Hi,this is Steven.I am here to informed the details about Alcohol.For this Alcohol people face many problems.Alcohol can poison body parts and don't surprise they go on to the death.For more details please visit us.
===============
steven7
visit
Drug Intervention Pennsylvania

Another reason why democrats have to go.

TomAmity, the answer to your last question is "Yes". How else to explain why anyone would go along with this system which is robbing us and our children, filling the pockets of the filthy rich, and is guaranteed to only get worse? But people keep on doing the same thing. I read a blog that pointed out that we only get to choose which corporate candidate to vote for within the two parties. And is no one catching on to this?

People talk of Dennis Kucinich running as a third party candidate. Didn't they read what Ralph Nader went through trying to get on the ballot? The Republicans let the Democrats be the thugs in his case. And in some states the hurdles are set so high for third parties, it won't happen. This system is totally broken and in my opinion, this great experiment in democracy is over. Maybe when the stench of the corpse gets overpowering, people will realize they've been had. The corporations will have moved on to greener fields, and we will be looking at the scorched earth that used to be the USA.

One more thing.

Anybody on this blog who keeps insisting that it was Nader who caused Bush's election--gabi, for example--has simply not digested the facts that so many of the contributors have furnished here.

The office of Jeb Bush's secretary of state simply DISCARDED upwards of 109,000 ballots, all of them in heavily Democratic precincts. If Nader had not been in the running, they would have needed to discard less than 20,000 more. Can any sane and intelligent person doubt that they could have managed that if they'd needed to, having managed to trash 109,000? The idea that they couldn't have done so, and that they wouldn't have done so if it had been in their interests, is absurd.

In early January of 2001, when the time came for a formal counting of the electoral votes, the congressional Black Caucus very properly demanded an investigation into the allegations of vote fraud. Many progressive individuals and organizations, including Nader and the Green Party, endorsed that demand. But there was no investigation, because not one Senator--no, not ONE of your precious Senate Democrats--would join in the demand for an investigation.

Gore, of course, had previously petitioned the Supreme Court for a recount; but he asked only for a recount of selected precincts where he knew he was ahead. And the Court turned him down. If he had had the guts to ask for a recount of the STATE, then I very much doubt the Court could have turned him down.

One week later, the phony liberal Democrat Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry appeared on the TV news interview program Meet The Press, and one of the TV reporters asked them why they hadn't joined in the call for an investigation of the alleged irregularities in Florida. They both said "Nobody asked us."

They needed to be ASKED?????

And according to the press leaks, Gore had specifically requested his Senate colleagues not to rock the boat. I hope to heaven the press leaks are wrong. Because if the press leaks are correct, Gore is the greatest traitor to the American cause since Benedict Arnold.

In 2004, as we recall, there was the same overwhelming evidence of a G.O.P.-generated vote fraud, this time in Ohio, and nobody dared blame Nader because the statistics made it very clear: the Nader vote was simply not a factor, period. This time, the friends of democracy were better prepared: Senator Barbara Boxer was widely lobbied and asked to PLEASE join any demand for an investigation, since by statute at least one member from each of the two houses has to request such a move in order for it to be made. And indeed, she did stand up and call for an investigation when the time came. That's something, I guess.

But during the entire previous week leading up to her formal statement, she told the press over and over again, "This is not going to change the outcome of the election."

Now isn't that neat? She called for an investigation, but repeatedly made it clear that the it wasn't going to be a serious investigation.

Leading Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have stated on the floor of the Senate that they believe the 2004 election was fair. You and I know they're lying through their teeth.

So Nadar is responsible for Bush's victory? Nader, who has repeatedly called for an investigation of the reports of vote fraud in 2000 and 2004? Are you crazy?

One comment for the character who said something (earlier in this blog) about Nader "taking Republican money."

Approximately 4% of Nader's campaign funds came from Republican donors, and they're mostly Republicans who had supported him on his comsumer campaigns for years. No Dem ever objected to that until Nader ran for president.

Kerry took $11.5 million from Republican PACs that had already endorsed Bush. That's five times as much as Nader's contributions from all sources.

Kelly was right! I'll never get in a room with this group.

>>>
Bill Clinton cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
>>>>

Al Gore 'cost' Al Gore the 2000 election. If he'd been truer to the progressive values he now espouses publicly, I might have voted for him.

The thing is, candidates should be made to EARN our votes, rather than take them for granted just because the Republican candidate is SUCH an a**hole. Don't 'We the People' deserve to have more than two lousy choices? Shouldn't we be free to vote for whomever we agree with, rather than trying to second-guess what other voters will do?

Corporations and their paid media mouthpieces shape these election campaigns. They have already narrowed the "serious" field down to 3 or 4 from each party. It must be just coincidence that those "serious candidates" are ALL pro-business corporatists who are willing to play the game and NOT change the uneven playing field.

The best thing we could all do to restore our democracy and empower its citizenry is to lobby for 'Instant Run-Off Voting' and other methods of assuring that The People have control over our government.

Seems there are a lot of people who didn't "learn the lesson" of the last 2 presidential elections. Many of us hoped that, instead of ganging up on Ralph Nader and denigrating his proposals (his very 'progressive' proposals if anyone bothers to read them), the geniuses at the DNC ought to be very carefully re-evaluating their own principles and deciding how to modify their positions in order to be true to those principles.

Ralph Nader's ONLY sin is that he represents those values that once made the Democrats "The Party of the People". How do the Democratic Party honchos respond to Nader's candidacy? ...by smearing and demonizing him for daring to challenge them at the polls and then doing their worst to narrow the field with all kinds of legal shenanigans and dirty partisan politics.

After Dennis Kucinich dropped out in '04, Nader's was the only voice that spoke out... against the war that ALL the other "major" candidates had either enabled or enabled to continue...against the Patriot Act that allows despotism (as long as it's used to stop "terrorism")...against the new bankruptcy rules that were practically written by the credit card lobbyists....unapologetically for universal single-payer healthcare...against 'Big Pharma' which is shoveling big bucks to Hillary and lots of other candidates from both "major parties" (i.e., what Gore Vidal calls "The Chamber of Commerce Party").

I can understand why these positions would send the DNC into 'panic mode'. Nader's genuinely progressive ideas might attract too many liberal votes. Since they couldn't very well argue against Nader's platform which appeals so much to many of us who used to call ourselves "Democrats", they decided that his candidacy was becoming much too appealing to grassroots Democrats, and therefore Ralph Nader had to be marginalized and then destroyed.

The DNC's campaign against Nader accomplished its purpose--it drove Nader (AND his progressive ideas) off the ballot in more than a few states, and it pretty much bankrupted his campaign. If they had put that same time and effort and resources into positive campaigning for their nominee and his Republican-Lite personna, who knows how things might have turned out...?

ross dreyer:

It is so unfortunate that you posted pertinent information concerning ballot censorship way too late for real discussion to take place. By the time viewers would have a chance to read your remarks and comment the entire thread will be pulled to make room for more articles here. Too bad because I feel that ballot access is more important right now for American voters than, dare I say, pushing the corporate Dems to impeach Bush and Cheney. Without the ability to place choices on states' ballots for voters to make good, sound choices, what difference does it make to have one corporate party spend time trying to remove leaders of another.

What this country needs is a WAKE-UP CALL to how corrupted our electoral system really is and who's behind it. I suggest you try to get your argumnent posted as an article on common dreams to continue this important issue.

comarc: Way back up there, excellent points. The more astute political observers are more like forensic archaeologists (lacking a verbal or written record) reconstructing events and building profiles -- as opposed to sock-puppet journalists echoing the politician's own words. We must look at results of behavior to build an understanding -- not at fine pronouncements, empty proclamations, etc.

With the Dems, I believe you are correct -- and it goes much further back than Clinton. They've not worked on IRV or Range Vote, they've not cleaned up campaign financing, they never held Bush Sr. accountable for lying about being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra, they bent over for the soap while Reagan was in office, got us into Vietnam, and clearly something was fishy with LBJ's coverup of the assassination of JFK, etc. The Dems are just placeholders or rocks on the political landscape at best, another mob vying for power at worst.

Their hands are tied by their bosses, there's no doubt about that. The only question is: who runs them? It's not the mandate of the people, that much is certain. Who's their kingpin?

