Politics and Policy:

  • Here is a transcript of an ICQ conversation with my friend Scott on the NJ situation. I thought he made some good points so I’m quoting here with his permission…
      Scoota@OU: one of the justices in NJ (she had sounded like a democrat) dismissed offhand one argument…. the justice said the voters would be deprived of a choice, but the republican said there are six people on the ballot and she said get real we are only talking about the two major parties

      JMB: no way! Oh, I’m going to go off on that.

      Scoota@OU: they had a libertarian give arguments before the court yesterday too….. very good

      makes me want to be a lib

      Scoota@OU: i read the court’s opinion last night

      JMB: I will have to read that.

      Scoota@OU: “the Court being of the view that it is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system”

      Scoota@OU: I would say the two-parties destruction would be more in the public interest

      JMB: amen to that.

      Scoota@OU: the libertarian made a really good point that we are a nation of law, and that it really seemed not to be an issue of choice, but the fact that the NJ Democratic Party was very willing to pay the $800,000 or more to put their person on the ballot showed that it was a issue of maintaining power in fact

      JMB: the democratic party of NJ does not respect the rule of law. — I truly hope the demos keep control of the Senate, but not so much that we sacrifice the rule of law. The demos should not have tried this, as a matter of principle. If they hated the repub so much they should have endorced the Green party candidate or something.

      Scoota@OU: yeah they said the voters need a choice, yet there are 6 people on the ballot for senator there the real question NJ Dems and general voters need to be asking is “can we trust a party that does not respect the law, and a party that when the going gets tough, they run?”