Carl Romanelli off ballot in Pa.

[antonialee839]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001595.php

[creeksneakers2]

1. Yes!!!!! n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DRoseDARs]

3. Except Romanelli's campaign was funded ENTIRELY by Santorum's...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/261 #4
and
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/254 #3

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Would it have made any difference if it were not?

And even if it were, so what? You are raising a strawman and avoiding the question: Why so much fear at alternate progressive voices in the body politic?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Gambling addiction... same phenomenon.

"I'll replenish the well of democracy JUST AS SOON AS I BEAT THIS GAME"

I don't care if he was a sock puppet, I think Greens are generally pathetic. They are not Naderites either. Doesn't matter -- this is sick -- to see anyone, Democrats or Republicans, congratulating themselves on raising the money thru "netroots" outlets to restrict ballot access and voter choice.

Next you'll be going after the Populist Party and Independents...

[creeksneakers2]

85. Three way races are inherently unfair.

If graphed on a continuum, one can show that no matter which position the first candidate takes he can have almost all his support cut off by the other two.

Three way races produce winners who represent a minority of the population. The majority usually loses.

Its unfair for Casey to fight two candidates while Santorum only has to fight one.

I'd like to see Pennsylvania go to a top two unless somebody gets over 50% system so we could get rid of the Green Party entirely.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Romanelli is a Santorum hack

And not only were his signatures in valid, Romanelli was PROPPED UP by Santorum donors and supporters. He's a Santorum sock-puppet.

[ROakes1019]

5. the politics of it all

Don't you understand how the political "game" works? Getting the alternative candidate on the ballot in PA was a ploy by Santorum to split the Dem vote.

[hobbit709]

6. Maybe it's because

the santorum people collected signatures and gave money to get him on the ballot-not as a REAL Independent but as someone to draw votes away from Casey.

[ck4829]

9. How come there are no 3rd parties which give the GOP competition?

It's seems like we're the only party who actually has to deal with it.

When the Constitution Party and Falange Party become parties that can steal the thunder of the GOP, then I'll support parties that give the Democratic Party a little competition as well.

Until then, I for one refuse to support something that almost exclusively puts our party at the disadvantage.

[DRoseDARs]

12. Shhhh... don't burst TechBear's bubble. n/t

[Tesha]

15. Not always true. See "Ross Perot" in 1992 and 1996. (NT)

[ck4829]

18. That is true

But we could use some of that now, but after 2000, it seems the only 3rd parties were there to provide competition against the Democratic Party, and not on the other side of the aisle.

[bigbrother05]

47. That was the media conventional wisdom

but later analysis showed that Perot pulled relatively equally from both parties.

Will always have to wonder if some of the Perotistas were registered Dems that might have voted for Poppy if Ross had given it a pass.

[Tesha]

53. You know, I hear that claim here over and over again...

> but later analysis showed that Perot pulled relatively equally from both parties.

You know, I hear that claim here over and over again,
but I've never seen a good study to support it nor
have I ever met a nominal Democrat who voted for Perot,
although I have met nominal Republicans who did.

Maybe I lead a sheltered life?

Tesha

[TechBear_Seattle]

56. There are, and they are growing

The GOP as it exists now IS the Constitution Party by and large, so with regards to them, there is little competition. On the other hand, there are several local groups organizing around traditional Republican views in direct opposition to the fundamentalism and extremism that has come to dominate the GOP; they are now where the Green Party was about 15 years ago.

You also neglect the appeal of the Libertarian Party, which remains strong in many parts of the country and has taken up the agenda of smaller, less intrusive government that used to be the GOP cornerstone. State memberships are increasing as a result. In several states, the Libertarian Party has major party status, something that the supposed threat of the Green Party has yet to manage.

[MADem]

66. That's an excellent point. It could be because the Democrats don't

secretly provide campaign support and toss money at crazy fringe assholes or PollyAnna idealists to pull votes away from their opponents, in a craven attempt to gain power. The GOP does that, and the clueless tools follow along, firmly believing in a platform that can't stand on it's own footings without GOP money, and toss away their vote. And then they have the stones to look down their noses at those of us who see the damn forest for the trees, while they feel righteous about being so brutally used and discarded.

The mind boggles!

[Eugene]

11. That marketplace of ideas must be honest.

The Pennsylvania Greens effort was bankrolled by Repugs and pumped up with phony
signatures. A real progressive alternative would be nice but cheating is not okay.