One aspect of all of this that I have found so perplexing and troubling is that many people who support the Democrat's efforts to keep Nader and other independent/third-party candidates off the ballot actually consider themselves advocates of voting rights and free speech. This continues to amaze me as it seems so obvious that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is as antithetical to voting rights and free elections as censorship is to free speech. Preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is, after all, nothing but censorship of the ballot.

To be sure, some of these people fighting so hard to keep Nader and other candidates off the ballot (as opposed to championing their own candidates on their merits in free and open elections with real debates) are nothing more than hypocritical tyrants of various sorts hiding behind democratic-sounding rhetoric. There is really nothing to do with these people except expose them for the political bigots that they are.

More interesting and hopeful are the people who appear genuinely to believe in democracy, the right to vote, free elections, and free speech, but nonetheless support keeping Nader and others off the ballot. If they truly believe in these values, how can they actually support censorship of the ballot?

Voting rights are usually thought of in terms of the right of an individual to cast a ballot and have it counted—i.e., if everyone can vote and every vote is counted, then voting rights are secure. Viewing voting rights in this manner allows the very people who expend tremendous time and energy removing Nader and others from the ballot to, at the same time, feel genuine outrage when minority voters are kept from the polls in Florida or voting machines do not accurately count votes in Ohio.

This notion that we have voting rights if everyone can vote and every vote is counted is fundamentally deficient. The right to cast a ballot and have it counted is necessary, but not sufficient for voting rights and free and open elections.

Voting rights and free elections require both the ability to freely cast a ballot that is counted and the ability to vote for the candidate of one's choice (which necessarily depends on the ability of that candidate to appear on the ballot). If either element is missing, the right to vote is a sham.

Consider, for example, an election in which 100% of the people have the right to vote, 100% of the people vote, and 100% of the ballots are accurately counted, but only one candidate appears on the ballot. Under the usual conception of voting rights (everyone can vote and all ballots are counted), it appears that the right to vote is perfectly in tact. But this does not look anything like democracy. Indeed, dictators have repeatedly exploited this (deficient) conception of voting rights. Is it really qualitatively different when the field of political choices is limited to the same two parties again and again and again?

Why we continue to put up with this is amazing. Would we repeatedly (if at all) eat at a restaurant that offered the "choice" between one of the same two tasteless and stale dishes over and over again? Would we tolerate cable television that offered the "choice" between one of the same two boring shows over and over again? There would be open rebellion in the streets. It occurred to me at the store the other day that we have more choices in the type of deodorant and toilet paper we buy than we have for the type of candidate running for President of the United States.

To bring more people around to the idea that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is not consistent with their genuinely held views of the right to vote, freedom of speech, and democracy, I think we must develop a way of talking about voting rights in this dual context—the right to vote and the right to vote for the candidate of one's choice (i.e., ballot access). If we're interested in seeing additional candidates and ideas, we need language and frames to make this the issue explicit. I don't think we have that language yet, but I think it's very important for the next election cycle that we develop it.

As the Republicans have shown recently and what my civil procedure professor said long before that, he who frames the argument and controls the language wins the debate. I just Googled "ballot censorship" and it returned only 3 hits! A search for "censorship of the ballot" produced none! Censorship is very difficult to defend if you support free speech. Why not take a lesson from the Republicans and call action designed to prevent Nader and other independent/third-party candidates from appearing on the ballot what it really is—-ballot censorship.

ross.dreyer@comcast.net

Wow, it's great to see all of this support for ballot access, independent/third-party candidates, and Nader and other important voices, as well as the rejection of the "Nader cost Gore the election" garbage.

I was one of the lawyers representing Nader and Camejo in 2004 in Pennsylvania. I thought some of you might like to read our brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appealing the order of costs, which is copied below. The brief is also available from Westlaw at 2005 WL 4049929.

ross.dreyer@comcast.net

******
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
In re: NOMINATION PAPER OF RALPH NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004.
No. 198 MAP 2004.
January 17, 2005.

Appeal of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo
Appeal from the Final Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered on October 14, 2004, in No. 568 M.D. 2004

Brief of Appellants
Basil C. Culyba, Esquire, (admitted pro hac vice), 1400 16th Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 265-4000, DC Bar No. 250191.Ross A. Dreyer, Esquire, (admitted pro hac vice), 115 Harrison Avenue, Number 4, Sausalito, California 94965, (415) 332-2381, CA Bar No. 214429, Attorneys for Appellants Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 723(a), which grants the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final orders of the Commonwealth Court entered in any matter which was originally commenced therein. The Commonwealth Court had exclusive jurisdiction over this election matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § § 761 and 764. See In re: Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 847 A.2d 44, 48 n.7 (Pa. 2004).

STATEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may reverse a Commonwealth Court's order concerning proceedings involving challenges to a nomination paper when the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, where there was an abuse of discretion, or when errors of law were committed. In re: Nomination Papers of Nader ("Nader I"), 2004 WL 2185351, slip op. at p. 17 (Pa. Sept. 29, 2004); In re: Nomination of Flaherty, 770 A.2d 327, 331 (Pa. 2001). Moreover, in reviewing election issues, this Court must consider the longstanding and overriding policy in our Commonwealth to protect the elective franchise and that, in order to promote this policy, the Pennsylvania Election Code must "be liberally construed in order to protect a candidate's right to run for office and the voter's right to elect the candidate of their choice." Nader I, slip op. at p. 17.

ORDER IN QUESTION

The full text of the final order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered on October 14, 2004 is as follows:

ORDER

Now, October 14, 2004, except as otherwise ordered, all costs for court stenographic appearances and transcript preparation are hereby assessed against the Nader/Camejo campaign, Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo individually. The Chief Clerk is directed to forward any future invoices filed with the court by any court stenographer involved in the hearings in the above captioned matter to the Nader/Comejo campaign and Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo for payment.
s/ James Gardner Colin President Judge

A true and correct copy of the Commonwealth Court's Order is attached hereto as part of the Reproduced Record.

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED

WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH COURT ERRED BY ASSESSING COSTS AGAINST THE CANDIDATES AND THEIR CAMPAIGN UNDER SECTION 977 OF THE ELECTION CODE, 25 P.S. § 2937.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Form of Action

This case concerns whether it was error to assess costs against Candidates Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo arising out of hearings before the Commonwealth Court on Appellees' Petition to set aside the candidates' Nominating Papers for President and Vice President of the United States in the 2004 general election. Accordingly, Appellants appeal the Commonwealth Court's final order assessing costs and request that this Court reverse and vacate the order in its entirety.

2. Procedural History

On August 2, 2004, the Candidates filed nomination papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeking to have their names printed on the Ballot as independent political body candidates for the respective offices of President and Vice President of the United States. Nader I, slip op. at p. 2. On August 9, 2004, Appellees Linda S. Serody, Roderick Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald Broan and Julie O'Connell (the "Objectors") filed a petition challenging approximately 34,000 to 35,000 signatures on the Candidates' nomination papers. Id.

Following oral argument held on August 27, 2004, the Commonwealth Court entered an order dated August 30, 2004, setting aside the Candidates' nomination papers on the basis that Section 951(e) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911(e), as applied to Candidates.who were Candidates for other parties in other states, disqualified them from appearing on the Ballot. Nader I, slip op. at pp. 10-11. In a per curiam order dated September 20, 2004, this Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's August 30, 2004 order and remanded the matter for expedited hearings on the signature challenges made by the Objectors to the Candidates' nomination papers. Id. at p. 32.

By order dated September 16, 2004 (later amended to September 20, 2004), the Commonwealth Court ordered hearings to be held in ten (10) different locations in Philadelphia, Doylestown, Pittsburgh, Erie, Greensburg and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, starting September 27, 2004. (9/16/04 Order, pp. 1-3). Further, the Commonwealth Court ordered counsel to "forthwith meet with the election officials maintaining the voter registration records for each county from which objections [were] asserted to the nomination papers" and to "compare those nomination papers with the official records for the purpose of reporting to the court, by stipulation or evidence," whether there existed certain enumerated defects to the challenged signatures based on the voter registration record review. Id. at pp. 3-4.

