Link

Green Party Candidate Off Pa. Ballot

By MARTHA RAFFAELE
Associated Press Writer






HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A judge on Monday ordered the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate removed from the November ballot because the party did not have enough valid signatures in its nominating petitions.

Carl Romanelli's candidacy had been challenged by state Democrats. Romanelli's bid was backed by Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who hoped that Romanelli could siphon votes from his Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Bob Casey.

Santorum has consistently trailed Casey in polls.

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.

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, resulting in an unusually high number.

Lawrence Otter, Romanelli's lawyer, said he remained hopeful that the state Supreme Court would side with Romanelli in a separate matter. Otter is appealing a state judge's decision rejecting Romanelli's arguments that the 2 percent signature threshold should be based on last year's statewide judicial retention elections, which would have cut the signatures required to fewer than 16,000.

"That's our best shot," Otter said.

Casey's campaign and the state Democratic Party have accused Santorum of engineering Romanelli's candidacy. Romanelli's support for abortion rights was considered likely to take away votes that would have otherwise gone to Casey, since both Casey and Santorum oppose abortion rights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romanelli received the majority of his financial support from the Pennsylvania Republican party. Makes me wonder how many other states have Green Party candidates who are nothing more than Republican-funded spoilers.

I would suspect there has been a lot of traffic at the cemeteries the past months getting all those names from recently burial plots..

Firstly, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that the candidates dont control the signature getters. Anyone who knows the democrats, know that they spend more time and effort challenging the greens than the republicans. They swamp the greens with paperwork and keep them tied up in court over these signatures, and its all irrelevant by the time the cout cases are done because its past the deadline. Its a really manipulative strategy by the democrats.

Was this also a manipulative strategy by those pesky Democrats? He wasn't removed for being a shill, but he was one. I was just wondering how many others there are.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A judge on Monday said he would remove the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from the November ballot because the party did not have enough valid signatures in its nominating petitions.

Carl Romanelli's candidacy had been challenged by state Democrats. Romanelli's bid was backed by Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who hoped that Romanelli could siphon votes from his Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Bob Casey.
Santorum has consistently trailed Casey in polls.

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."



So, what's the latest on Santorums issue with profiting off Hospitals that family members run?

What's to prevent a candidate from paying extra "under the table"?
Clearly if ya set out to rig an election, yer not likely to be fully above board about it!


The Greens have been badly used. And unfortunately for them this graphically illustrates the problem with a third party candidate. Santorum didn't invent anything. He simply tried too take advantage of reality! A judge thought so too, and removed the Green candidate from the ballot for not having the signatures. The statements from the judge make his opinion very clear.

This i can agree with. Republicans have often "supported" greens for no other reason than to "hurt" them dems. The problem is, when they use dirty tactics, it makes the greens look bad, while the republicns get off scott free. (as usual)

Greens could always turn down Republican $$$$$$$$$$. They talk a lot about principles.

More importantly, this underscores a major problem with the Dems. Rather than pointing fingers and ranting and raving after 2000, they should have looked to make inroads with the left( As Dems are more centrist) rather than alienate it.The greens were villified towards the 2004 election, when the Dems cried wolf about not voting independent, vote for Kerry, defeat Bush blah blah blah. They couldn't even pull that off, despite the horrible 4 years preceding that. Wouldn't the more prudent thing been for the Dems to adopt some policies of the Greens, to bring them "back into the fold", at least in the short term against Bush? Instead they took the low road, thus possibly creating another political enemy.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, heard that before? This is why , Mr Sky, when you say it is our last chance against the neo-cons Nov 7th, you are correct to a point.But, what have the Dems done to ensure the Left that things really will be different? What have the Dems done to enlist our trust and hope? You continue to say "things will change" after Dems can get the Congress and White House back. The truth is though, that until further notice, the Green Party is an enemy of the Dems. Think about it, how bad have the Dems treated this tiny 3rd party (2.7% in 2000 wasn't huge) that they would actually consider taking money from the Republicans? How bad have the Dems villified, degraded and insulted these people that they would take money from the Repubs? How much Democracy do they actually want to support?

I hope the Dems do take the Congress, but when it comes to the Green Party, and their lack of support for Dem policies, The Democrats need only to look in the mirror to place the blame for losing what could have been a strong political ally.

So republicans cant donate to greens? 25% of naders voters in 2000 were republican. Would you rather of had them give their money/votes to republicans?

While I agree that the Democrats have moved far too far to the right, and alienated a lot of left-of-center voters (as well as alienating a lot of centrist and liberal/progressive Christians), I think it's funny that when the Republicans fuck up, it's the Republicans, and when the Democrats fuck up, it's the Democrats, but when the Greens fuck up, it's not the Greens' fault, it's the Republicans, or the Democrats. Or both! That requires some really superlative intellectual gymnastics. It must be like having Circ de Soleil between your ears.