I sympathize with the Greens ideologically, but I don't like their methods.

[Freedomofspeech]

13. The reason is....

he was backed by Santorium and the judged ruled there were not enough valid signatures on the petition. He also had Republicans financially backing him.

[Zynx]

14. Romanelli's campaign was a thinly veiled Republican attempt to keep

Santorum in power.

[markbark]

35. Amen!

Getting
Republicans
Elected
Every
November


--MAB

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Sad, but true.........

:applause:

[maddezmom]

50. agreed

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

59. That speaks to the party's fears, not its strengths

If people truely believed in the Democratic Party's message, why fear the competition? Wouldn't a public, televised debate with other progressives allow the Democrats to demonstrate why they are the best choice for liberal voters?

The terror seems to stem from Romanelli running as a Green, not from who was funding him. Again: Why the fear that alternate progressive candidates will pull votes away from the Democrats? Isn't the Democratic message strong enough to survive Green (or Liberal or Progressive or New Party) competition? Especially given how blatantly bankrupt are the Republicans?

[Zynx]

71. That's a lot of idealistic nonsense. Politics is about maneuvering, not

about who's ideas are truly better. If it was, the Republicans would never win.

[pampango]

80. Ha, the sweet smell of democracy...

who ever said running a campaign is about putting forth ideas was a dangerous "idea"list. Much better to "play the game" than to present ideas that might educate people. That way we can complain in the future that the people are "sheeple" and just don't understand the issues.

[Zynx]

82. I'm not saying you don't have to have ideas.

I am saying that you have to win the maneuvering too.

[pampango]

84. Now that I can agree with! n/t

[saracat]

16. Because they are only designed to make the Dems lose. The only

thing the 3 rd parties do is get Republicans elected.We can;t afford to let that happen anymore.I am NOT as interested in hearing an "alternative view " as I am in taking back this country from the Republicans .And Romanelli was NOT by anyone's standards an "altenaTIVE VIEW".Don't you remember both Micheal Moore and Bill Maher on their knees begging Nader not to run? What is wrong with you? Do you favor spiltting the vote so the Repukes win again?

[patricia92243]

17. Does it have anything to do with this is a Democratic board, and naturally

the people posting here are usually Democrats and want us to win????

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. ding! ding! ding! ding!

we have a winner.....

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. By that logic you could justify anything illegal or unethical

It's especially ironic given all the "pink tutu Dems" we constantly criticize for saying "we are not like the Republicans, we don't need to play by their dirty rules."

UNLESS it involves disfranchising a segment of the electorate no-one
cares about, such as women on welfare, or Greens. :grr:

The DLC crowd is perfectly happy to go after disaffected elements of the base in order to send a message: "you need us more than we need you". They are happy to play dirty with Greens who are percieved traitors, on the assumption that candidates for office MUST be aligned for or against one of the major parties in order to be eligible to run.

But they do NOTHING to fight the Republicans on issues because they want Democrats to "rise above negative campaigning" and not incidentally, because they are to the right of their constituents -- far enough right to believe that political association with ones enemies is grounds for excluding someone from the ballot.

[patricia92243]

55. I'm not saying that it is right - or wrong. Just saying this a Democrati

board, and to expect anything else is not being realistic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

60. The first place we should expect ruthlessness is in the Dem Message.

It's pointless of "Dem Strategists" to pussyfoot around Bush and the Republicans, not daring to sound Hugo-esque in their criticism, lest they be mistaken for one of them wild-eyed Greens, and then go on a full-throated, take-no-prisoners campaign to protect their left flank.

It seems like displaced anger, to me.

Probably brought on by the fact thast they are to the right of most of us and will treat us the same way, next time we pull a stunt like getting Lamont elected -- a clear act of disloyalty in the eyes of some center-right Democratic leaders.

[samsingh]

29. we can welcome all the free ideas but there comes a time

to band together, select a direction, and make the evil one lose. People have to play in teams.

i would have preferred the nation under President Gore than the history we've seen.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. "people have to play in teams"

That may be advisable, but it cannot be enforceable, since the Founders strongly disagreed. The constitution does not call for banning people from the ballot on the grounds that they are hypocrites, or members of the wrong party, or their party received too much money from Republicans, etc. If you want to sue Greens for fraud and claim they are a Republican front organization in violation of racketeering laws, go ahead. Until then they are a legitimate party. Would you support kicking this guy off the rolls if he was running as an Independent, because you didn't want him "stealing votes"? How many times have "Beltway Democrats" said they cannot appeal to the base or say anything bold that might be perceived as an "attack" because they want to "take the moral high ground" and appear bipartisan?

