best investments for people and communities a fair and accessible thing for everyone. How is it that we find ourselves railing against taxes, and then when the taxes go down we rail that our government agencies aren't working? The facts are that if we didn't all pay for these services, the cost for them would be MUCH higher. Don't fool yourself into thinking you won't still need these services because you will, but now the cost will be on you alone. YOU hire an attorney before every transaction to secure your interests, YOU hire a security guard for your home, YOU install and maintain fire fighting equipment on your property and hire someone to stand around in case a fire breaks out. You hire teachers for your children, be sure to buy a good solid off road vehicle as the roads will likely go to hell pretty quickly. I wonder how much satellite access will jump to for your cell phone use...getting the picture? So if you are feeling that 'big government' shouldn't be getting in your way, there are 2 things that could be happening. A) You are not participating in your government. You are not studying the issues, talking with people, attending meetings, supporting candidates that speak for you, voting for candidates that speak for you, running for local office so your voice is heard. If you find yourself saying "who has time for that?" then you need to quit complaining, you have placed other things higher on the list. By this I mean that if you are paying for a 3000sf house for 3 people, have 2-3 cars and a garage for each, a summer home, several $200 purses or a $3000 suit, or maybe you have full home phone service and full cell phone service and full satellite service and high speed internet service.... and you go to work early, stay late, you both work....well then you have chosen to have those things over making your voice heard in the community. It only takes a couple hours a day to keep yourself informed, to write letters to your officials, to attend meetings. B) You have something to hide. Since WE (Americans) make up our government, vote on our laws and regulations and our leaders to represent us, if you are concerned about one of US going over your business practices then that raises a red flag for me. If our rules are in place to make people safe, to safeguard our economy, our rights, our ideals and our soil and if there is something that you are doing that might jeopardize any of those things, then YOU are the reason our laws are in place and you should reconsider your plans. The idea is not to proceed until you get caught, and try to change the rules that might tangle you up along the way.

What we need and what I think we all want is a massive "SURGE" of audits and revamps, putting new technology into play, to overhaul the systems and programs we have in place to make them more efficient. Make a final accounting and restructure that will retain all of the excellent work we have done so far in building a network of support for our public that allows all of us to benefit from safety and security in our homes, schools and places of business - that allows us to eat foods from all over without fear of harm - all of the things we have set in motion over the last 200 years, much of which none of us would be able to supply for ourselves alone. With our dollars used more efficiently, and more people put to work in these endeavors, tax increases would slow yet services would remain and quality of life for everyone gets better.

Nader behind in fund-raising - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported this afternoon that he had raised $321,700 by the end of February, including $40,200 from his own pocket and a quarter of his total take from California residents."

Seems like prudent planning to me as, the real fight isn't likely to get under way for a few months. It also is a useful statement that speaks to the OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money being spent by the R & D parties at a time when we are all looking to tighten our belts if not being forced to do so. One shouldn't need to spend that kind of money to be a part of the process. Speaking of that, one certainly shouldn't be required to prove voter support based on dollars raised. The fact that the word democracy has become somehow interchangeable with capitalism is perverse. How is it that people who can't afford to send money to a campaign no longer have the right to support a candidate and have it count? (speaking of minimum donations per state to qualify for matching funds)


I went here for information on public funding of presidential elections, this is where the disappointment began. First is the fact that the only instances in which the word 'Independent' is used is when referring to expenditures not candidates. Each section stated time and again 'party candidate', 'major party candidates' as well a 'minor' and 'new' party candidates. No where is there a section for or direct information on 'Independent Candidates'. One small section titled 'Eligibility for Public Funds' finds itself parked fully halfway down this page titled 'Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure', carefully placed after 7 other sections that only refer to parties, committees and conventions. No where on this official government site for information does it make clear the standards and requirements for independent candidates. It does note that this page is intended for students, public information and reporters not candidates or committees, and that those groups should consult chapter 11 campaign laws. (no handy link provided)
This same government provided site finds a page titled 'Chapter 1: Primary Matching Funds' that notes "18. The requirement that candidates be affiliated with a political party has raised constitutional questions. Some have argued that it discriminates against independent candidates. For a discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2." Again, this is the only remark on independent candidates.