On September 27, 2004, the Candidates moved the Commonwealth Court to amend its September 16/20, 2004 order because it improperly focused the hearings on the voter registration status rather than voting qualifications of the electors that signed the Candidates' nomination papers. (9/27/04 Motion to Amend 9/20/04 Order). By order dated September 27, 2004, the Commonwealth Court denied the Candidates' motion, (9/27/04 Order; R. 2043a-2048a [9/29/04 Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion in Support of 9/27/04 Order]).

Immediately following the Commonwealth Court's September 27, 2004 denial order, the Candidates filed with this Court an Application for Extraordinary Relief and an Application for Stay. By Order dated October 1, 2004, this Court denied such applications. In re: Nomination Papers of Nader ("Nader II"), No. 171 MM 2004 (filed Oct. 1, 2004)(per curiam). However, the Honorable Justice Thomas G. Saylor filed a concurring and dissenting statement in which he noted that the Candidates' argument in their motion to amend had "arguable merit" and that it was advisable for the Commonwealth Court "to separately review, with respect to each challenged signature and affidavit, whether the signature or affidavit meets the requirements imposed by the law assuming that voter registration is not required." Id. at pp. 2 & 3.

On September 27, 2004, the Commonwealth Court began holding multiple hearings across the Commonwealth on the Objectors' challenges to the Candidates' nomination papers. The primary focus of such hearings concerned whether the signers of the Candidates' nomination papers were registered electors on or before the date of signing such papers.

The hearings by the Commonwealth Court continued until the last one concluded on October 12, 2004. Following the conclusion of each hearing, the presiding Commonwealth Court judge issued findings and conclusions of law with respect to the Objectors' challenges to the signatures on the Candidates' nomination papers. (R. 2049a -2063a [10/13/04 Consolidated Findings, Opinion and Order and the interlocutory findings, conclusions and interim orders attached thereto]). Thereafter, the Commonwealth Court entered a final order setting aside the Candidates' nomination papers and directed the Secretary of State to not certify the Candidates' name on the Ballot. (R. 2043a -2048a [10/13/04 Consolidated Findings, Opinion and Order]). On October 14, 2004, the Commonwealth Court entered its Order assessing costs against the candidates, which is the subject of this appeal.

On October 19, 2004, a majority of this Court entered a per curiam Order affirming the Commonwealth Court's decision to set aside the nomination papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo. On October 22, 2004, Mr. Justice Saylor filed a Dissenting Statement.

ARGUMENT

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo were independent candidates for President and Vice President of the United States in the 2004 general election. Their campaign was funded exclusively by contributions from individual supporters. Unlike candidates for the two major political parties, the Nader for President 2004 Campaign neither solicited nor accepted contributions from corporations, labor unions, law firms or any other private or political organization. As a consequence, the campaign continually struggled financially to adequately present its case for political change to voters nationwide.

Moreover, because the Democratic Party wrongly viewed their candidacy as a potential "spoiler", the Democratic National Committee launched an unprecedented nationwide and well-funded attack to deny Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo ballot access. The expressed strategy was not only to defeat their efforts to gain ballot access, but, as importantly, to drain their campaign's limited resources by forcing them to defend their right to be placed on the ballot in almost every state where ballot access was sought. The strategy worked. Instead of devoting its limited funds to communicating with voters on the issues, the campaign was dragged into litigation in court rooms across the United States by politically motivated and vastly better funded trial teams determined to deny voters the choice of Nader for President.

The after-shock of the "bankrupt the Nader campaign" strategy is still being felt. Deeply in debt, the Nader campaign continues its struggle to raise funds, a burden imposed by the unprecedented and constitutionally suspect attack on their exercise of protected political speech.

The case in Pennsylvania is representative. In a state where Ralph Nader sought and obtained ballot access without controversy in 2000, in 2004 his campaign was embroiled in the largest election litigation in the history of Pennsylvania. Part of the national political strategy to defeat and deplete the Nader campaign, the challenge in Pennsylvania was "successful" on both counts. Yet, ultimately, the candidates nominating papers were not set aside based on any wrongdoing by the campaign or the candidates, but rather on a serious and legitimate question of statutory construction with which one distinguished Justice of this Court agreed.

Now, their resources exhausted, the candidates are assessed costs for defending their right to seek political office and, in so doing, having brought before this Court a case of first impression on a most substantive question of Pennsylvania Election Code interpretation that will inform all future elections in the Commonwealth. Under such circumstances the assessment of costs against the candidates is manifestly unfair and constitutes an unconstitutional penalty against the exercise of political speech. The Order should be vacated[FN1] .

FN1. Since October 14, 2004 Order of the Commonwealth Court, Petitioners filed their own Bill of Costs on December 3, 2004 requesting that Respondents be ordered to pay Petitioners $81, 102.19 in various enumerated costs. Respondents have filed their Opposition to the Bill with the Commonwealth Court based on the reasons set forth herein and, additionally, because the Bill seeks the recovery of costs in excess of that specified by the Court's October 14 Order. The matter is pending and will likely be governed by the outcome of this appeal.

II. THE ORDER ASSESSING COSTS AGAINST THE CANDIDATES IS MANIFESTLY UNFAIR

The award of costs against a candidate seeking ballot access is unprecedented in Pennsylvania election law. Appellants have found no previous case where a Pennsylvania court has assessed costs against a candidate under Section 977 of the Election Code and there are no unique circumstances here for doing so. Indeed, given the important legal question of first impression posed by the candidates in support of their nominating paper, there is especial reason not to assess costs against them.

Although the Commonwealth Court suggested that there was systematic and widespread fraud conducted by a number of individuals gathering signatures on behalf of the campaign, the court cited no wrong doing on the part of the campaign or the candidates individually. Rather, the court commended the candidates for voluntarily withdrawing signatures from consideration when they became aware of any fraudulent conduct connected with them.

Moreover, as Justice Saylor noted regarding the Commonwealth Court's finding of fraud:
"A review of the tables and exhibits attached to the order, however, suggest that the problem was of a more limited scale (for example, 687 signatures out of 51,273 reviewed - or approximately 1.3% of the signatures - were rejected on the basis of having been forged)."

Dissenting Statement, filed October 22, 2004 at n. 13. It cannot be said therefore that any finding of fraud justifies the unprecedented assessment of costs against the candidates.

Given these circumstances, and considering the disparity of the financial resources between the Petitioners and the candidate Respondents in this case, the award of costs against them is manifestly unfair and should be vacated.

II. THE AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST THE CANDIDATES IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE EXERCISE OF THE PROTECTED RIGHTS OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION AND POLITICAL SPEECH

Candidate eligibility and ballot access laws implicate two different kinds of rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments-"the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters to cast their votes effectively." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787, 103 Sup.Ct. 1564 (1983); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 357, 117 Sup.Ct. 1364 (1997). Both of these rights are among the our most fundamental and are "an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which embraces freedom of speech." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S at 787.

In Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Supreme Court articulated the commonly cited two-part test for determining the constitutionality of statutes restricting a candidate's access to the ballot:
[A court] must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It must then identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State in justification for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all of these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.

Id. 460 U.S. at 790.

The award of costs against independent candidates for nationally elected office, as is the case here, raises especially serious constitutional questions. Whether Pennsylvania has an interest in enforcing the award of costs against candidates within the state of Pennsylvania, concerning the election of Pennsylvania officials, by Pennsylvania voters is not at issue here. Even if Pennsylvania has such interests, whether those interests apply in the context of a national election is a different question because the state's interests in ballot access regulation diminish markedly in a national election. As the Supreme Court has observed:
[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the President and Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation? Moreover, the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States. Thus in a Presidential election a State's enforcement of more stringent ballot access requirements ... has an impact beyond its own boarders.

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 260 U.S. at 794.

Given their independent, grassroots nationwide campaign, financed exclusively by contributions from individual supporters, the burden of assessing costs against these candidates is severe. Allowing the Commonwealth Court's order to stand establishes a precedent under Pennsylvania election law that will chill the exercise of the rights of free political association and free political speech, and serve as a warning to future independent candidates that they, through no fault of their own, can be threatened with personal financial ruin merely by seeking to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

There is no legitimate or compelling state interest presented by this case to justify the. unprecedented award of costs against the candidates and their campaign, or to justify the present and future burden on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights the award of costs will necessarily have. The Commonwealth Court's Order should be vacated.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Appellants respectfully request that this Court reverse and vacate the Commonwealth Court's order in its entirety.

