Chelena Just Can't Catch A Break With The Media

[Ayatollahgondola]

This new "candidate" was already reported here, but what is news about this is that the AP seems to have already deemed Nightingale as irrelevant:

If he follows through, von Anhalt would be the only independent in a field that includes Republicans Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner and the presumed Democratic candidate, Attorney General Jerry Brown.

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2542639.html

[Twoller]

What do they mean by "independent"? Under the two party dictatorship, all of the "third parties" are "independent", including the Independent Party. I'm convinced that the Independent Party itself was an engineered product to respond to those people, like myself, who objected to having to register with a political party just to register to vote, who wanted to vote independent of any political party.

[Kathy63]

Originally Posted by Twoller

What do they mean by "independent"? Under the two party dictatorship, all of the "third parties" are "independent", including the Independent Party. I'm convinced that the Independent Party itself was an engineered product to respond to those people, like myself, who objected to having to register with a political party just to register to vote, who wanted to vote independent of any political party.

Are you in California?

I've head Larry Elder talk about this several times. He registered as independent thinking he was registering to vote without registering for a political party. In California it's decline to state that registers someone to vote, but not under any specific party affiliation.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

Are you in California?

I've head Larry Elder talk about this several times. He registered as independent thinking he was registering to vote without registering for a political party. In California it's decline to state that registers someone to vote, but not under any specific party affiliation.

Yes, it's Decline to State now in California. But it hasn't always been that way. Decline to State has been a long time coming. Before it did, I was hoping they would change it to something like "No party affiliations", but some clever person realized it was nobody's business what your party affiliations were and so Decline to State is better.

You know what would be even better than Decline to State? No party registration at all. No primaries and no need to register with some political party. Not only is it none of the government's business what your political party is, it is none of the government's business to have any administrative function in political parties at all. It ought to be constitutionally suggested that the government cannot have any administrative function in political parties nor can it keep track of what a voter's political party is.

[MowMyOwn]

I was registered Decline to State for many years . . . the only problem is if you wanted to vote for a Republican in the Primaries, you had to re-register as Republican for your vote to count - not so with the Democrats, they'll take anyone's vote in the Primaries.

For the General election, you can be Decline to State and vote for whoever, I'm not sure why they don't do the same for the primaries.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by MowMyOwn

I was registered Decline to State for many years . . . the only problem is if you wanted to vote for a Republican in the Primaries, you had to re-register as Republican for your vote to count - not so with the Democrats, they'll take anyone's vote in the Primaries.

For the General election, you can be Decline to State and vote for whoever, I'm not sure why they don't do the same for the primaries.

Don't you get it? The only reason for the primaries is to provide a voting apparatus for the two parties of the "two party system". That is the only reason. There are "third parties" who get to participate too in order to dignify the process, like the "Independent Party". When they hold the primaries, they have to print up different ballots for each political party. When you go to vote, you identify yourself to the poll workers and the poll workers look you up and see what your political party is and give you the right ballot according to what your political party is. The poll workers understand that some political parties allow "decline to state" voters to participate with other party's ballot and so if you are Decline to State, sometimes you have your option to choose a party's ballot. Decline to State voters have their own ballot too so that they may vote for issues that are being voted along side the party's primary elections.

Of course when the actual constitutionally mandated elections come along, there is only one ballot. It makes absolutely no difference what the political parties the candidates belong to. No candidate for any office anywhere in the US, local, state or federal, need belong to any political party at all in order to run or serve.

The primaries are a huge mess and expensive too and only exist to subsidize, with your tax dollars, the "Two Party System".

[Kathy63]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

This new "candidate" was already reported here, but what is news about this is that the AP seems to have already deemed Nightingale as irrelevant:



http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2542639.html

That's because people have heard of von Anhalt, and no one has ever heard of Chelene Nightingale. Aside from her immediate circle of friends and family, she won't get any votes. The media is more apt to recognize Angelyne than Chelene as a candidate. Part of the problem is that Chelene has never presented herself as a serious candidate. She has issued her own press releases about electrifying thousands at stump speeches and being the ONLY one to save California. So, she's going the way of everyone else who is the ONLY one to save state or nation. Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin anyone. Compounding the problem is that Chelene has no successes behind her. Aside from being a "community activist" and presiding over the death throes of Save Our State the Original, there is no basis to claim a history of doing it right. Failed as entertainer. Faild as model. Failed as campaign manager for a candidate that failed. Oh yes, once in the same room as Ron Paul, not known for his excessive success either.

Now put all that experience up against a Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown and Chelene doesn't even make the grade of fading into the background. There's nothing to fade.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

Compounding the problem is that Chelene has no successes behind her. Aside from being a "community activist" and presiding over the death throes of Save Our State the Original, there is no basis to claim a history of doing it right. Failed as entertainer. Faild as model. Failed as campaign manager for a candidate that failed.

Meg Whitman: Failed to win my vote with her "I'm for the children" response to an inquiry about taxpayer funding of illegal aliens and anchor babies, through various govt. programs.

Jerry Brown: Failed to knock off Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary when he suggested the Arkansas Governor had been funneling state business to his wife's law firm.

[Kathy63]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Meg Whitman: Failed to win my vote with her "I'm for the children" response to an inquiry about taxpayer funding of illegal aliens and anchor babies, through various govt. programs.

Jerry Brown: Failed to knock off Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary when he suggested the Arkansas Governor had been funneling state business to his wife's law firm.

Poizner has run a few spots indicating his willingness to cut benefits to criminal aliens. That perked up my interest. He is just such a lackluster person! He doesn't inspire confidence, or indeed anything at all. He's just sort of there.

Whitman's continual running of her own spots attacking Poizner for his support of democrats and high taxes is definitely gonna hurt unless he can get his behind in gear and quite soon. This might be a Whitman/Brown race. I can't think of anything more unappetizing.

Meg Whitman would not made my top ten, but I won't stand on some silly, asinine principle and let California go brown without at least a vote against it.

As a qualifier. I KNOW, beyond any doubt at all that SOMEONE is gonna come along and say "Kathy said the word BROWN, RACIST, Get 'er! Just so there won't be any mistake that's JERRY BROWN for the uninformed.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

As a qualifier. I KNOW, beyond any doubt at all that SOMEONE is gonna come along and say "Kathy said the word BROWN, RACIST, Get 'er! Just so there won't be any mistake that's JERRY BROWN for the uninformed.

Don't be silly now. We're not that shallow here