Perpetual Embarrassment Cynthia McKinney Won’t Be On 4th District Ballot

August 17, 2012 12:18 pm

by Stefan · 35 comments

In a very sad day for democracy and my personal amusement, Cynthia McKinney turned in exactly zero signatures in her quest to run for Congress in her old district, but this time as a Green party candidate.

So sayeth the AJC:

McKinney had been trying to collect signatures to run as a Green Party candidate against U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, aDeKalb County Democrat, in the 4th Congressional District, but a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office confirmed Friday that McKinney did not submit any signatures by the Aug. 7 deadline.

The missed deadline was first reported by Patch.com.

McKinney still could mount a write-in campaign but her name will not appear on the ballot. She would have had to secure 18,859 petition signatures to make the ballot.

McKinney served in Congress as a Democrat for six terms. Johnson defeated her in a 2006 Democratic runoff after McKinney attracted controversy for a run-in with a Capitol police officer. McKinney was an outspoken anti-war voice and once questioned whether the George W. Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

Some said McKinney’s participation in the race could have been the tipping point that forced a runoff, and you could imagine a scenario where she finished second in the general with, say 30% of the vote, the republican taking more than 25%, and Hank Johnson garnered only 45%. And then in the runoff, South Dekalb would then launch her to victory. And by you I mean Cynthia McKinney. Nobody else thought that.

CobbGOPer August 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

I would rather not see her back in Congress either, but I still think it’s ridiculous that she or any other candidate that does not choose to run as a Democrat or Republican must go through this signature fiasco in order to be allowed to pay their qualifying fee and run. But incumbents, they must be protected.

Stefan August 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

I know, right? Also, we should bring back the Jungle Primary.

CobbGOPer August 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm

I’m all for Jungle Primaries. They’re cheaper too.

Noway August 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm

What is a Jungle Primary?

LaFayette Underground August 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm

Jungle Primary is one where the two top-finishing candidates of ANY party go on to the November vote. California uses this, and they’ve got several races where two Democrats are facing each other in November. Georgia would end the practice of deciding races during the primary with no opposing party (read:Democrat) candidate running, and it also eliminates the need for a primary runoff since you’re pretty much doing that in November.

That’s how _I_ understand it anyway.

–LU

seenbetrdayz August 17, 2012 at 8:25 pm

intersesting

seenbetrdayz August 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Ok, I give up— from now on, everyone just guess what I’m trying to spell.

NoTeabagging August 18, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Bring back the modify button!

saltycracker August 18, 2012 at 7:59 pm

We knew you meant intersecting.

Calypso August 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Intersexting

LaFayette Underground August 17, 2012 at 5:44 pm

“A nonpartisan blanket primary (also known as a qualifying primary, top-two primary, Louisiana primary, Cajun primary or jungle primary) is a primary election in which all candidates for elected office run in the same primary regardless of political party. Under this system, the top two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the next round, as in a runoff election. However, there is no separate nomination process for candidates before the first round, and parties cannot thin the field using their own internal processes (such as a convention). Similarly, it is entirely possible that two candidates of the same party could advance to the second round.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary

NoTeabagging August 18, 2012 at 6:29 pm

BTW – A blanket primary has nothing to do with politics making strange bedfellows.

Mrs. Adam Kornstein August 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm

This surprises me for the simple reason I thought she had something left of her old campaign “machine”.
Seems not, and strange that there wouldn’t be a few folks around who would want to help promote a third candidate option. I understand folks don’t like the former Congresswoman, but given all the unhappiness with the one party choices, seems some “good goverment-do gooder” group ought to have taken this on to get her a few signatures.

Oh and GA-FYI, ranks dead last in ballot access in all 50 states and 8 territories.

Happy Face August 17, 2012 at 2:50 pm

She got zero signatures. That seems to indicate that she didn’t get off the couch or even lift the telephone to ask for help. I could stand on a street corner and get at least a couple of signatures even if they were for Bin Laden, though I’d also likely get a couple of well deserved punches in the nose.

Dave Bearse August 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm

She turned in zero signatures, which is not the same thing.

Happy Face August 18, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Think we’re saying the same thing, aren’t we? It wasn’t that she couldn’t get signitures, it’s that she didn’t even try.

Dave Bearse August 20, 2012 at 11:38 pm

I don’t know if her campaign didn’t try, or tried and failed. About all that is mostly certain is that she didn’t get enough to consider presenting them.

