WXYC Chapel Hill, NC 89.3FM – Monday 3:00-6:00pm ET – www.wxyc.org

Qualified Write-in Candidates for NC

“Regardless of which state you live in, voting for a write-in contender is much more complicated than scribbling whatever name you please on the dotted line at the bottom of the ballot. Thirty-five states require that a write-in candidate must submit some form of affidavit and, sometimes, a filing fee at least one month before the election.

“In North Carolina, these candidates must circulate a petition. Then their names are posted on a list at the polling place, though not on the official ballot. All other write-in votes are tossed.”

taken from Business Week‘s web site

Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander – Socialist Party candidates for president/vice president
Brian Moore’s own site where he blogs/discusses issues

Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez – Independent candidates for president/vice president

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente – Green Party candidates for president/vice president

Walker Fry Ruckercandidate for U.S. Senate – I couldn’t find much about Mr. Rucker, although apparently his son, a ’79 graduate of Princeton, died of cardiac arrest back in 1989, and it seems he lives in Greensboro, NC.  This site sent all the Senate candidates questionnaires about their positions on certain issues; unfortunately, Mr. Rucker, like Kay Hagan, didn’t find the questionnaire compelling enough to complete and return, so I have no clue what he may be about…

Nathaniel Coopercandidate for N.C. Commissioner of Insurance – I couldn’t find a site specific for Mr. Cooper (although at the Tuesday Morning Breakfast Forum site, a statement said he did have a website set up, nevertheless, the given url returns “address not found”).  Since Mr. Cooper apparently is a member of the Tuesday Morning Breakfast Forum in Charlotte, that’s a link to their site.  Here is an article on insurance implications regarding falls from ladders, which he co-authored with a fellow named Ted Christensen.

Especially because I am not at all satisfied with the way this particular presidential election is going, more than any time, ever, I believe anyone who *truly* wants to be an instrument for *real* “change we need” will consider alternatives, in particular to Barack.  It takes only the most cursory examination of facts available to learn that Barack—more than John McCain—is engaging in Business As Usual politics.  That has *never* led to anything the candidate promised, least of all a change from extant corruption. 

In 1968 Richard Nixon promised he would go in and “clean up” the mess in Washington, and he also promised he would end the war as soon as he was in office, with a victory.  That is not at all what happened. 

Just like in 1968, we have a sitting president who has done a capital job of blowing his job description.  In 1968, the party of the sitting president was viewed as what was wrong in Washington, and as a result no one gave Hubert Humphrey a fair shake.  Check this map of 1968’s general election results.

Some people seem to be getting confused, thinking Barack represents Humphrey in this analogue, but in fact, Barack is the equivalent of Richard Nixon.  Just as the American public was so anxious to get the party of the “bad” president out of office back in 1968, we have a very similar condition now.  Part of the reason Richard Nixon won that election is because people were so anxious for “change,” they were willing to accept Nixon’s rhetoric as reliable, without a full “vetting” of the man and the manner in which he had conducted business and politics prior to the 1968 election.  Some who may have remembered the radio transmission of his debate with Kennedy in 1960 perhaps were satisfied with that, but in hindsight it’s clear that no one really researched how Nixon was conducting himself, especially in the 8 years since they’d last heard anything from him.

So to my friends and other readers, I recommend (at least briefly) checking out *all* of your options.  Different states have different write-in candidates, those above are all the ones we have for North Carolina. 

Brian Moore offers the promise of quality national health care.  If you’re thinking you prefer the socialist element of the things Barack claims to offer, screw the fake, go with the real thing.  Moore’s background and reputation are among the best I’ve ever seen for a socialist candidate.  He is a legitimate candidate for U.S. president.  It isn’t often a group like the SP-USA, or the SWP, or the CWP, or the RCP, or any of those others choose a person who is a legitimate candidate for president. Usually they use the presidential election to bring attention to their agenda, and their candidates could not legally assume the office, even if they were elected.  Moore is different.  not only is he “legal,” from what I’ve read he’s at least as qualified as Barack to assume the office. 

It’s a shame the Greens talked Ralph Nader into running back in 2000, because now everyone takes him as old, unimportant news.  This time around, however, much better than 2000 or 2004, the man has realistic goals, were he to win the election, *and* he is calling the flaws, on-the-mark, in Barack’s and McCain’s “plans” for our future.  They didn’t allow him in their debates because they knew he would have kicked both their asses.  His absence in/exclusion from the debates, and the media’s ignorance is the American people’s loss, in a big way, regarding Nader.

I’m not really that into the Green party, so I can’t say much for McKinney, except like Nader, she and the Greens are definitely calling out Barack on the glaring inconsistencies in what he’s saying/promising versus what he’s doing.