This 'Chapter 2' finds that "eligible candidates" are, by definition, the nominees "of a political party for President and Vice President."11 and that '11' is noted as 26 U.S.C. Sec.9002(4). It goes on:

Thus, on its face, the statute would appear to preclude public funding for independent candidates. On the other hand, Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16): a political party is "an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."
Applying this definition in Advisory Opinion (AO) 1980-3, the Commission determined that the Citizens Party would qualify as a political party once it received verification from any state that a candidate would appear on the ballot as a nominee of the party. Subsequently, in AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party's Presidential nominee, could qualify for post-election funding as a new party candidate even if he was not listed as the party's nominee on some states' ballots. The Commission noted that Mr. Commoner was registered with the FEC as a candidate of the Citizens Party, and that the statute required only that the candidate (not the party) receive five percent of the vote to qualify for public funds. Similarly, in AO 1980-96, the Commission confirmed that the various organizations sponsoring John Anderson's candidacy would qualify as political parties for purposes of the public funding rules. Therefore, Mr. Anderson, as the nominee of these parties, could qualify for post-general election funding if he received more than five percent of the vote.12
Although the Anderson opinion did not address the issue, some Commissioners felt that he should have been declared eligible for funding as an independent candidate. Commissioners John Warren McGarry and Frank P. Reiche filed separate statements supporting such a finding. Mr. Reiche argued that the Anderson campaign was "dedicated to the election of an independent candidate" and should not have been required to "cloak [itself] with the appearance of political party formality" to qualify for public funding. Both Commissioners cited legislative history and the U.S. Circuit Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo to support their case. The Circuit Court stated that independent candidates should be subject to the same eligibility requirements as other candidates:
If these provisions would in fact operate to prevent independents from obtaining public funding, no matter what their showing, or if they would require that independents go to the trouble of creating election party machinery in order to obtain public funding, then they would raise serious constitutional questions. . . . But the statute does not command that interpretation.13

In 1981, the Commission formally asked Congress to consider clarifying whether an independent candidate could qualify for general election funding.14 In trying to find the verdict, opinion or decision I did find more questions :

3. In Buckley v. Valeo, the circuit court opinion suggested that failure to fund independent candidates could raise constitutional questions. 519 F.2d 821, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, did not explicitly rule on this issue.
4. Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16).


Lets see if I can find more... Should it BE his hard????

The above article refers to "(The Commission's 1993 legislative recommendations are included in this report as Appendix 2.)" as a "more complete discussion", no where on that page does the word independent appear. On the public info page it was noted that they fall back to the definition of candidate found in 26 U..SC Sec.9002(4) please note this is different than the definition cite noted just above as 4.

H.R. 2817 in it's current incarnation's summary in part says "6/21/2007--Introduced.
Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to set forth specified expenditure limitations for House of Representatives general elections.
Permits additional expenditures by eligible major party, third party, and independent candidates."

Here are the details pertaining to independent candidates from the bill detail page:

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

But this page really only refers to 'house of representatives general election' and only eludes to presidential elections when discussing numbers of backers compared to previous elections excluding presidential elections. This bill is still active, but I am not sure if it is pertinent to my search.

I've been working on this for hours now, with no real results. I'm going to give it a break now... if anyone can end my misery and send me a link to pertinent information regarding the current congressionally acceptable definition of "Independent Candidate" as it pertains to public campaign funding well....I'll visit your site three times a day until the elections are over.

What Independent Voters Want

• We’re tired of two parties whose priority is acquiring and maintaining power rather than serving the people who voted them into office.
  
• We have no problem voting for someone who has no chance of winning.
  
• We vote for the person and not the party.
  
• We seldom vote a straight, major-party ticket.
  
• We are not undecided. We have decided to be independent.
  
• We believe that a diversity of opinions stimulates healthy debate.
  
• We want dialogue, not diatribes.
  
• We want a government that follows the will of the people instead of one that manipulates it.
  
• We care as much about what happens on every other day as on Election Day.
  
• We want Ralph Nader to keep on running, even if we don’t vote for him. We probably need to apologize for that.
  
• We are anti-party, and yet we welcome third-party voters and candidates to join us under the independent umbrella, because they’re also outsiders.
  
• We believe the United States is better than this.

A pretty big whopper on it's own:

mw Says: "While people may actually like to think of themselves as “Independent”, what they do in a voting booth is one hell of a lot more important than what they tell pollsters about how how they label themselves."