Happy Face August 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm

Ah, I see what you mean. The was I read Stefan’s post looked to me like she gathered zero signatures but she may have indeed tried and merely didn’t get enough so she didn’t turn any in. Or she got enough and for some reason decided to not go ahead with the campaign. Whatever the case, I’m sure we’re all glad to see her kept away from public office even if she was good for a laugh or two.

Noway August 17, 2012 at 2:45 pm

The sad thing is that this idiot is receiving a very health congressional pension every month!

Stefan August 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Are you sure? She’s not yet 62 and she didn’t have 20 years of service to get it earlier. Did she apply early and receive a partial pension?

Noway August 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Not 100% sure, Stephan. The way I have always understood it, the moment a member leaves, they begin to collect the pension amount they have qualified for based on their years of service. Maybe those on this board with more specific knowledge can help me out on this.

Stefan August 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm

I went and looked it up, Norway. She isn’t getting a pension. She will beginning at age 62. It will be ~35k a year if my estimation skills are correct. Also, fun fact: did you know you have to serve at least 3 terms in the House to be eligible for a pension?

Noway August 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm

I did know that their was a minimum number of terms in order to receive one. Thanks for clearing it up.

saltycracker August 18, 2012 at 8:04 pm

A pension vesting in six years ! Wow !
Who does that in the private sector ?

Stefan August 21, 2012 at 12:11 am

Probably all companies that require a million dollar job interview every two years.

Stefan August 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Also, who’s Stephan?

Charlie August 17, 2012 at 4:25 pm

You mean that internet meme about Congress folk who only serve one term but get their full pay and benefits FOR LIFE! (always capitalized) isn’t true?

Damn. This makes me wonder what other things people post on Facebook might not be true.

SallyForth August 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Mentioning Facebook makes me wonder how that stock thing is working out for all the people Zuckerberg scammed.

SallyForth August 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm

Damn not having modify/delete!! I meant to add that maybe Cynthia can get in on some of that action to tide her over until the retirement payments kick in.

Napoleon August 17, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Ni, it must be true…I saw it on the Intrawebs!

wicker August 18, 2012 at 10:08 am

McKinney may be a Marxist, but she turned out to be 100% right about how Bush was going to use the war on terror as a vehicle to hand out hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to his cronies in no-bid contracts (just as his brother Jeb used “privatization” as an excuse to hand out similar no-bid contracts in Florida, and as a result taxpayers often wound up paying more for lower quality services than they were receiving before). Well, OK, maybe she was only 85% right but still, it is good enough to qualify for the “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” thing. The sad thing is that no one admits it, and no one mentions “hey, whatever happened to all that Iraq reconstruction money that was misused or outright disappeared” either. Not even the left, who you would think would have benefited from making an issue out of it, ever did.

Charlie August 18, 2012 at 10:14 am

Well, when you slap a cop that is being paid to protect you, it really doesn’t matter much what else you have to say.

wicker August 18, 2012 at 10:40 am

Charlie:

Touche. However, my point is that it is a great tragedy that no one more responsible and respectable raised the same issues that McKinney did on the Iraq reconstruction issue. The far-left, the Salon and Village Voice types did for their own “preaching to the choir” purposes, but no one attempted to put it into the mainstream political discourse except McKinney. The liberals who are usually outraged over taxpayer money being diverted from social programs to military spending were silent. And the folks who went on to march in the TEA Party rallies by the millions after Obama got elected never mentioned this at the time, and still don’t to this day. (The relative pennies by comparison that went to Solyndra and the automobile bailout are their preferred talking points.) I don’t bemoan the fact that there is one less Marxist in Congress, but the fact that she lost her seat for being the only one willing to talk about something that turned out to be basically true is very regrettable.

caroline August 18, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Do you want to know the reason nobody talks about this stuff? Because it’s okay if “our” guy does it is the way things stand now. How many people on the left do you hear complain about the NDAA? Very few in my experience and how many people on the right do you hear complain about the NDAA that never complained about the Patriot Act or any other civil liberty shredding thing Bush did? I hear lots of people on the right around here talking about the NDAA but conveniently seem to forget all the things Bush did.

jbgotcha August 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm

They all serve the same masters (multinational corporations), so of course they won’t bring it up. They will continue, from both sides, to engage in spectacle. There is no diversity in poltical thought anymore. All the socialists, marxists, trotksyists , etc. were marginalized and destroyed by propaganda and fear. They may not have had the correct solution, but they served to keep liberals in check. We are trapped in a corporate con game. It’s really disheartening.

Comments on this entry are closed.