Finally, the Libertarians managed to score an official place on the NC ballot, so their party may be on track to end their days of lurching through the N.C. write-in labyrinth.  Anyone who knows me knows how I loathe the Libertarians.  >However.<  If you are Libertarian—or if you believe you may be interested in becoming Libertarian, and you do some research and you decide it’s for you—please, please, please go vote, and vote for your party.  Here’s why:

In order to secure an official listing on a N.C. ballot, as the Libertarians have, ballot access laws require third parties to file a petition with 2% of the votes cast in the last governor’s race.  For the 2008 election, one needed at least 70,000 verified signatures turned in to the elections board by the deadline, which after 4 years of hard work the Libertarians secured, but that’s not all there is to winning the coveted NC ballot inclusion.  To *stay* on the ballot, and not have to go through the whole qualifying process again, a party’s nominee for governor or president must receive at least 10 percent of the total state vote.  That’s no small feat.  While I currently believe I will never, ever vote Libertarian, I recognize the important role they serve in making elections more consistent with the needs of the population, so I’d like to see them carry at least 10% of the vote this time around.  I’m not optimistic about their results, but I do have *hope*.   Every crack in the glass ceiling of bipartisan politics is a crack that lets in much needed, over-due fresh-air in our elections process.



Currently listening:
School House Rocks The Vote
By: various artists
Release Date: August 18, 1998




3 responses

  1. Bookie Diddles

    If Obama’s call for change disappoints you because it does not represent a socialist revolution or some other equally absurd ideological realignment, by all means be disappointed. I understand the allure of feel good, faux intellectual, left wing philosophies to the talking heads in the petite bourgeoisie of Chapel Hill/Carrboro hipsterdom, but that is neither what people need nor want. And not for their false-consciousness, but on the banal grounds that they appreciate abundant food and multiple pairs of socks.

    That said, what people want is competent government that finds efficient solutions to the problems we face without undermining the many things the system already does well (such as providing the aforementioned inhabitants of Chapel Hill/Carrboro hipsterdom with the idle time to equip themselves with skinny jeans and fragments of ideas obtained from skimming Gramsci and Marcuse to bewilder their parents with rather than toiling in the fields or repairing their single pair of socks). The fact that “competent government” would qualify as “change” is simply a testament to the historical incompetence of the current administration. So as long as “business as usual” politics actually results in taking care of business (climate change, Iraq, terrorism, health care), that’s change I’ll take.

    Friday, October 24, 2008 ... 23:09 at 23:09

    • Richard

      Yo, doooooooooooooooooooood!

      I found this link to a posting you (“Bookie Diddles”) made elsewhere:

      *Now* I understand your mediocre ramblings.

      Too bad about the “change” thing; maybe if you hadn’t been stoned all of 2008 you coulda seen through the campaign’s smoke and mirrors.  I guess he’s got a couple more years, but from where I stand, the milk is just as sour as it was anytime in 2008, and once that stuff is spoiled, there’s only one way to fix it.

      …of course, I realize you may have “borrowed” someone else’s email addie to post your mood-enhanced Barack babbling, but nuts seldom fall far from the tree.

      Tuesday, July 6, 2010 ... 15:41 at 15:41

  2. Richard

    Barack’s call for change is rather enigmatic, not because “it does not represent a socialist revolution…” but because Barack’s myriad opportunities to demonstrate he is an agent for change only revert to the Same Old Shit. There is no change at all. From his betrayal of his friend, Jeremiah Wright, to his exploitation of Alice Palmer, to his employment of lobbyists in his campaign, over and over and over…

    On Obama’s reneging his commitment to accept public funding to run his campaign, Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said: “Obama has been a champion of ethics reforms and campaign finance reform… . Now that he has decided to opt out of public funding, it will be more difficult for him to show that he has not abandoned the concept and will champion clean elections and ensure that Congress passes much-needed reforms immediately.”

    I’m still not sure exactly why all you agents of “Change We Need” barely batted an eye as Barack voted yes to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008), giving the green light to further government encroachment upon rights to privacy that prior to George W. Bush had been pretty much intact. He promised he’d vote “no” on that, but when roll call came, he fell in line with the rest of the Business As Usual politicians.

    If he takes the election, I wonder how many years it’ll take America to realize he won on the same speech he’s been delivering for over ten years. I mean, if he wants to prove he’s all about change, just delivering a new speech would help.

    But more than anything else, his betrayal of Wright and Palmer speak volumes about the kind of “change” Barack will bring.

    Make no mistake, Richard Nixon definitely brought change to the White House and the political scene when he won the election in 1968. It wasn’t the change he promised, but it was change. Barack is on course to deliver this same Tricky Dick(TM) brand of change.

    That may be the kind of change you crave, but I’d like to see things honest, transparent, reliable, and trustworthy. Every opportunity Barack has to demonstrate those qualities, he fails.

    A vote for Barack is a vote for the Same Old Shit.

    Your use of catchphrases is as tired and used up as Barack’s old speech, and this sentence:

    “The fact that “competent government” would qualify as
    “change” is simply a testament to the historical incompetence
    of the current administration.”

    could easily be taken from any editorial page in 1968 in a letter, column, or article supporting Richard M. Nixon. For those of us who lived through the Nixon Administration, I think we’d all agree that was Change We Most Certainly Did NOT Need.

    Saturday, October 25, 2008 ... 0:02 at 0:02

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s