[samsingh]

42. i'm not talking about law but mutually agreed on rules

if running is going to siphon votes away from your closer ally and allow your 'enemy' to win, why do that? Everyone has the right to run. But the repugs, as diverse as their internal views are, are united to win. until the left does that, we all lose.

[Leopolds Ghost]

48. Probably because most remaining Greens are hostile to Democrats.

I don't claim to understand Green Party ideology, since they are noticeably far to the left of, say, the Populists, who last I checked don't accept major party donations. But I find it distasteful when we cheer for the restriction of basic rights, such as the right to run for office whether or not he is an asshole.

[samsingh]

49. we're not cheering for restriction of rights

but strategy to win against a common enemy.

[samsingh]

34. serious question Tech Bear

why would any Green let themselves be used by the repugs to make a Democrat lose? Their ideas can be heard through other channels - articles, books, speeches. Al Gore made a movie on the subject.

why get into competitions that are going to let the enemies of what they hold dear (the environment0 win power and destroy the environment even more?

[TechBear_Seattle]

69. Serious answer

I see the very same antagonism towards all progressive non-Democratic candidates. I seem the very same glee when any progressive non-Democratic candidate fails to make ballot access. I have to wonder: If the Democratic Party's progressive message is so solid, why do minor and fringe party candidates -- no matter who is promoting them -- terrify the rank and file so much.

[warrens]

44. Oh, gimme a break. He was a right-wing shill

I am SO SICK of this crap. If you want to run for office, having a 2 percent base is not the way to do it. This was meant only to siphon votes away from the Dems and hand victory to a vicious fascist repuke. The only emotion this guy should feel is SHAME.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. Should right-wing shills not be allowed to run for office?

Serious question.

[keith the dem]

45. Wrong system of government

We are not a parliamentary system of government like most of the free world. Because of how the representatives are proportional to the vote, the Green Party in those countries can be an alternative voice in their government. When leaders are chosen or a government is chosen, those representatives decide who they will sleep with. In our system, we decide who we will sleep with. It used to be that we democrats had to sleep with some pretty despicable southern bigots in order to get a majority, Democrats lately have had difficulty getting a majority because we, thankfully, have cast off those bigots. With our system, you may never be fully satisfied with the Democratic candidate, that person must go beyond our rather limited progressive community. If we had a parliamentary system, I would vote Green all the way; however I recognize the advantages and disadvantages of our system and will proudly vote Democratic!!, to do otherwise just throws your vote away.

To get that alternative voice heard, get active in the party, you will be welcomed and will be heard, you may not always get your way, but who does?

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. It is not progressive to go against what the Founders said

About becoming a nation of political parties that make laws, instead of a nation of citizens that make laws. The Constitution does not give political parties -- even those we support -- a priveliged role. That is not the intent and if the result has been duopoly, that is a perverse unintended consequence of the Founders' clearly-stated aims not to have ballot access be controlled, for instance, by whether or not it benefits or harms a political party.

Otherwise I would suggest we apply the same reasoning and ban candidates who receive money from gambling logging and mining interests, etc. Republican and Democrat... only that would be held
a violation of their constitutional rights... which should tell us something about trying to eliminate candidates and parties because we don't like the way they associate with OTHER parties we don't like.

Yep, IF we had a system where it was legal for third parties to align themselves with a major party, like in Europe... oops, we do! It's called the Constitution, which does not privelige any political party but treats all candidates for office as individuals.

[keith the dem]

68. You are right in theory,

unfortunately the practice is somewhat different. With a winner take all elections, the ideals of the constitution don't quite work out. When the europeans developed their constitutions, I think they tried to fix that problem.

As you mention, drastically reforming campaign finance would very much help in getting alternate voices heard.

[jberryhill]

58. If he had enough valid signatures, he would be on the ballot

The bottom line is that this isn't about Democrats keeping anyone off of the ballot who legitimately belongs on the ballot.

Tens of thousands of fraudulent signatures don't bother you?

