But I could have run if I wanted to in 2006. Wilson meet Pukula
As I said earlier - Mr Nachbar stated that he didn’t run because he was asked by his B&L CEO boss to stay on and deal with all the unexpected issues confronting B&L a couple of years ago.Listen to the retort to those assertions and then listen to his response.
[ev type="youtube" data="5Xy7CeNlUOo"][/ev]
When pressed, Nachbar’s response is he could have run even if he wasn’t a Democrat.
Under Wilson-Pukula there are avenues of access…
Look, say what you want to here - using a legal venue to get a someone who is not a party member to run on a party line, in this case, a Democratic line just doesn’t seem right.
Remember he was approached by Democrats who apparently didn’t do their homework on party registration and he is going to potentially rely on a legal approach? Sounds a bit arrogant and self-serving and certainly not worthy someone who was supposedly raised with Democratic values or professes to practice them now. That is a swipe against Nachbar and his recruiters if they believed a Wilson-Pukula strategy for getting a non-Democrat onto the Democratic ballot was viable.
Now, in fairness, he does say again that the primary reason he dropped was because B&L was in trouble and he was asked to stay.
My question: Which is it?
Drop out of the race because there were lots of surprises at B&L or get out because the because the only hope you have is to use legal maneuvering to get on the ballot which would look awfully silly.
Dear reader - chose-
I’ve chosen and it isn’t all about B&L issues otherwise Wilson-Pukula isn’t a consideration at all - in fact not even mentioned.
My next question is who is telling Mr Nachbar in 2006 about Wilson-Pukula? I’m sure Wilson-Pukula isn’t in the B&L HR handbook. Who is saying that he has a chance to get on the ballot using Wilson-Pukula? It had to be a Democrat, some senior candidate recruiter person -
Inquiring minds want to know.
[...] Ah for life to be so simple. Was there mention of joining the party? There seems to be something else happening but you can see that clip later. There is another clip that will be posted that addresses that. Be patient. - OK- it’s here. [...]
A minor thing, but I think you mean 2006.
Picky, Picky.
Yes, last cycle 2006. I corrected the title. Thanks.
[...] sum of my legal expertise is centered around Google.ÂÂ David Nachbar’s assertion that Wilson-Pukula could be a possibility back in 2004 prompted me to dig. OK - scratch the [...]
Hmm-
Even under Wilson-Pukula, a potential out of party candidate has to get a majority weighted vote of the party’s committee members in the district. Since Massa already had strong support, having worked to meet Democrats across the Congressional District, it is unlikely that Nachbar could have gotten approval in 2006.
This is hardly a simple election law technically.