When the parties take the measures they have to keep people off the ballot, leaving no other names there but their own we have little choice as to what we do in the voting booth save not voting at all. Looking at the falling numbers of voters, I'd say they have made one hell of a loud statement!

Another:

mw Says: "The way to read this, is that when an “independent” tells a pollster which way they “lean”, they are actually saying “this is how I vote”. "

What part of the writers statement didn't you understand? "nor are we “party-leaning.” The polls you are referring to do not have real questions and a real category for people who are not of one party or the other, in order to give indication of our issues we answer in the manner which will get our points across. It is the pollsters and people like you that push us into a lean, that force us into your mold of leaners.

So here is OUR definition, every person on your census that hasn't registered yet to vote, every person who has registered and hasn't recently voted, every person who recently removed themselves from the R or the D party and every single person who votes on issues not party affiliation, THOSE people are your Independents. That is how many, exactly, you need to consider Independent Voters.

Conclusion on Searching for Oil, Corporations and Subsidies

I think it is a conclusion that we are not ever going to find enough oil outside of the middle east to avoid buying from the region. It is also a conclusion that Americans, even the world, are ready for and demanding alternative energy. It makes sense to me in light of these conclusions that all monies currently being spent on locating and retrieving new sources of oil by companies with - A) shareholders {in that shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders} B) Special US tax status OR receives US subsidies - should immediately be shifted away from these endeavors and either moved to alternative energy systems and production or to other non-oil related endeavors. In the case of subsidies, special tax status' and such these will be reworded to exclude oil, and cease to be assigned or assessed to any company continuing work in new oil fields location or recovery methods on any level.

As we get closer to filling our oil needs outside the middle east, the higher oil prices from these countries become as they will try to get in their perceived 'final profits'. As Venezuela is teaching us, no other country is going to allow us to plunder and pillage their lands and resources without a price, and there is no reason to believe they would settle for any less a price than their competitors are charging. I liken the strategy of the US oil companies to that of the electronic gadget market. They hold many new technologies back, releasing small improvements in 'versions' once or twice a year to maximize the sales on any given new item.

I will be very happy for the day (soon to come) when ALL subsidies to the big oil companies are dismissed. I pray for the day major corporations such as these with huge effects on our economy as a whole are by law restructured and regulated to operate in the public good. Further I believe that if utilities, energy suppliers and producers are allowed to become publicly traded they need special rules, instructions and designations to operate under the presumption that these are not 'profit' driven corporations, they are public driven and since shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders. Utility share investments should be considered stable ones moving up and down with the US economy, not one to be speculated on or manipulated.

Here is a fine example of the craziness of which I speak

" The companies aim to spend $600 million to hold an open season, or solicitation for customers to make long-term commitments to use the pipeline, before the end of 2010. After that, the companies would seek certification from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Canada's National Energy Board and then begin construction on the project, estimated to cost $20 billion to $40 billion."

Yes, you read that right. They are planning on spending $600 million dollars BEFORE even seeking certification from the Regulatory Commission or the National Energy Board. This is exactly the sort of clumsy speculation that must be addressed.

Mccain Closer to Bush than Democrats

"On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: 'He wants to see the use of nukes.'"

Paralyzed Iraq Vet Responds to Cheney: "We Didn't Volunteer Where You Sent Us to Go"

"We are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us,” Cheney said. In response, Tomas Young, an Iraq war veteran who was paralyzed after being shot in Baghdad said, 'Many of us volunteered with patriotic feelings in our hearts only to see them subverted and bastardized by the administration and sent into the wrong country." Democracy Now! 3-25-08


The establishment has force fed us the phrase "support the troops", the constitution urges us to "pursue happiness" and "speak freely". The administration would have us think speaking freely about our feelings on the war is somehow disrespecting the troops. In reading interviews with presidential candidate Ralph Nader I found a sentiment that mirrors mine and maybe yours as well:

"Support our Troops by Bringing Them Home"