In re: NOMINATION PAPER OF RALPH NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004.
2005 WL 4049929 (Pa.)

I'm curious about the heated defense of ralph nader and his tactics that I see here?? Interesting, since nader has done little in the last ten years to garner this kind of support.
Possibly some of you have forgotten that your "guy" took money from the republican party to "create" distress, and to massage his ego.
I'm wondering how many of you actually know this man? I'm wondering how many of you actually worked in any of his groups -Cal Pirg/ Zero Population Growth, etc
Maybe some of you need to talk with some old Greens etc.

I see a lot of over reacting here and very little truth. nader's votes in florida did "lose" the election and left us with bush. The votes that went to nader in florida, made it possible for bush to "cheat" there. If those votes had gone to Gore, it would have been impossible for the pubs to screw America.

Ralph Nader owes PA money - Pay up!!

You should take the time and write more often TomAmity, you make a lot of sense.

I'm breaking my usual rule against participating in blogs (too time-consuming) because there's a detail here that needs to be addressed.

"Fraudulent signatures" refers to signers making trivial errors such as listing Street instead of Avenue, or leaving out or putting in a middle initial. When it was discovered that Senator Obama had hired people to go over an opponent's ballot petitions to nitpick in this manner, and that he'd succeeded in keeping his opponent off the ballot, there was a great hullaballoo and many Democrats still resent him for it. This kind of thing is very commonly cited as a classic example of dirty campaigning.

The Democrat hypocrites who are constantly using every means they can think of to smear Nader ("he took Republican money" is one of my favorites) engaged in these rotten tactics in state after state in the '04 election.

Speaking of the '04 election, have you ever noticed that Democrats never dare to blame Nader for the G.O.P. vote fraud that was pulled in Ohio in that year? The '04 vote fraud was if anything on a bigger scale than the one in Florida in 2000. They don't dare blame Nader for that, due to a pair of good reasons: (1) Nader's share of the vote in '04 was so small that a repeat of the original slander would have seemed absurd even to Democrats, and (2) their own polls and focus groups had informed them that the American people are perfectly well aware that Bush's victory in 2000 was due to G.O.P. shenanigans and cowardly Democrat refusals to challenge the results.

One blogger here has spoken of the Democratic Party's sense of entitlement. I couldn't agree more with that.

Democrats acting like Replublicans. Then again, most of the time you can't tell the difference between the two. Kind of like two manure piles side by side. They look and smell the same.

Kelly told me that if all of us bloggers on this string, were all locked up together in a big room for an hour, no one would walk out alive.___ Then she trotted over to the edge of our yard and peed on a bush.

Bush and the Florida Republicans, and that b*tch Katherine Harris, all were responsible for keeping Al Gore from winning the presidency, which, after all that massive voter fraud, would have made HIM president, not the chimp we have today.

Democrats who lose elections have no one to blame but THEMSELVES. They lost the election; no one lost it for them. If the Dems are right, they should win regardless of any third party or independent candidate. If they lose it's their own damn fault.

Leave Nader, a hero of mine, alone! Let him run! Run Ralph run!

Yes, no one was more responsible for Gore's lost Presidential bid than Mr. Gore. He had the charisma of a rock. His strategist forgot that newspapers write to a third grade level and so must campaign talk on a third grade level. G.W. did it perfectly but then he was in character. The D. Party as a whole stood by with their fingers up their belt loops while Mr. Bush walked and talked like a winner and moved into the White House.
People on Common Dreams are drooling at the thought of Gore running again but if he cant get more passion into his face and speech, connect with joe sixpac then he will do worse than last time because he will be seen as an "already run once, already lost once" loser candidate.
I wish it werent so as I like the man for his stand on ecology.

I expected these comments to support the imbeciles in Pennsylvania who apparently need a remedial class in the workings of a democracy and a citizen's right to run for public office. In hindsight I should have expected better from those who read Common Dreams...I apologize.

I believe Ralph Nader to be about the last real Democrat on the planet, at least in word and deed. He sounds like what the Democratic Party used to sound like, before they sold their DLC souls to the corporatists.

Al Gore's failure to carry his own damned State played a rather large part in his loss, as well as the machinations in Florida by Jeb and that abysmal Harris woman. The way Gore rolled over so quickly and refused to stand up for honesty and decency said far more about our political climate than did Nader's entry into that race.

bildad July 12th, 2007 5:19 pm

"If these ideas resonate with you, I hope you will reconsider your voting strategy, because as E.V. Debs once said, "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

Thanks, bildad. We all needed a reminder of what the "Greens" all about, and your quote above says it all!

But bildad, that isn't what many others have said. Now I'm back to square one again and I thought I finally had it down pat.

My my, so many diverse opinions here, which one of you is right? Maybe everybody is. How could that be? I dunno???___ I'm gonna go have a nice quiet conversation with Kelly. Kelly is our Irish Terrier,___ she's smart, never argues.

Thank you, autonomy. I just gave them a piece of my mind.

Evelyn, I'm sorry you feel that way. Voting for the Green Party is not the same as voting for the Republicans, because when you vote Green you are voting AGAINST the corporate-imperialist duopoly and FOR a truly democratic multiparty democratic system.

When you vote Green instead of Republican, you are also voting for the 10 Key Values common to all Greens. If you share these values, you will be voting for your own best interests when you vote Green. If you're not sure what the 10 Key Values are, here's a quick refresher:

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life." We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

If these ideas resonate with you, I hope you will reconsider your voting strategy, because as E.V. Debs once said, "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

Here are the emails and telephone numbers of some of the lawyers quoted above and others not quoted who participated in the shameful assault on democracy to purge Nader from the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004. Give them a call or send them an email to let them know how you feel about their work.

Efrem M. Grail, Esq.
egrail@reedsmith.com
215 241 5665

Gregory M. Harvey, Esq.
215-772-7684
gharvey@mmwr.com

Christopher Walters
cwalters@reedsmith.com

Michael Sampson
msampson@reedsmith.com

Daniel Booker
dbooker@reedsmith.com

Cynthia Kernick
ckernick@reedsmith.com
412 288 4176

Milind Shah
mshah@reedsmith.com

Brian Gordon
mail@gordon-ashworth.com

It's true that the Gore lost in 2000. It's not true that Nader was the cause. The Dems never stood up to the crooked republicans then nor do they now. I support Ralph Nader and will support any third party candidate that could spoil a Dems chances to be elected. This was not true for me in 2000 but it is now. The more they attack Ralph Nader the more they prove his contention that the Democratic party is just the other Corporate party. Any faith in the democrats to return democracy to the nation or stop the occupation of Iraq is utterly misplaced. Vote GREEN oh ye betrayed democrats. The pigs are on both sides of the isle.

Well, after reading and then re-reading all of the posted comments, I guess it is perfectly clear to me now. As I'm a registered independant, I vote for the Green Party, (which at the present time, is the same as voting Republican) or vote for a democrat (which at the present time is the same as voting Republican, as they are the same thing.) Thank you all___ I got it.

mississippimama wrote:
"Mobilize, organize at the grass roots level. Get candidates who believe in what you believe into office at the bottom and push and work until you effect change at the top. Educate your community - get involved in local groups where there is a broad spectrum of people, even people who unthinkingly support nonprogressive, regressive candidates. Work with them, teach, lead by example, show where you have common ground."

Hmmmmm. Now if I'm not mistaken, that sounds exactly like a Green Party local organizer talking. And yet I bet you're far from considering working with the ONLY NON-corporate controlled party running candidates at every level, building from the grassroots up. See you at the next Mississippi state Green Party meeting. They are always looking for people with your insight and enthusiasm. And you can help them and other third parties tear down discriminating and unfair ballot access laws...that is of course if you're not really a Democrat!

RichM makes a good point. As I've been saying a lot lately, organized politics is no different than organized religion; participation requires faith.

It's interesting that mississippimama is OK with Cindy Sheehan's possible run against Pelosi. Ironically, in the news reports here and elsewhere, there was no shortage of "pragmatic" Democrats tearing Cindy a new one exactly as they tore Ralph a new one. And it's for the similar reasons; the kindest paraphrase is that after all, Cindy is an inexperienced bumbler who's patently unqualified for the job in the first place. And these partisans are quick to add that Pelosi is doing a heckuva job under horrible circumstances, so that challenging Pelosi is as wrong as it is futile. Ergo, Cindy is either mad or bad, like Ralph.

