Andrew Warner

I just wonder what goes through the minds of these people. Do Kos and others like him that act like think we are going to look at this at say: "hey, maybe they're right, maybe we should support all the Democrats' right-wing candidates"? Maybe it's just me, but I think acting like a bunch of pricks is a really bad strategy for winning elections.

Or maybe this is just their knee-jerk reaction to the possibility that our party is growing while theirs is not.

They're definitely trying to nip their problem (an actual progressive party) in the bud.

With the way they act, I don't know if I'll ever be able to vote for a Democrat again – even when there is no independent/Green choice in race.

Agreed, Andrew.

I don't know if you or anyone else caught any of the comments from the Kos groupies when he posted his tirades about Carl Romanelli, but judging by their demeaning attitudes toward Greens in general- this new wave of Democratic "netroots" people don't want us. So why vote for them? Why support any of them? And why send any of them any of our hard earned dollars?

Speaking for myself only, I only have to be told to "fuck off" once before I do just that and leave- for good.

You're exactly right. The new "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party is no more open to democracy than the thugs that held power (and most still do hold power) before them.

What's wrong Andy, won't they let you sit at the grown-ups table? Your fringe candidates cannot win any statewide or national elections, period. BTW, Democratic voter registration is at a near all time record high. even in Republican strongholds like Wisconsin, the Dems now have more registered voters than Republicans for the first time in decades.

And on that note, thi story in today's news shows everyone what a deceitful, dishonest shill Ralph Nader is:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS07/608240429/1009

Deceitful petitions cost Nader $80,000

August 24, 2006

Email this Print this ASSOCIATED PRESS
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his running mate must pay more than $80,000 in expenses for a lawsuit that kept them off the state's 2004 ballot, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Wednesday.

The suit had challenged nominating petitions filed by Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, who ran as independents.

The state's Commonwealth Court found wide improprieties among their petition signatures and disqualified nearly two-thirds of the 51,000 signatures they submitted.

Thousands of names were created at random, the lower court found, calling the petitions "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court."

In the state Supreme Court ruling, five justices said Nader and Camejo must pay the plaintiffs' transcription and stenography costs and handwriting expert fees.

"Given the magnitude of the fraud and deception implicated in signature-gathering efforts, their claim that the Commonwealth Court acted in an unjust and unconstitutional fashion by assessing transcription and stenography costs does not pass the straight-face test," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote for the majority.

A sixth justice said he didn't think the law permitted the award of such costs; the seventh said only about half of the bill was permissible.

John, I like your editorial job on that article that clipped off the most important point of the entire article. I will provide that here for people interested in the ramifications of such a poor decision:

"A lawyer for Nader and Camejo, Basil C. Culyba, said the decision was incorrect and that his clients will have to decide whether to seek further appeals.

"The decision will force any future third-party candidate to decide "whether or not he wants to bet his family home in an effort to have his political views heard," Culyba said.

A lawyer for the voters who filed the lawsuit, Gregory Harvey, countered that "experience shows that a legitimate third-party candidacy has no difficulty" getting on the ballot, largely because Pennsylvania's period for gathering signatures is the longest of any state." "

Please note the way, John and Democrats like him cannot define themselves without making reference to Republicans:

the Dems now have more registered voters than Republicans for the first time in decades.

And John, if we are an insignificant little "fringe" party why does your big significant party for adults spend so much time trashing and suing us? It sure the hell ain't because your party believes in doing the right thing. If they did, our troops wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq right now. Would they?

Poor decision? Why, just because it went against Nader? If a Democrat or Republican committed such widespread fraud and had to reimburse the state for the prosecution of their baseless challenges you would say the same thing?

Hardly, Andy. Bill Pierce and Bob Fritrakis didn't have to risk their homes to get on the ballot. They got actual signatures from valid voters.

You don't have to pay the penalty if you don't break the rule. Seems pretty reasonable.

Modern Esquire,

Your question shows very little thought on your behalf. Why is it a bad decision?

A) The "forgery" was probably done by anxious volunteers desperately scrambling for signatures (doesn't necessarily make it right)

B) The only reason this type of thing happens is because of the ridiculous, unconsitutional demands of third-party candidates in regards to collecting signatures. A 50-state campaign where each state requires an insane amount of signatures is bound to be brought to its knees in desperation.

C) The case was brought up by desperate, anti-democratic "Democrats" trying to eliminate the chance of actual democracy. The reason it is successful (whenever pansy Democrats do it) is because the Democratic Party has sold out to the point where expensive lawyers are a cheap investment.

Bill Peirce and Bob Fitrakis have been left alone for one reason and one reason only – the polls between the two major sell-outs aren't close. If the difference were only a few points then Democrats would working around the clock to find "forgery" or other reasons to throw them off the ballot.

Let us not also forget the couple of months it took for Blackwell to certify the two independent candidates (2 months without being able to tell potential campaign donors you are on the ballot puts a pretty big kink in the fundraising hose).

Modern Esquire, I understand you are a letter of the law guy, but in this case you are just a Democratic thug trying to enforce an unjust, discriminatory law that has no basis in the Constitution (making ballot access easy for the two major parties is a complete garbage law and you know it).

Obviously fraud is never a good thing, but you are all too happy to burn Nader in a witch hunt than address the real problem.