[TechBear_Seattle]

62. Sorry, I've eaten enough red herrings

And there are plenty of scarecrows around, we don't need yet another straw man. :hi:

You will note that I have never questioned the actual challenge to whether Romanelli met the legal requirements to be on the ballot. My question is about the reason behind the glee at the outcome of that challenge.

[WI_DEM]

74. probably because many people at DEMOCRATIC Underground

believe that the Green's take votes away from the Democrats and some even blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000. Since this is "Democratic" underground, I guess many people here are happy that he isn't on ballot where he could potentially help one of the worst senators ever--Rick Santorum--win the election. Now if this was "Green" Underground--I wouldn't appreciate it if some Democrats came in and were happy about this outcome. But it isn't Green Underground.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. LOL..........Stop It, You're Making Way too much sense...

:spank: :rofl: :applause:

[TechBear_Seattle]

81. Indeed, I should know better than...

to confuse "progressive" with "Democrat." :eyes:

[GoneOffShore]

63. 6 & 15

That's what we need to get the GOP out of control of Congress.

I'm sorry, but Carl Romanelli, like Ralph Nader, was running on a vanity platform.

"I'm standing for election on principle."

I call bullshit. Romanelli was the friend of my enemy (Santorum and the Republicans) and was a distraction.

[maxrandb]

64. Simple Answer

Why the abject terror at the possibility of alternative progressive views and political parties participating in America?

Because right now, supporting one of these parties that has no chance of winning an election helps ensure that the Repubican Party maintains monolithic...and I said; MONOLITHIC, power over our government.

I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.

This is such a crucial, "lives in the balance", "come to Jesus" moment in our history, that we simply must not waste our time on experiments with 3RD party candidates.

The Republicans simply must be defeated so that we can put the brakes on this train ride to hell. IMHO - The very survival of our Democracy is at stake.

I'm not normally a "black v/s white", "good v/s evil" type, but the Repukes "unchecked" power has made them evil, and they must be stopped.

[PVnRT]

65. In capitalism, firms tend not to encourage competition

Else companies like Microsoft would be encouraging Linux and others to grab a bigger share of the market.

In other words, your argument is invalid.

[dogday]

8. Glad to hear this and hope he

is gone for good.....

[johnlal]

19. I hope Santorum spent a bundle on this failed ploy...

... And I hope that his supporters will get a little peeved that their money was spent to prop up a Green Candidate in a silly and futile attempt at a dirty trick.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Why should the Greens play clean? we all know how

hard it is to get on the ballot, much less nominated to the Democratic tcket in PA, thanks to machine politics and unconstitutional ballot access standards. PA Dems are not playing clean, why should the Greens?

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Let me see if I understand this right...

Any non-Democratic candidate can be taken off the ballot by the courts, like in Venezuela and Iran, if people on DU do not like who is supporting them or where their money comes from.

No true Democrat should countenance such immoral and unconstitutional treatment of candidates, anti-Dem or not.

Of course, what to expect from a state whose Governor (over the strong opposition of Dems in nearby states) just introduced slot machines across the state of PA to pay for public schools?

[WI_DEM]

24. No they are taken off because of lack of valid signitures just like

anybody else. Read the article.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. 1. Ballot access laws draconian 2. Invalidated on what grounds?

Usually regardless of who is challenging, signatures are voided on the basis of skullduggery, as we saw with Republicans throwing out voter registration forms for being "spoiled" or "ineligible".

[Sparkly]

40. Here

Commonwealth Court Judge James R. Kelley ruled that Romanelli, a railroad industry consultant from Wilkes-Barre, was 8,931 signatures shy of 67,070 he needed to qualify as a minor-party candidate.

Clifford Levine, an attorney for the Democrats, said the ruling "allows there to be a head-to-head matchup between Bob Casey and Rick Santorum, which is what obviously, in our view, Sen. Santorum was trying to avoid."

State Democrats had said about three-quarters of the 94,000 signatures Romanelli gathered included fake names, unregistered voters and illegible signatures.

Romanelli's lawyer had argued that many of the signatures were incorrectly invalidated because of problems with the state's computerized voter registry, but Kelley concluded that it was too late to take up that claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_el_se/pennsylvania_senate

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Are we claiming this guy is a Republican operative?

