For the record, the candidates who would have had standing would be:
- John McCain (on the ballots of 50 states)
- Ralph Nader (on the ballots of 45 states)
- Bob Barr (on the ballots of 44 states)
- Chuck Baldwin (on the ballots of 37 states)
- Cynthia McKinney (on the ballots of 32 states)
Each of these candidates were on enough ballots to theoretically capture a majority of the electoral vote, and hence qualify them for legal standing. Obviously, none of them thought there was any legitimate legal dispute over Obama’s eligibility.
Of course, I’m sure this is because all five, despite their *considerable* political differences, are all in on the conspiracy to cover up Obama’s eligibility. Especially the two with law degrees.
Who all in this country is supposed to be given equal protection under the law?
Just the people who can win, or everybody in the race?
This is BASIC, BASIC stuff, people. It’s the whole thing of the “haves v have-nots”. We don’t have any have-nots in the eyes of the law. Everyone is to be treated equally. If John McCain has standing to ask for a fair and lawful election, then so does EVERYBODY ELSE on the ballot.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee equality of outcomes. It guarantees equality of protection under the law and due process.
Basic stuff. But the attitudes presented here really, really show the failure of the good ol’ boy mentality. “If we say you count, you count. Otherwise, go kiss a truck. You’re outta luck.”