Your conclusions are that Casey's team is derailing democracy because they are challenging the Green's signatures. When challenged based on the potential invalidity of signatures and the use of fraud, you say "let the courts decide."

My translation of your posts is: it's okay for Carl Romanelli to jump to conclusions about Casey's motivations, but it's not okay for DanUA to have "conclusions" that you do not agree with. Or, it is not okay for the Casey campaign to have a belief that fraud was used in gathering the green signatures.

If the courts decide that the signatures are invalid, will you stand by that result? Or will you call that judicial action a derailment of democracy?

This issue is really a symptom of a much larger problem. I cannot count how many times in 2004 I heard "choosing between the lesser of two evils is not a choice." This is something I agree with. In the case of Casey and Santorum, there is a clear ideological divide. However, this says less about Casey than Santorum, who is out of bounds on the conservative wack-job-o-meter.

In race after race, Democrats continue to push candidates it sees as "electable". This only creates moderate, milk toast candidates, which ultimately leads to single issue politics, as each talking head looks to differentiate themself from their opponent.

Introducing more options creates a more representative and democratic republic, and in most cases, is a great thing. In the case of Casey v. Santorum, it is a very bad thing. What Greens do not understand is that by jumping into high profile races to raise their own profile, they gain little more support, while contributing to their image as the world's biggest spoiler. The real way to gain support for your party, as has been said many times before, is to cultivate a base in municipal and state government. This advances your ideology. As people see there are better alternatives, they will come around, eventually broadening our choices of VIABLE and ELECTABLE candidates.

The Green Party has some good ideas. However, they are better advanced through making small skirmishes and building a foundation, rather than preaching from a hot air balloon.

And for the record, many of us were approached by canvassers looking to "increase the minimum wage" only to find out those signatures went to the Green Party.

I will stand by the courts decision after all appeals and other means are exhausted. I know the signatures will not go down because of fraud, but if they are looking for the equivalent of hanging chads, you never know. Do I think a couple of jerks signed Mickey Mouse as their signature. Maybe, but those were weeded out very thoroughly to my knowledge. I imagine some people do it to get an activist to buzz off. But the Romanelli campaign is confident that they weeded the bogus signatures out. I was told they eliminated thousands of signatures before handing them in.

I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions about Casey's Motivations. he is taking the unusual odd signature and presenting that as the norm in our petitions. That is a huge jump in my opinion. It is my opinion that he knows we will take pro-choice and anti-war votes away from him and is trying everything to get us off the ballot, even though we collected the required amount of signatures.

If there is a problem with those signatures, it is more likely they would be rejected for incomplete information or other technical errors. The Casey Campaign is highlighting the unusual and presenting it as the usual. I think that is wrong.

Look, I think the Romanelli campaign got a jump start from some conservative sources. Whether it be out of the good of their hearts or maybe political reasons, the point is mute. Casey has taken money from Santorum supporters too, in fact much more then we have.

Admitadly, our actions are complex. But to put it simply we feel a bit like robin hood.

As for the fact that someone asked you to sign something for minimum wage increase, but it was really for the Green party, that is a slippery sloap. In the best case scenario that individual was trying to start a conversation with you on something you would probably agree with. It sounds like they wore a badge, told you they were with the Green Party, or the forms were clearly marked, or you wouldn't have known they were with the Green party, so I'm not sure what the problem was. I walk through center city every day and I'm approched by people asking me to sign something to "save kids in africa" or " lower the minimum wage", after you are interested they always tell you what you are signing and they all wear ID badges.