And if so, is he allowed to run on a separate ticket? What if it's the guy who loses the Republican Party? Should he be allowed to run on another party's ticket? I thought the issue here was fraud, not illegible signatures (a tactic to force out candidates that both parties engage in, especially given the ridiculous 67,000 needed to qualify. Do dems need 67,000 to qualify?)

[bleedingheart]

61. The rules are the rules

Pennsylvania law requires minor-party and independent candidates to collect a number of signatures equal to 2 percent of the ballots cast for the largest vote-getter in the last statewide election. This year's threshold was based on Casey's record vote count in winning the treasurer's office in 2004.


Romanelli was backed with Santorum money.

Politics is dirty business ...has always been.

If you could bring back Jefferson, Jackson or even someone like Machiavelli...they would tell you the same thing.

Idealism dies very quickly once one sees first hand what running for office is like in any state. It is all about who has the name, who has the money, and who knows how to work the system and the voters. People like FDR knew this...and used this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. After the '00 debacle....

I have no sympathy left for the Greens, and unfortunately lost a very good friend as a result. If Greens were trying grassroots projects like getting elected to school boards, city councils, and other local political offices, I might be supportive. But on a national scale, the best they can hope for is to run as spoilers.

My friendship of 20+ years ended because my former friend said to me that, "the one thing Greens & rePubs can agree on is that they want to bring about the total destruction & annihilation of the Democratic Party". Since that time, I have very little interest in whatever message the Greens are trying to convey.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. It doesn't matter whether we sympathize with Greens, this is America.

You do not deny someone's right to run for office on the basis that you don't like who their supporters and associates are. Even if you hate their guts. In fact, that's who needs the most protection when it comes to liberties -- such as draconian ballot access laws meant to restrict the ballot to members of a designated set of political parties, in clear contravention of the intent of the Founders. If PA law allows that, then PA law is unaccepable. As George Washington said, this is supposed to be a nation ruled by citizens, NOT political parties.

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. Well apparently there weren't enough....

"legitimate" citizens who supported this guy? If the bulk of his fundraising, legal fees, and signatures were contributed by the rePublican party, wouldn't you agree that this makes the Greens complicit in a scheme to defraud pennsylvanians under the law? You may not like the law, and I support any effort to have that law changed to be more inclusive, but I do not support law breaking & fraud, which it seems has occurred with Greens & Pubs (once again).

Did you not expect "Democrats" on a board called "Democratic Underground" to support the competition?

:edited for spelling

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. I support the right of competition to compete in a free and fair election

Not some rigged system like Iran where ballot access is limited to approved candidates. So what if he got a fair amount of money from a rival political party that wanted him to pick up extra votes? They didn't do it to encourage him to get FEWER votes. It's stupid, but we would do the same thing if we found a right-leaning independent stupid enough to take money from Democratic Party. In fact, I'll wager we already have. I don't see it as fraud -- not unless we are trying to shut down the entire Green Party on some RICO statute or something. If that is their intent, the lawyers behind this should grow a pair and do it!

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. I, too, "support the right of competition"....

but not at the expense of the rule of law. Change the laws first, and then we can talk. I can't quite figure out what your problem is. Are you upset that Dems would have the "gall" to sue to make sure that PA election law is followed, and that the competition plays by the same rules as we're expected to?

:shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. Long as all candidates have the same ballot access requirements, I agree.

I don't believe in priveliging associations of individuals over individuals themselves.

[HootieMcBoob]

26. Very good news

I've lost almost all respect for The Green Party. They could be such a force for good in the country but they've screwed the pooch on too many occasions to be taken seriously by me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. Again, it doesn't matter if we respect them or not.

People and parties have a right to run for office, regardless of where their money comes from. The continued existence of the Republican Party (not to mention quite a few corporate Dems) proves that. You can't set aside those rights when it's convenient to our preferred candidate (who is going to win anyway). If PA law prevents you from getting on the ballot on the basis that you are a "sock puppet" then that is an unconstitutional value judgement in my book.

[FredScuttle]

75. Do "people and parties" also have the right to violate election law?

n/t

[DancingBear]

31. What an interesting set of conclusions some folks arrive at

"Ooh the greens were backed by Santorum..."

If a third party candidate showed up in PA and was funded ENTIRELY by small individual verified contributions, AND said candidate got access to the debates, AND said candidate attacked Casey for his DINO views the SAME folks who are bitching about this Green candidate would bitch about THAT one.

"F'in Greens, they're GIVING the election to Santorum...."