So noble expressions such as "the greatest good", and working to support candidates who believe what you believe don't apply. It's no surprise that partisans paradoxically regard "voting one's conscience" as self-indulgence or mere folly. Conscience? That's fine-- provided you get your conscience right and vote for the corporatized, centrist stiff deemed "electable" by party leaders.

As a progressive independent, I've had it with holding my nose long enough to cut off my brain's oxygen supply.

To mississippimama (11:32 am)-

What you are calling "compromise" really means staying within the confines of the Democratic Party. And staying within that Party means, as COMarc said above, voting "to keep things the same until the Republicans can come back later and make it worse again." At their core, the Democrats are just part of a mechanism insuring that even when Republicans lose, their underlying program is not interfered with.

If you're so upset about Bush stealing the 2000 election (& you sound as if this genuinely pains you), please name ONE important crime Bush has committed since stealing office, that the Democrats have seriously fought against. I doubt you can name one. They've been actively or passively complicit with every crime, & even today, in the majority in Congress, are actively protecting Bush-Cheney from impeachment. You must ask yourself why they are protecting him.

You call for pretty-sounding stuff like "Mobilize, organize at the grass roots level. Get candidates who believe in what you believe ..." etc. Hilariously, this is EXACTLY what the Nader movement was -- yet you denounce that as "useless."

mississippimama July 12th, 2007 11:32 am

Vern - no it is not Nonthinking - it is about thinking and looking for the lesser evil, even if at times there is compromise involved.
----------------------------------------------------------
Fixed the typo.

Voted for Gore actually. PA was a swing state. So you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't really see how your other comments are relevant, other than you are lecturing me about compromising but refusing to do so yourself in your insistance that you got it right.

I don't know all the answers and I don't pretend to, but this I know: We do not tear down those out there on the frontier of improving the lot for all of us with courage and determination and sometimes at great risk to their own safety. Someday they may be recognized for their efforts but right now they may be meeting with great resistance and wealth and power will be relentless in seeking their destruction. Do not aid and abet in suggesting it is an ego trip. Think about who is on our side opposed to who claims to be. Either you get the status quo or you get opportunity for real change. Is the risk worth it to you?

Otherwise, like to see you advise Southern African-Americans that were unwilling to compromise on civil rights that it wasn't worth it. Sometimes there just isn't a choice.

I've read all the above posts and my stomach is queasy. As a free thinker, I don't really see a way out of this single party system. As an American, back to 1620 landing on the rock, I feel for this nation and the heritage we truly have ignored. As an American I condemn our system as unfair and undemocratic, as unpatriotic and as fascist as our combined nightmares can dream. To know the difference of what we can and cannot do is my concern. Back to my stomach. I'm afraid we might not be able to win this fight with paper anymore. We might have been better off if the British won. In effect, maybe they did now. Bush is in office.

Vern - no it is not Nonthinking - it is about thinking and looking for the greatest good, even if at times there is compromise involved. How often do people like you actually work with and try to resolve issues with people who are on the opposite side of the fence? No, you are in a little bubble - come live in the deep south. You surround yourself with militants who scream its "my way or no way" and look what happens. You marginalize yourself and become wholly ineffective, screaming in the wind. I love and admire Cindy - but what has she got to do with this? She has been nothing but a positve force - she did not get Bush elected. She is doing it the right way - mobilizing at the grass roots level.

I was like you until 2000 - then after the Nadar debacle in 2000, i realized that the way to change the process is not to throw a self-defeating monkey wrench into the process, it is to effect change from the bottom up. Mobilize, organize at the grass roots level. Get candidates who believe in what you believe into office at the bottom and push and work until you effect change at the top. Educate your community - get involved in local groups where there is a broad spectrum of people, even people who unthinkingly support nonprogressive, regressive candidates. Work with them, teach, lead by example, show where you have common ground. Yes, it is an arduous, slow process. But the Nadar way is useless, and had abyssmal results in 2000.

Let's see: 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush (compared with 90,000 votes -Republicans, Democrats, and Independents- in Florida for Nader), Gore lost Tennessee, thousands of African-American Floridians were illegally banned from voting, voter suppression and technical glitches favored the Governor's brother, the election supervisor, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the Florida campaign head for Dubya's campaign, the Supreme Court claimed that the "individual voter has no federal constitutional right to vote" and voted 5-4 to select Bush, etc...

Not even Gore believes that Nader threw the election to Bush.

We need to change the process so that in the end, it becomes a contest between two people.

"...I was completely disillusioned with him and his egomania"

Look folks, there it is again. Keep a lookout for this and witness how folks soak it up without thinking. Our advocates, our most courageous fighters who speak truth to power are widely and repeatedly renounced for their "egos". Sheehan is constantly hounded with the charge--"attention whore". It is an insidious tactic that our truthtellers are yoked with this charge. It is an attempt to muzzle and restrict.

Typical PA Democrat voted in the last sweep of congress with anti-war claims

http://www.patrickmurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=40

The Republicans' deeper problem is that they still cannot answer the question Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., posed during the House debate. The former Army captain and Iraq veteran recounted questions he said his gunner had asked, as their convoy moved through a perilous area known for ambushes. "He said, 'Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?' "

Well actually Congressman, they are fighting for their country.

This is the idiot that just brought the bill that condemned the British for boycotting Israeli universities, a tactic successfully used against S.African apartheid, but he is given a pass as anti-war although he advocates keeping troops in Iraq and is already banging the drums on Iran.

"There's no question that Nader cost Gore the election," said Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Really? What about all the lost and uncounted ballots; election machines that were throwing votes to the wrong candidates; an election system that made it impossible to recount votes, not to mention a 5-4 vote from the Supreme Court to place George Bush in the White House?

The "no question" emotional propaganda technique is getting a little old and worn out. In a real democracy, a third-party candidate shouldn't be considered a threat to anyone who actually believes in democracy and a democratic process.

Attempting to justify a two-party system (among other issues) through emotional debate is losing the power it once had in our society. As I recall, the latest U.S. poll figures indicated that trust in Congress has fallen to the 20 percentile range. These figures should give us a clue that the majority who vote in this country are no longer the "objects" of media propaganda techniques.

We are tired of governmental lies and manipulation; our enslavement to the corporate elite; and the loss of our constitutional rights under such bi-partisan legislation as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act.

The time to change the course of this country is long overdue!

Blaming Nader is by no means absurd. I am a long time fan and admirer of nader and campaigned for and voted for him in 1996 and 2000. But I was and am living in the right wing south where the democratic candidate had absolutely no chance. I was completely disillusioned with him and his egomania - I will never vote for him again - when he refused to announce to voters in swing states two days before the election that they should vote for the democrat. Anyone in a swing state who thinks that their act of voting their conscience at the expense of Gore losing was worth visiting the world with the Bush/Cheney plague these last 7 years is friggin delusional.

In Colorado, the rule is you can only participate in primaries for the party under which you are registered. So, when I first moved here, I registered Dem so I could support Kucinich in the 2004 caucuses. Today however, I refuse to have my name associated with the Democratic Party, so I've changed my registration to the Green Party. This means I can not vote for Kucinich and his little doomed-to-fail, tilting-at-a-windmill campaign.

The problem is that voting Dem does not put the Republicans 'in a deep hole'. Instead, all you get is the Dems acting to protect the Republican agenda until the Rethugs can dig out of the whole.

Stop listening to what Dems say and watch what they do. This goes all the way back to the Clinton years with NAFTA and WTO and Welfare Reform, etc. It continues through this year with Reid and Pelosi promising that Bush will not be impeached and that war funds will not be cut off.

When you vote Dem, its just a vote to keep things the same until the Republicans can come back later and make it worse again. People have got to stop voting Democratic if they want change.

Or, just watch Kucinich and Gravel to see how futile it is to try to run as a Democrat. The Democrat primaries are a rigged game that can only be won by a candidate with lots of money and the support of the Dem power structure. That's no accident, the game is rigged to be that way.

