Democrats Against Democracy

Yesterday a federal judge ruled against Ralph Nader's attempt to get on the Michigan ballot as the Reform Party's presidential nominee. The Reform Party has split into two factions. The judge said that the Secretary of State shouldn't have to make the determination which Reform Party in Michigan is the real one, so a rejection of his nomination was allowed to stand.

However, Nader could still appear on the ballot as an independent, because the Michigan Republicans circulated nominating petitions. They turned in enough for him to qualify, but the Democrats cried foul. The state board of canvassers is made up of two Republicans and two Democrats. The two Democrats voted to reject Nader's nominating petitions, which caused a deadlock, essentially rejecting his appearance on the ballot.

Of course the Nader campaign has gone to court to force the board of canvassers to put him on the ballot. He'll probably win, because we can't understand why the board could reject Nader if he had enough legitimate signatures.

The Democrats are the ones who have been kicking and screaming to keep Nader off the ballot. Now, we here at GR Pundit perfectly understand that Nader probably tends to take votes from the Democrat candidate, but how does that look? Isn't it a little more than hypocritical to call oneself a Democrat and yet want to limit the choices on the ballot? Maybe it's a new Democratic caucus: Democrats against Democracy. Or maybe they just want to limit the choices to what they approve of.

"But wait!" We hear our readers screaming, "The Republicans do it too!" Yes, we know. Both major parties do it. It's all about power and maintaining the status quo. Politics is about power; gaining and maintaining power. It's that simple. That's why we here at GR Pundit are thoroughly non-partisan.