Heh,

Seems the desire to have something other than standard fare clouds the thought process?


Idea for you Greeners?

Why not support those very good progressive Democrats that populate the Democratic party?
Why not forget a political view that is little more than a protest, and support Progressives that can actually win?

Look, I don't care if there's only ONE good progressive Democrat. He'll get more votes than all your green candidates combined! Why don't you support him? Why must you lump the several hundred of them into one tub and vilify them all along with our true nemesis, the Repugnants?


No one says that all Democrats are good guys. But damn, you know there are many who are.
Don't they deserve your support? Don't you want change? REAL change?



This episode demonstrated with this thread should be a great big neon sign of a wake up call,
but will you people see it? Or will you stubbornly defend your position and opinion?





The pont was a valid one. The Greens did not have to accept the Republican Money, OR the Republican endorsements.

That simply sucked, and is bad politics.
The Green Party idealism is forever gone!
Maybe it can be said they have finally made it,
after all they are now just as dirty as the Democrats and Republicans.

Did the GP PA fuck up? yes they did , end of story. Have your glory boys in the Democratic party fucked up in their treatment of progressives? Yes. Is it hard to admit that sky? one progressive Democrat might get alot of votes, but when his whole party votes against him in Congress what good is that?You keep spouting off about "Real Change" if we vote for the Dems, but as I pointed out,will they make the rules for third parties just as difficult as Republicans. Am I going to wake up Nov 8th with the headlines reading "Universal healthcare, Minimum Wage Hikes, SS fixed etccc....(or at least after 90 days on the job)? I think not. Will our brave men and women be on the way home by next April? Bush impeached for breaking the law? Hope and Faith are wonderful, but results pay the bills.

2000--Don't vote for Nader campaign by Dems ramps up in early Oct, Greens fall from early 8% projection (5% needed for Fed funding) to 2.7% . Dems coming off most prosperous run in history, and Gore can't beat Bush? Whose fault was it? Greens!!! Not that Gore should have run away with the election, For chrissakes you could tell 20 years ago Shrub was as bright as a brick wall. The Dems and their strategists fucked up , Period.

2001- up to 2004 elections, Dems rail against independents, challenge Greens and Nader(who ran independent from Greens) in damn near every state ballot access(Hooray for Democracy!!).Bush has us in fucked up war ,economy sucks. Dean hailed as progressive Dem, lets out war yell to rally the troops and gets banished for sack of potatoes John Kerry. John Kerry? Who promptly LOST the election. Keep in mind, here in Ohio, the Dems didn't even challenge the irregularities in the process and results.....The damn Greens did! Oh yeah REAL CHANGE, the Dems bent over and kissed Bush's ass.oh, and continued to rail against progressives who actually got on board and voted for the Junior Senator from Massachusetts. So the Dems got the 2 million plus votes back from progressives in '04 and still lost. Incredible.

I'll vote for Dems in senate and Repres races here this year, but instead of the Dems being smug and saying they are about "Real Change", how about put up or shut up?How about first order of business if they take the congress, is to impeach the bastards driving us normal working folks into the ground. To keep saying "Its better than what we have now" is a little redundant sky, I think we all know that. But what can we expect to change? Higher taxes for the rich? haha.

You said the point was valid , the GP fucked up, I agreed. Now are you ready to agree that the Dems fucked up , and need to do a repair job with the left,or will you continue to degrade the third party votes as useless, and employee the Dem Fear tactics of "vote for us or else..." <<<<not much different from the Republican slogan is it?

I agree the Greens fucked up, but my point is, what would drive them to join the Republicans? Why haven't the Dems helped out the progressives who can help them , not alienate them? Thats all. A spade is a spade, they fucked up, but the Dems who have had alot of ammo in their guns the last 2 presidential elections have fucked up way worse than that.See: Bush,Geoge W President.

Double Post, skys got me all hot & bothered

I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
How could the Greens have helped the Democrats when they are both liberal going for the same votes?
Why didn't Nader drop out on 2000 when it was clear he couldn't win, and ask all his followers to vote for the Democrat that could actually win?

And what does any of this have to do with the Green party getting into bed with the Republicans?

See: Bush,George W President??? See: Elections 2000 the!

The problem sky is that I can admit the Greens screwed up, whereas you can't admit when the Dems do. It wasn't about Nader in 2000, it was about Gores lousy campaign. Nader wanted to get the 5% for the party to recieve matching funds in '04(because not everyone gets the money magic like the D & R's). It must really pain you to admit the Dems have screwed up the past 2 times, like I said, they got all those votes back in '04 and still lost. Why help the Greens, because maybe then the greens would vote with them (oops they mostly already do) and maybe run a safe states campaign to help the Dems(oops did that in '04 and DEMS STILL LOST!!!!!).

Like I said, you will never admit the Dems have screwed up royally the last 2 times out, so it is moot point to even dicuss this . If they can't look in the mirror and see their own warts, they deserve what they getsame as the greens.