-- campaign finance. In an internal party race, the Dems could pretty much set what rules they want for campaign finance as long as they don't exceed the limits in federal law. So, they could use clean election type laws (see VT or AZ). Or they could place lower caps on contributions. Basically they could do anything they want. What do the Dems do? They keep their internal party race as wide open to big money as they can keep it.

-- calendar. The presidential primary calendar is designed to keep any grassroots type of campaign from succeeding. Every year the calendar grows more compact with a series of big state primaries happening one on top of the other. This heavily favors campaigns that have a)lots of money for advertising, b) campaigns back by the party machine in the states, and c) campaigns that are backed by big corporate media companies. A grassroots campaign needs time to build. It needs time for lots of meetings and lots of canvassing. These primaries instead reward the candidate that can buy lots of ads, get the state party hacks on their side and that get lots of free favorable media coverage. Also, any campaign that gets unfavorable media coverage has no time to react or counter it.

You saw this in 2004. Remember how fast it swung from Dean to Kerry? Kerry was able to put these three factors in his favor. He had money, he had the party hacks, and he had a media that was backing him in the primaries. So, in Iowa you saw the convergence of these. The media was suddenly spinning lots of stories both about how Dean wasn't electable and how Kerry as a vet was immune to attacks from the rethugs (how'd that work out?). The result was that the Iowa campaign turned in a hurry. After the Iowa win, it was essentially over because Kerry started raking in even more money, while Dean's financing dried up. And it dried up right before the run of big state primaries so Dean couldn't compete. Meanwhile, the press was full of stories of the Dean scream and also about how wonderful and presidential Kerry was.

The result was a wham-bam-thank-you-maam and before anyone could react, Kerry had the nomination locked up. It will happen even faster this time around.

-- Superdelegates. Even if a candidate like Kucinich or Nader were to succeed in this rigged environment, they need more like 60% of the vote to win. The Dems have about 800 superdelegates that are not elected by the voters. Basically they insure that the party hacks have a big say at the convention. So even if a grassroots campaign was successful and eeked out a narrow win in the elected delegates, the party hacks as superdelegates would kill the chance of a nomination. So a Nader or a Kucinich needs about 60% of the elected delegates, while if they were competing against a Hillary, she'd only need about 40-something% to win the nomination.

The key lesson ... the Democratic party is not democratic. The Democratic party does not behave in a democratic fashion. The leaders of the Democratic party could care less about what the members think. (how many state resolutions have seen saying to impeach or get out of iraq? how much impact have they had on Dem leaders?). The game is rigged to produce the winners that the party machine wants.

I've been hearing that the answer was to work inside the Dem party for a decade now. Face it, it doesn't work. Its a waste of time and effort. Its a rigged game that you can't win. You'd have better odds at a crooked carny game.

BTW, how many states require registration limited to the 2 parties to vote in the primaries?

"Why doesn't Nader just switch and run as a Democrat?"

Remember what they did to Dean.
They don't want you to run as a Democrat if you don't play ball and they don't want you to have the choice to run anywhere else if you don't.
They don't want you.

dkm July 11th, 2007 7:35 pm

Behind the smoke screen of "the right to run for office," is someone who, when it comes down to it, would rather sacrifice the country's welfare to his agenda.
--------------------------------------------------
dkm-- Unfortunately, this is pretty much true for every candidate. The smoke screen comes from that "fire in the belly" pundits are always gushing over.

**************************************************

Sofarsogoo July 11th, 2007 9:23 pm

Wow! What a thread! This and other threads on this site indicate that there is a strain of presumed progressives who are as virulently anti-Democrat and therefore as seething and mentally distorted with pure hatred thereto as is any group of the most rabid far right Republicans, so where is the difference?
---------------------------------------------------
Sofarsogoo-- Aw, how cute! You are what is known in blog circles as a "Concern Troll", who shows up to self-righteously wring its hands and clutch its pearls about how mean & awful-- awful!-- it is to witness justifiable outrage at the corruption and hostility to progressive values that has mortally infected BOTH parties.

Dry your eyes, sweetie. And consider the possibility that your perception is actually a result of YOUR and your allies "seething and mentally distorted" with pure complacency and gullibility.

PS: IHATENADER isn't worth consideration, except to note that it is manifestly unsafe at any speed.

BCCM:
You make a valid argument. One we've all heard over and over again. The problem is, no one wants to be associated with a disfunctional system. That's why you see people like Nader and Sheehan go Independent. Working from the inside gets you nowhere. Look at Kucinich, the most "progressive" Democrat on capitol Hill. A politician dedicated to his party no matter how corrupt it is. And where is he? Where is his platform? What has his inside-the-party fight gotten leftists? Absolutely nothing. Working for change inside this smothering monolith is fruitless. And he's been fighting the fight for years!

What needs to be addressed and what comes to light through the article above is the fact that our two party system is broken. We need a new electoral system. One based on...dare I say...democracy! Our states' system of keeping third parties and independents at bay through an unfair and undemocratic ballot access law MUST be addressed and MUST be erased! If not, Americans will NEVER have choices at the voting booth. More and more American voters will go the way of so many other disenfranchised and disheartened Americans and simply not vote.

Ballot access laws in every styate must be changed. Google your state to see if there is any group attempting this and join them. Only through grassroots movements by fed-up Americans will we ever be able to take back our government.

The Americam people would be so much better served if they voted for their choice instead of whomever they think can win. I guess they want to be on the side of the winner. VOTE your heart people!

Why doesn't Nader just switch and run as a Democrat? He could even switch to the Republican Party and spoil their "party". Is he an idiot or what? People just don't use their brains sometimes. You don't think Lieberman was going to switch to the Green Party or Libertarian Party when he lost as a Democrat in the midterms? Did you? I mean for crying out loud, Sheehan is even thinking of challenging Pelosi and she will win if she stays with one of the two major Parties. Dismantle the greedy racist frauds from the inside, you can't do it from the outside because the epoxy (greed, money, and power) that binds them together is too strong.

Cordially,
S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com

Evelyn Smith:

Your July 12th post that says:

"LETS DO WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PUT THE REPUBLICANS IN A DEEP HOLE AND THEN WORK FOR A DECENT PARTY. IT IS NOT THE TIME TO ATTEMPT IT OR FORCE THE ISSUE NOW, WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH AND THAT IS REALITY."

It is, IMHO the MOST INTELLIGENT post on this thread.

It lays out strategy that will work since progressives and other good folk in America who are waking up to the neo con fascism will need leaders like KUCINICH,NADER,SHEEHAN,BOXER,GORE,GRAVEL and others to push out the AIPAC and DLC democrats from the DEM party into the elephant party where they belong. In their place one should woo the greens into the DEM party to shore up the progressive base and ultimately have a progressive party. This is how the genuine progressives in the British Labour party work (ask Kem Livingstone the Mayor of London), except for the right wing coup by the Blairites 10 years ago.

How can a progresive ever hate Nader without whom so much of consumer protection from the Korporate predaters would be just a dream? This time around, though, the situation is so dangerous that even Nader would not endorse a run.

ALSO MINORITIES, that is about 30 million votes, key in swing states will PERMANENTLY hate white America with a passion if they inflict another Fascist Kapistocracy on America. Go to any minority website and if you have the guts, tout many of the nostrums here there and stand around to argue your "point". Sometimes this site looks like a machiavellian wet dream of the neo-cons.

Don't talk to these right wingnuts. But I'm wondering, is IHATENADER a Democrat or Republican? He sounds unsafe to be around, like you might get rabies from all the flying spittle.

IHATENADER - How eloquent!Do you kiss your Mama w/that mouth?
Evelyn Smith - You crack me up!

YEP, IT IS TOO BAD UMLAUT, BUT WE MUST FACE REALITY__ RIGHT! LETS DO WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PUT THE REPUBLICANS IN A DEEP HOLE AND THEN WORK FOR A DECENT PARTY. IT IS NOT THE TIME TO ATTEMPT IT OR FORCE THE ISSUE NOW, WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH AND THAT IS REALITY.

BE LIKE THE CHINESE IN THIS RESPECT, OR A QUIET MOLE. SLOWLY BUT SURELY UNDERMINE THE STRUCTURE AND IT WILL EVENTUALLY FALL. GIVE IT ANOTHER SIX YEARS.

