But is it legitimate to tell the tens of thousands of
Green registrants in Pennsylvania that they may not
vote for their own party's nominees?  Especially when
the Green Party meets the legal definition of
"political party"?  This is a "The Emperor Has No
Clothes" moment.  Would Canada, or Great Britain, or
Mexico, tell a qualified political party that it may
not appear on the ballot just because one of the other
parties finds its presence damaging?

I think the Republicans and the court system in 2000
stole a presidential election.  But I see the
Democrats in this matter being equally immoral.  And I
can't understand why people on this list don't see
that.  There is no principle that justifies removing
the nominees of a qualified party from the ballot
because it's politically advantageous to another
political party.

--- Mark Jakubik <mjakubik3@comcast.net> wrote:

I don't think that Pennsylvania Democrats really
expect Bobby Casey to
win by 1 points.  Pennsylvania has a history of
tight statewide
elections,.  Casey is running against an extremely
well funded incumbent
who has only just started to spend money on media. 
The race may not
tighten, but the odds are that it will, quite a bit,
in which case the
relative handful of votes that the Greens siphon off
coud be decisive.
Add in the fact that Casey is not the most dynamic
fellow out there and
that Santorum is historically a strong closer, and
the picture starts to
fill in.  I'll admit I'd rather be in Casey's shoes
than Santorum's at
the moment, but there is ample reason for the
Democrats to perhaps be
less than fully confident on this one and to try and
avoid any possible
flies in the ointment.

Mark Jakubik

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com