Whether you like their viability as an alternative party or not please don't pretend as if this time is any different for you. It isn't, so try not to be disingenuous about it.

And remember, if PA had actually nominated someone with at least a sliver of progressive policy on his resume it may have been a mute point anyway. Don't blame the Green for running, blame the PTB in PA for nominating a candidate who couldn't get progressives excited with a blow torch.

if you think the Green Party is the cause of your problems, I suggest a very tall mirror...

[FredScuttle]

73. Uh, the Green candidate here WAS ENTIRELY BACKED BY RICKY

No hypotheticals needed here....the "Green" guy was a GOP stooge...a plant. And like all things GOP, he tried to cheat and got caught red-handed. Only this time, the courts assigned a consequence.

I do blame the Green for running a fradulent petition signature effort bankrolled (and probably organized) by the GOP. I would also advise sanctimonious Greens who come in here with their holier-than-thou attitude to ensure their candidates aren't breaking election laws before casting aspersions on the Democratic candidate.

and, by the way, the word is "moot", not "mute"

[DancingBear]

77. Hey, thanks for the spell-check

Perhaps you can use said talents to actually compose a coherent response. rather than regurgitate the same tired talking points.

You, of course, would be all for a legitimate third party - wouldn't you?

Sure you would - I can tell just by reading you.

Why I'll bet if a third party guy ran as a stealth Repub backed by Dem money and signatures you'd be outraged!

And if a third party candidate got onto the ballot and into the debates and perhaps attacked a Dem candidate for being status quo you'd lead the cheers. Huzzahs for everyone!!

Oh, BTW, I have never voted Green in my life, but I DO recognize sanctimonious horse shit, if you catch the drift...

Now, where's the "moot" button...

[FredScuttle]

83. If my talking points are so tired

then, by all means, refute them. Or at least address them, because didn't in that last post.

Not that it's relevant, but I'm not an advocate, personally, for a legitimate third party because I already have a party affiliation - DEMOCRATIC. Sure, there are Democratic candidates from time to time who are less progressive than I'd like, but I prefer to reform the party from within, rather than stand on the sidelines and hurl insults with no realistic chance of winning or even impacting the discourse.

Show me one instance in the last 20 years where a third party candidate ran as a stealth Republican backed by Democratic money and resources. You can't because there isn't one. Democrats don't have to resort to that cheap chicanery to win elections.

I have no problem if third party candidates get onto ballots legitimately and challenge the Democratic candidate. What I can't stand is Green candidates (like St. Ralph) who use the same lazy talking points about Democrats and Republicans being the same. And what I really can't stand is holier-than-thou hypocrites whose candidates cheat to get on a ballot.

[Imagevision]

33. Boom-Boom-Boom, another one bites the dust...

[Sparkly]

38. AP article up on Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_el_se/pennsylvania_senate;_ylt=AmNA3sxtrPXtrolP3QdIbEWyFz4D;

[Sugarcoated]

43. Good.deal

:woohoo: :kick: :woohoo: :kick: :woohoo:

[Grebrook]

67. Good, selfish Green party Jackass GOT THE BOOT

WOOOOOH. Let's all have a look at how the Freepers are reacting to this!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

70. Playing NOW: Buhbye Carl....Playing in November: Buhbye pRicky

:woohoo:

[LostInAnomie]

72. Hey c'mon, don't you know were supposed to support...

... willing Republican dupes in their selfish king-making runs for office? After all, that's the progressive thing to do. Aren't we supposed to cling to childish idealism so that Republicans can win and trash the country? :sarcasm:

This sends a great message to the Greens. If they are going to play king-maker they are going to have to do it legitimately. Republican financing and fake signatures isn't going to get the job done. How about actually trying to build a party instead of trying to take dishonest shortcuts?

[DancingBear]

76. Yes

We won't let you into the debates, we will attack you without reservation and call you everything under the sun when you try and question us, and we will use whatever tactics we can to make sure you don't appear on the ballot.

But come build a party!

Love,

Both Parties


(as we all become what we condemn...)

[LostInAnomie]

79. Maybe we would have taken Romanelli as a real candidate...

... if he or his party would have actually collected real signatures without Republican help. Or, found funding that wasn't almost completely from Republican donors. Why would the Democrats want to help out part of the Republican strategy?

It's laughable that they want to be taken seriously and then play the willing dupe every election season.