Of the People By the People and For the People

Today I'm listening to Sen. Jon Kyl debate in the Senate over the budget. He mentions that the government should be working for us, not against us. I would like to remind the Senator that 'Our' government, while it has taken a turn for the worse due to corporate manipulation, is still 'Our' government. Of By and For the people. Shame on him for trying to deepen the illusion that it's "Us against Them". There is no dictator standing at the helm here, there is no brutish force that will arrive at my door for tendering this admonishment.
You offer this statement in your argument regarding what you call "paying for tax cuts". You say that it does no service to Americans to cut a tax here and raise another there to 'pay for it'. I am glad that you that you have been able to hold on to this one ideal that all Americans are created equal but perhaps I should remind you that not all Americans have remained equal. You and I both know that the tax cut "Here" will be from middle and lower income 'Americans', just as well as we both know that the taxes raised "There" will be from upper-middle and high income 'Americans'.
In your picked and parceled ideal world, everyone would keep their own money and let the blocks fall where they may, is that it? I'm sure it sounds good from up there, in Short Sightedville. You and your friends have the money to send your children to private schools, hire private security for your homes and the very best doctors. You can build tall sturdy walls around your village to help protect yourselves...thinking maybe you have seen this movie before?
The thing of it is the rest of us, the majority of us, still hold on to that one first Ideal. Of By and For. We want everyone to chip in to secure our neighborhoods, to inspect our food supply, to protect children and the elderly. Everyone benefits from educated citizens, stop sending jobs overseas and chip in to educate us! Everyone suffers when poor education leads to low employment that leads to low personal morale that leads to crimes of desperation and frustration, chip in for parenting education, counseling and school-to-work programs. Corporations don't make money without People. If people are afraid, unprepared and sick, if roads are unsafe and mothers worry about food and toys that may kill their children they are not going to pay for the goods and services that keep your corporation in business. I could go on, but you must get the point by now. Our government IS us, we don't like ourselves very much right now but we are working on it. Our government has the best plan to date that realizes and works WITH the fact that this remains a dog eat dog world, it allows for the will of the many to outweigh the will of the few without oppression and violence, where any person can speak their mind and hope to convince others.
Sir, you are a United States Senator speaking from the floor of the US Senate building, you ARE government. If you see a division between the government and the people then You sir, and others like you, are the divisive factor. If every one of you leading OUR government would take the blinders off and act each and every time in the interest of the people, remember that you in fact ARE the people instead of acting in your own personal interest, things just might go a little more smoothly. Stop creating the divisiveness you rail against.
The money Of the People spent justly By the People For the People's benefit.

Nader means Change - For Real

Nader will run for president

Feb 24: Ralph Nader announces his third bid for the White House while speaking with NBC’s Tim Russert of “Meet the Press”.

Why Not? Hillary grew up as a Corporate attorney for WalMart of all places, WALMART! Yeah yeah, working for the poor's favorite store but look at what Walmart has done from a legal, or attorney's view point! If any corporation is going to be able to take advantage of her Walmart will be the one. Walmart has one of the worst records for a company it's size as far as it's employees are concerned, you know, The People. She is a corporate attorney.

Why Not? Barack grew up in Hawaii. So what you say? Lovely people with values. Yes, except Barack didn't spend much time with The People. He lived in a large expensive house and went to private schools. There is a huge wasteland of toxic goo under the Great Lakes causing low birth weights and excessive still births in the Chicago area...gosh I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? Personal gain trumps The People I guess.

Why Not? John tells us he is disgusted by the status quo in campaigning, lobbyists are bad he says. But only if he doesn't need a private jet ride somewhere I suppose. That makes him an ok guy, doesn't it? It was only PAX tv I guess, they are religious how can that be bad? Well, when the owner of Pax (before it was Pax quite yet, it was Paxon Communications then) was buying up all of the local stations (hey, isn't there an FCC rule about that?) he could get his hands on, he ran into a little trouble. He asked his friend John (in person, turns out despite John's denial http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022308C.shtml ) to write a letter to the FCC on his behalf. Not only did John do this for him, he did it twice, the second to the employees as opposed to the head when his initial letter to him got no response. The head of the agency wrote back to John letting him know he had crossed the line and his letter was "highly unusual". A subsequent review by the FCC General Counsel's Office determined that McCain had violated the commission's ex parte rules. But here is the kicker, the part we should all be paying attention to: Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed.

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party,"

from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

If the word of the day is "CHANGE" there is no better way to describe what Nader can do for us!
Oh, you didn't really mean change? You meant to just lean a little, no REAL change is needed... You are ok with the way things are going? You have accepted that hillary barack and john are really different enough? Click on the Photo caption to listen to what Nader has to say.

Looking for change? Really?