Too bad we can't screw Dems out of the next election and have a 2 party election Green vs. Republicans

I will vote for Nader for the third time in 2008. And I won't be throwing my vote away. I'll be voting my conscience. In the long run, that is the only way to have lived.

peace, justice, human rights for all.

I'd have preferred a more comprehensive article on this battle. Several articles have been written over a long period of time and published in various places, but you have to be hunting for them to get all the information. Big shock.

Some of the facts that an article on the PA Dems vs. Nader should include, if they haven't appeared in the 80+ comments above yet, include:

- PA Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor's dissenting opinion which argued that there was "no pervasive fraud" in the Nader petitions when the case was before the PA Supreme Court regarding whether or not Nader/Camejo should be allowed on the ballot.

- Only 1.3 percent of the total signatures were deemed "forged" and interestingly, 85 percent of that 1.3 percent were uncovered by one of the eleven judges assigned to search through the petitions. President Judge Colins found 588 "forged" signatures. The ten other judges found a total of just 100.

- As I understand it, even though the State Supreme Court did rule that there were too few valid signatures to qualify Nader/Camejo for the ballot, that Nader and Camejo themselves were not the culprits. It was the petitioners responsibility. (That said, I would add as a personal opinion that as someone who gathered signatures in '04, that the PA petitioners could easily be guilty of nothing more than not having enough time to collect enough signatures AND go through and check them all to make sure their signers were being honest and accurate -- so they did the best they could and turned in what they had!)

- Many of the signatures deemed "fraudulent" were cases where addresses were inaccurate due to a person's change of address. In some cases signers used ditto marks referring to the what was written above their signature rather than writing things like city or county names all the way out and some of those were thrown out. The highly publicized "Mickey Mouse" type signatures were very rare exceptions.

-Pennsylvania is not an isolated incident of the Democratic Party attacking the Nader/Camejo campaign's right to compete. Many state campaigns encountered legal and not-so-legal challenges by other state Democratic Parties. I believe it was in Oregon where not only did they blatantly sabotage the campaign's original signature gathering process, but I believe it was there also that men in suits were sent to petitioners homes and intimidated with a lot of legal b.s. In my home state of Wisconsin we got off relatively easy with a challenge based (once a couple other groundless challenges were picked off) on a technicality (one elector wasn't from the district they were supposed to be) which the campaign could easily correct and wanted to correct (they had a valid elector lined up to replace the other), and though we had to fight up through our Supreme Court, we did manage to hold onto our right mark Nader/Camejo on our ballot with a unanimous verdict from our Justices. But I digress...

- As Ballot Access news reported, partly in response to this article, the PA court ignored the constitutional argument raised by Nader's attorney(s) that in '72 and '74 the Supreme Court had ruled that a mandatory fee in order run for office is unconstitutional. But of course that's not what this is! Right Dems? This is a fee for running the same year Gore lost. According to Rooney this was a fee to teach Nader, as he said it, something he didn't learn in 2000. Others implied it was payback. What does the Constitution say about that? Is revenge Constitutional??

While I'd love to see more journalists include all the facts on the Nader side of the battle, I did enjoy this article. Haven't seen anyone yet get such openly vengeful statements out of the Dems involved, showing their true colors. And I like how it closes by referencing how history has vindicated Nader before when under attack from a Goliath (... and will again?).

Though I hope the quote from Nader about "This is so embarrassing to me..." isn't as easily misinterpreted as I think it might be. Everyone gets that he's saying he finds it embarrassing for the Dems and the PA court system to be behaving in this fashion, right? The GM context is important. They embarrassed themselves big time trying to incriminate Nader in some way - any way they could! That's what the Dems went for in 2004 rather than try to compete, rather than taking on any of his vital issues... embarrassing is too kind a word for their behavior.

the last time i checked anyone can run for political office. shouldn't it be illegal to actively work to prevent someone from running for office? i'm pretty sure the freedom-hating terrorist-loving democrats have admitted as much: let's have them rot in jail where tyrants belong.

IHATENADER; Now that is what I call being consistant, you are a dream come true. I disagree with you on a few point there. But tell me,___how do you know what Ralph's penis looks like, you get a good look at it at sometime perhaps, having guilt feelings and trying to feel better for what you did__ or more likey, imagined what you did?

Ahhh, seek treatment, you must know what you are. Does it frighten you, or is it because you hate your mother too? Poor baby, help is available, but you must ask for it before you go completely off of the deep end and hurt yourself. Nity nite poor thing. Kem Patrick

Blaming Nader is absurd.

formernader hit the nail on the head!Nader didn't appoint any of the Supremes that elected Bu$h.Nor did Nader slip the Dumocrats a Mickey and put them to sleep in the aftermaths of 2000 or 2004 Coup d'Etats.

Note the strikingly low caliber of the remark advanced by Sofarsogoo (9:23 pm).

Mr Sofarsogoo is apparently an apologist for the Dem Party, who's frightened by the increasingly realistic prospect of mass defections from his party. His argument is basically that anyone who "hates" (anything, regardless of why) is equivalent to a Republican, & therefore should join that party.

This is the kind of "analysis" that a grade school kid might come up with. It blithely ignores the complicity of the Democrats with virtually every Republican crime. It ignores the entire issue of "democracy" -- which theoretically is supposed to involve:
A) the party faithfully representing the will of its voters,
B) the party defending the Constitution & rule of law, &
C) an open competition whereby ANYONE is allowed to run for office, with the public then selecting the party &/or candidate with the best ideas.

That's typical of the kinds of things that Dem Party apologists always ignore -- because their party does NONE of those things. The Democrats collude & collaborate with Republicans, not only in waging criminal wars for oil, but in restricting US elections to a 2-party monopoly. That's the kind of "democracy" Democrats believe in.

It's irrevellent.....

http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/usdividerule.html

Larry J. Sabato is full of crap:
200,000 thousand registered Democrats in FLA voted for Bush.
Nader had nothing to do with that.
Further, Jim Wilkinson organized the Republican congressional aides who traveled from Washington DC in their suits to block the Dade County recount, which if successfully done that night would have given the election to Gore.
Third, the Supreme Court violated precedent in voting 5 to 4 to give election to Bush.
Nader had nothing to do with any of this.
Sabato is an incompetent scholar.

Do yourself a favor and vote your principles. Unless the Democrats manage to impeach the criminals and pull every American out of Iraq by election day, I'll be voting Nader 2008.

Great comments. In my view Mr Nader is the most qualified person ever to run for President. I live in Pennsylvania and I am shocked to read this T J Rooney crap.

Sofarsogoo
"Wow! What a thread! This and other threads on this site indicate that there is a strain of presumed progressives who are as virulently anti-Democrat"

Wow back atcha ! Did you use your whole brain to write that unwitty propaganda

I'll give you a party that is "virulently anti-Democrat"......The Democratic Party.

NADER 2008
Bill Clinton and all of his clones sold the soul of the Democratic Party, sold-out the long established Democratic Party values and principles...for corporate cash.

Sofarsogoo(?):

Funny post. But on a serious note, yes we are mad as hell at the Democrats. And for good reason. They are just as corrupt and viscious as the Republicans, especially when it comes to keeping out alternative voices for Americans to hear during crucial elections.

And, as usual, it must be gut wrenching when the truth about your party slams you smack in the face. Unfortunately, some will never learn, or, worse yet, be couargeous enough to admit it.

The thought of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party makes my blood pressure go up 100 points

Nader 2008

Because standing up for Democracy matters

Wow! What a thread! This and other threads on this site indicate that there is a strain of presumed progressives who are as virulently anti-Democrat and therefore as seething and mentally distorted with pure hatred thereto as is any group of the most rabid far right Republicans, so where is the difference?

You guys ought not to waste your time and resources on third parties. There's a party already waiting for you with plenty of money and open if perpetually slimy arms, and it knows where you're coming from, because it comes from the same place. It's the one that insults elephants by using them as its symbol.

Everyone,

Thanks for the great discussion today. Have a good night.

Claudius

If any of you still have any doubts as to the incredible odds and hurdles Nader was up against back in 2004 just to get ballot access let alone be heard please read the following statement from Nader's own 2004 website when he was struggling to be a third voice in national elections. It will make your head explode!
http://www.votenader.org/ballot_access/legal_news/index.php

dkm, did you say Republican party? That's terrible! You mean the same Republican party with whom the Democrats join hands at every turn, including hiring rent-a-cops to keep Nader away from the debate grounds? Those Republicans? The Dems' bipartisan buddies?