Like I asked before sky, WHAT is going to change? Is there an agenda for change in place? like I said, "vote for us or else...." whats the plan?

I have never said anything other wise. Democrats are not saints, in fact, some are terrible. For instance, I personally do not like Hillary. But at the same time their are many good Democrats who are NOT in the headlines every other week.



Yes Gore could have run a better campaign, but, he lost by less than the Greens won. Consider that the next time you're angry with Bushco!



Yes it does pain me and it's my considered hope that they, we have learned a few things and do better.


Again I will ask you, why didn't Nader pull out and ask his supporters to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Republican?




I have never even insinuated that the Democrats have done anything other than what you have just said. I really wanna knoww here you get this feeling? Clearly you have nothing you cfan copy paste because nothing exists. C'mon! Your indy party is dirty, as dirty as those you railed against for so long. NOW who you gonna vote for, or NOT vote for, or what ever you will do?





You don't nead to rail on me because your choice turns our not to be as sweet and squeeky clean is you had dreamed they would be. The Greens still have many good ideas and I do hope they reform them selves and get back on track. But, you Greens have to take the lesson that reality is handing you. YOu don't have any choice in the matter, or your Green party will not be able to reform its self.

I am not responsible for the fact that your Green party crawled into bed with the Republicans.
The Democrats are not responsible for the fact that your Green party got into bed with the Republicans.

The fact is, those people involved made their own decisions, and took the Green party with them into the corruption gutter.
End of story!

But I am speaking of the past two Again he should have run away laughing with the presidency, and you got the votes back in '04 and did nothing with them I have already answered this
in this instance, as I have said, the PA GP screwed up, and I have already stated who I was voting for (aren't you paying attention? )
Nice try to double back about "my choice" you still haven't offered WHY we should vote Dem. Policy statement? Anything? As I said "vote for us or else.." is so...Republican. Never said you wereRight they screwed up on their own, but as I asked, How bad is the alienation by the Dems that they would actually go to the Dark Side?

Agreed, but once again, alienation of the left by the (alleged) left? I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just saying the Dems need to review how they do business with the "fringe " left, thats all.

The problem here is sky makes the assumption that the democrat is always the better choice. Its like having a cold or the flu. They both suck an no one really wants either. The greens offer a CHOICE. A PROGRESSIVE choice, which the democrats so often fail to do.

We should eliminate parties and names from the ballots and instead just list what each candidate stands for. Then well have nothing but greens running the government! The dems hate the greens because they have principles and stick to them. The ignore their own mistakes and instead like to bash the greens and then wonder why they loose elections. Perhaps they should look and see WHY people are voting green and learn something from that.

I still dont see how taking money from any individual is bad. Dont both other parties accept pac, 501 and union monies? And they have the nerve to criticize greens for taking individual donations?

Let me be more specific.


Between the Democrat and the Republican, today, the Democrat will be the better choice 99% of the time.
Between the Democrat, the Republican and the Indy the Democrat will still be the better choice 99% of the time, because the Democrat is better than the Republican 99% of the time and is the one most likely to defeat the Repiblican candidate.

When I refer to today, I am refering to a time frame that includes and is strictly limited to right now through November 7th, 06.

Can this now be any more clear?



The Greens will just have to accept the fact that their people are no more rightious than the Republicans that we all know are rotton, and the Democrats the Greens are always railing against even though most are pretty good liberals. Perfect? Now that the Greens are ALSO not perfect, doesn't this change that perspective just a touch?





Edit to add....

Green party = Thousands of people and a handfull of real candidates
Democratic Party = tens, maybe hundreds of millions, and thousands of real candidates.

When we refer to the Greens, we're talking about specific people.
When we refer to the Democrats, we're refering to a little bit less than half of America. (100 million or more?)

True
Wrong. Can you prove this?

No one ever claimed as much. Not PERFECT, just BETTER

Well, we have ~10,000 registered members, but remember, most states dont allow you to register green.

Secondly, nader got millions of votes in 2000 and 2004

I thought this was more about ideology, not people?

You guys look and sound like Bush defending his failed policy.

I have said my piece. You guys may continue to defend all you feel you need though.

Sky, you seem to be the one who is defensive. You still haven't given specific policy reasons to vote Dem. and continue to use the Repug scare tactic to elicit votes. When you feel up to answering the questions on how much better we'll be then yes we can continue.The amount of Dems , considering the restrictions on all other parties is a moot point. They still haven't gotten the job done at the polls.

Here is the link showing where Romanelli's money came from:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php

At least I can go to bed tonite knowing no "pretty good" Democrat has taken money from the Republicans....................................

Remember this date.


NOVEMBER 7th, 2006

Thanks for the indepth policy briefing.

When all else fails, use fear. Who does this remind me of......

Boo!