Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (51403)	9/29/2006 2:56:00 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 90947

Oops! Pa. judge to drop candidate from ballot By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 25, 3:26 PM ET HARRISBURG, Pa. - A judge on Monday said he would remove the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from the November ballot because the party did not have enough valid signatures in its nominating petitions. Carl Romanelli's candidacy had been challenged by state Democrats. Romanelli's bid was backed by Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), who hoped that Romanelli could siphon votes from his Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Bob Casey. Santorum has consistently trailed Casey in the polls. Commonwealth Court Judge James R. Kelley ruled that Romanelli, a railroad industry consultant from Wilkes-Barre, was 8,931 signatures shy of 67,070 he needed to qualify as a minor-party candidate. Clifford Levine, an attorney for the Democrats, said the ruling "allows there to be a head-to-head matchup between Bob Casey and Rick Santorum, which is what obviously, in our view, Sen. Santorum was trying to avoid." Santorum campaign spokeswoman Virginia Davis said the lawsuit was an attempt by Casey's campaign to silence a candidate who was willing to debate the issues. "Rather than focus on the issues, Casey and his crew spent weeks stifling democracy and disenfranchising the tens of thousands of voters who signed Green Party petitions," Davis said. Romanelli did not attend Monday's hearing. In a statement issued afterward, he said his fate would ultimately depend on an appeal he has made to the state Supreme Court to try to lower the number of signatures required to get on the ballot. "The Democrats have a long way to go to get me off the ballot," Romanelli said. State Democrats had said about three-quarters of the 94,000 signatures Romanelli gathered included fake names, unregistered voters and illegible signatures. Romanelli's lawyer had argued that many of the signatures were incorrectly invalidated because of problems with the state's computerized voter registry, but Kelley concluded that it was too late to take up that claim. Pennsylvania law requires minor-party and independent candidates to collect a number of signatures equal to 2 percent of the ballots cast for the largest vote-getter in the last statewide election. This year's requirement was unusually high because it was based on Casey's record vote count in winning the treasurer's office in 2004. Lawrence Otter, Romanelli's lawyer, said he remained hopeful that the state Supreme Court would side with Romanelli's argument that the 2 percent signature requirement should be based on judicial retention elections, which would cut the signatures required to fewer than 16,000. "That's our best shot," Otter said. Casey's campaign and the state Democratic Party have accused Santorum of engineering Romanelli's candidacy. Romanelli's support for abortion rights was considered likely to take away votes that would have otherwise gone to Casey, since both Casey and Santorum oppose abortion rights. news.yahoo.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (51403)	9/29/2006 3:02:07 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

"You're kidding? Averages mean nothing......they don't begin to give a reasonable picture of reality. That's why medians are used." I think you meant to say "averages contradict my unsubstantiated position, so they must be wrong." But if you're so insistent that "medians are used", why don't you do a little research and see if you can find some median data to back up your claims about which sectors are "high paying" and "low paying"? Credible, attributed sources now rejek - no vague, unsubstantiated assertions by political hacks. I mean averages are a bad way to measure anything. In terms of wages, two men each make $10000 which is sup par for a family of 4; a third man makes $500k way above par. The mean between the three is $173k suggesting an affluent community when its not. "President Bush has noted that 2 million jobs were created over the course of 2005 and that we have added 4.6 million jobs since the decline in jobs ended in May 2003." Actually, 8.3 million more people report that they are working now than when the recession ended in November 2001. And from the more restrictive establishment survey, in the 8 months since the report you quoted, we have added 1.2 million more jobs. (the HH and establishment surveys can be found at www.bls.gov) Dude, post the page number and I will check it. Otherwise your numbers are bogus.