Quel horreur!

You do mean Republicans, as in the ones who introduce Constitution-shredding legislation like the USAPATRIOT Act, which the Democrats then vote for without reading it? Those Republicans?

It's comforting that you can personally attest to the origins of Pennsylvania Greens signatures and donations, and also that Commondreams readers were born yesterday.

But we are talking about the same Republicans, the ones who invaded another country with enthusiastic Democratic support, right? Those Republicans?

What a bunch of DEM swiftvoters at their nadir.

Behind the smoke screen of "the right to run for office," is someone who, when it comes down to it, would rather sacrifice the country's welfare to his agenda. Remember, folks, in Pennsylvania, all of Nader's signatures and all of his donations were collected by the Republican party. That should tell you something about his support and who he benefited.

It's facinating to see all of these Naderites blame the Democrats for Nader's fraudulent activity. They sound so much like the Scooter Libby apologists. Crime shouldn't pay.

I wish the Democrats could be as nice to Nader as they are to Bush

How many issues have the Penn democrats raised about the Bush Cheney Corporations?
What action did the Penn Democrats use to stop
Billary Clinton from promoting Nafta, the
reason that Penn has lost their industrial base.
Who is to blame for the Bush-Kissinger operations for profit in the Middle East?
Gore lost because his campaign was based on Polls. He did not have the backbone to raise any legitimate issues. His choice of the Senator from Israel as a Vice President and the promoter of the Iraq War and now Iran,
was another reason Gore lost the election.
If Gore had been a candidate like FDR he
would have won by a landslide. The Penn democrats should go back to the Coal Mines.
But don't panic, Hillary will soon come to your rescue and completly ruin the working man's party without the help of Nader.

Hello? Anybody at home?
The bell that should ring in voters ears is so big and loud that it scares the living hell out of me how far all this has come. There must be a connection to the McCarthy era, where people were systematically muted by the 'Commie' word. The Commie became independent and shares the same fate as so many people in US history that were actually FOR THE PEOPLE. How difficult can it be to look through all the machinations the corporate parties and media come up with?
To choose between Damnocrats and Repiglicons is like the choice between colon cancer and brain tumor.
There is only one way to run the planet and it does not include political parties.
The solution is 'parliamentary duty'. I will die with the conviction that only randomly selected citizens make sense in a parliament. Shuffled together from all political directions, all walks of life. We don't need a urinary executive, we need all the power to the people.

I remember when the PA Dems made damn sure that Bob Casey got annointed to the Senate last year. I can understand that the GOP ruined the state but the Democrats in that state are just as meek and lame-brained as the ones in VA. The Democrats are pointed their anger in the WRONG direction and hopefully GOD will PUNISH them for allowing the GEE OH PEE "free" passes !

Do you see just what is wrong with the Democratic Party? It's a dinosaur flapping it's big tale around in Pennsylvania just before it becomes extinct.

This is the primary reason why so many, many, many people are neither Republican nor Democrats. Now more than ever, the voter is looking at the conduct and the fairness of people in leadership positions in all parties. There is so much graft and lawlessness in Washington today, that trying to smear others is too convenient and . . . obvious, and definitely not the way the majority of the people of this country want to go.

Dems are pathetic. Somehow we have got to break this 2-party system, which is really no more than a 1-party sytem.

Powerslave2: You should really get the facts straight before you regurgitate the canards of the Democratic Party Scapegoat and Slander Machine. Your post just shows your intellectual laziness and your inability to separate fact from propaganda. As many other previous posters have explained, Nader had nothing to do with Gore, WHO WON THE ELECTION, not being SELECTED as president. Gore's pitifully inadequate campaign, massive voter disenfranchisement (90,000 faux felons, most of whom just happened to be people of color, Democrats or BOTH, and presumably Gore backers, were denied their right to vote), Gore's refusal to demand a FULL recount that would have shown that he WON, and a party-line Supreme Court vote for Bush--these are the things that made Bush president.

And for the record, what "crazy economic ideas" are you talking about? Please elaborate.

Goeswithness: I suppose you didn't check out the links above about the PA ballot access laws and the ridiculous number of signatures needed to get on that state's ballot if you aren't a Demopublican or a Republicrat. I don't believe for a moment that Nader would intentionally turn in fraudulent signatures. But I DO believe that a large number of Democrats and other Nader-haters would sign a ballot petition fraudulently just to sabotage his candidacy. After all, that's what YOU would do isn't it?

I agree with almost everyone here that the persecution of Nader is ridiculous, anti-Democratic and even fascist.

After seeing this story, many people here are now saying they'll never vote Democrat ever again. You do realize that's EXACTLY what they (the corporate Democrats) want. They don't want people like Al Franken or Cindy Sheehan running for Senate seats, beating them in the primaries, and influencing the Democratic party. They KNOW the system is RIGGED for two parties, and since it's rigged they're trying to piss off progressives so we become divided.

They know after doing things like this, you'd be embarrassed to call yourself a Democrat. When your friends ask you if you registered, and you tell them you registered Democrat to vote in the primaries, people are going to make fun of you, because current Democrats are so corrupt. Of course, you, a reader of Commondreams, a progressive liberal, do not want to be associated with "these people."

BUT you should vote in the primaries to throw out bad Democrats, because the structure of the U.S. electoral system, namely that it is a strictly single-member district plurality system, MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIRD PARTIES.

"The 'party' is no longer really a party in the usual sense of the term, but a government controlled pathway into government. It is just a structural shell, and the label 'Democrat' is merely the name for one of two government-mandated avenues into elected office. After all, anyone can register to be a member, and anyone can run in the primaries." - http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_freshstart.html

"Democrat" is just a label. 5% of Democrats are good Democrats, 95% are corporate Democrats. Why can't we transform the party to 95% good Democrats, and 5% corporate Democrats?

That's why you should vote in the primaries for someone like Kucinich (a Democrat), then if they don't win in primaries, vote Nader if you like. Just remember, "Democrat" is just a label, a government mandated label that must be used by a politician, otherwise they face a system designed specifically against them, which is meant to exclude them. If you can't stomach registering as a Democrat, then I think you've already surrendered because the system is not designed to have an independent or third-party President.

Someday let's hope instant-run-off voting or another system is implemented so the system isn't rigged, but until then I would never register Green. Voting in the primaries to throw out bad Democrats is the best way to change current American politics. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

Bill Clinton cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

Had Clinton not lied about his contacts with Monica, the story would have immediately fizzled, Clinton's popularity would have escalated and he would not have been impeached. Gore would have been able to have a pro-active campaign and parlay the Clinton administration successes into a victory, rather than distancing himself from 8 years of Clinton administration successes and running a defensive 2000 campaign.

Democracy in America: A Revolutionary Idea

Well well well. The DUMOCRATS are every bit as fascist as the REPIGLICANS. What a surprise. When I was in Grade School (back in the Stone Age - the 50s) we were told that in a DEMOCRACY ANYBODY could run for office and you could vote for the person who you liked best. That's what made us the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE WORLD! My my my. How 50yrs has changed all that. AND I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT! Thank you PA DUMOCRATS FOR THE "HIGHER" EDUCATION!

Bush does not owe Nader the presidency. Beside all the other good reasons to say that that are stated above, add this one: As people who study the way people make choices know, and has Nader has said repeatedly, Nader probably pulled more votes from Bush to Gore than he pulled from Gore to himself. That's right, Nader HELPED Gore. The so called "spoiler" effect is mostly mythology.

It is good that the anti-democratic election rules in the US are being exposed here. For more info visit: http://www.ballot-access.org/

George Bush ought to give Ralphie boy an ambassadorship or something. He owes him the presidency. Maybe he could send Ralph to Zimbabwe so he can experience first hand the end results of his crazy economic ideas.

Wow, PA sure stands by the morals this country seems to have these days. Denial, blame and unacceptance of diversity. Good job guys!

The Democrats are well on the way out- Nader as their scapegoat? Always...
I will vote for Nader EVERY time his name makes the ballot, and laugh in the face of any crying, whining "Democrat" afterwards (those ignorant f*cks).