It's official (TPM) GOP aided Green Party in PA. . .

[DinahMoeHum]

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

(snip)
OK, we've done it. We've nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.

The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.

Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.
(snip)
That leaves only one contribution, for $30, as a legitimate donation from a Green Party supporter. That came from the candidate himself, Carl Romanelli. He made it to his own campaign fund, not the local Green Party.
(snip)

:evilfrown:

[Deja Q]

1. Slimy.

Still, it's politics.

[redqueen]

3. I think this is pretty low even for politics.

Nice to know no green party members contributed other than the candidate.

I wonder if they're all working for / donating to the Dem.

[erknm]

36. This is why Richard Reardon did not become CA governor

It is far from slimy, it is strategic campaigning. If the voters are going to fall for it, then they deserve what they get.

In the 2002 California election Gray Davis knew that he could not beat Richard Reardon in a statewide election, but he also knew that he could defeat Bill Simon, Reardon's Republican primary competitor. Democrats sent money to Simon, staffed phone trees, even walked districts for Simon. Simon got the nomination and the republicans lost the statewide election.

Republicans in California are so completely screwed up that they fell for the trick, hook, line, sinker.

Unfortunately it was likely the last intelligent action that Gray Davis took while and now we have the terminator.

FH

[liberalmike27]

58. Green Party no problem

The Green Party need never be a problem again if the Democrats embrace the ideas of a living wage, no perpetual war without end, no debt, ensured freedom from our government, insurance or health care for those who can't afford it (though the first should help make it affordable), making people more important than corporations, election reform, and environmental ideas. In other words the more Democrats come back to the idea that they represent the lower income 80% of us, the more the Green Party will fade into obscurity. You can deny this until you are blue in your face, but the fact is that Democrats have become to close to Republicans, though Bush has proved another result of Democrats moving to the right, which is to move even further to the right himself.

This obligation extends to all Democrats. We must demand this from our leaders, or oust them as Lamont is ousting Lieberman. If you are in a tug-of-war you don't simply try to hold the line, or you will eventually be pulled into the center. Republicans realize this. You pull with all your might back to the left, hoping to hold the line, and keep out of the muddy puddle in the middle that represents loss. You may find when you pull hard enough that there will be people waiting behind you that will help you pull. But you will have to close a gap first, for many have stopped even voting due to not seeing enough difference to do so.

[napi21]

2. Why does Santorum and the Pubs think it's good for them to have

the Green Party on the ticket? I don't understand????

[redqueen]

4. the green party siphons progressive votes away from the dem candidate. n/t

[napi21]

7. Okayyy, but if the GP candidate only got his own $30 as a

contribution, doesn't that just seem there aren't any GP supporters there right now????

[redqueen]

9. No, it only means they're not donating to his campaign.

Also, people may go to the polls without having given a single thought to politics before that day, and will vote based on god knows what.

Consider for a moment how many progressives in Texas are apparently supporting Kinky already!

[napi21]

11. Kinky is a whole different story! So is Tx!

I honestly see this GOP scam as a last ditch effort!

[redqueen]

13. Perhaps...

I don't put anything past anyone anymore...

[LynneSin]

18. Because Casey is controversial in some demcratic issues

He is not a conservative and nor would I think he would turn into another Joe Lieberman, if anything I think Casey is running for this job because he's clean out of statewide elected postions to run for in Pennsylvania (I believe he was first State Treasurer and now his term limit is up for AUditor General - correct me if I'm wrong) except Governor which he tried in 2002 but lost out to Rendell who will probably have that office until 2010.

But the thing about Casey is the term "Casey Democrats" which is what the stink is all about - it's these Western PA democrats who are pretty progressive on most issues except for abortion. They are all anti-abortion and if you think I'm joking, look up John Murtha's record on choice - he's worse than Casey (which btw, Murtha is one of those Western PA 'Casey Democrats'). In 1992 Bob Casey's dad, the former Governor Bob Casey Sr. made a big stink at the convention for wanting a primetime slot to push his anti-choice agenda into the party platform. He was denied like the 99.9% other democrats who want the same primetime slot. Sr. is also the Casey in the very controversial CaseyVsSouthern Pa Reproductive, which was one of the first very damning Supreme Court cases to go after RoeVWade and brought us such things as 24-hour wait periodsa & parental notification.

So Jr. is anti-choice or as I try to justify it - pro-life. I mean, the guy is ok with birth control, proper sex-education, EC and family planning. He even supports Abortion in the case of Rape/Incest/Life-threatening. But he's anti-choice and it's something that some democrats, including myself, have a tough time dealing with.

I try to look at the big picture - Casey (both of them) were strong environmentalists and champions for Unions. Jr. has stated he does support the timeline withdrawal (in tune with the Levin amendment) and is consistantly towards the left on most issues. But not with choice.

So Rick knows that by putting a pro-choice option on there that it will give those single issue voters a chance to vote on just their issue which would be for the Green Candidate. But as the article mentioned, the candidate didn't have more than $50 to his name and a few well-meaning volunteers in a state with pretty harsh requirements to get a name on the ballot. And you can look this up - two weeks ago I posted about how Rick said the Green should be on the ticket and I even said "I bet he pays to get the Green on the ticket". Sure enough he did. Rick's claim is that the Green Party is willing to bring another side to the debate meaning "Here's a clear option to all those single-issue choice voters" yet I guess neither the Libertarian or Constition parties weren't worthy enough to get Rick financing.

Now here is food for thought, Kate Michelson is a prior NARAL president and I'm guessing a PA resident too and at one time she was contiplating running as an independant but opted not too. Now, Michelson is the time of woman that if she needed 67k signatures she'd only need to go to her NARAL email lists and pull out all the PA supporters and probably be able to get them and perhaps 5 of their friends to cover more than enough votes. And yet ultimately she opted not to run. I'm not sure of the reason but I suspect it all boils down to the fact that if the worst case scenario happens that's Rick Santorum as your senator.

The good thing about Casey is the fact that he is just waiting his turn to be PA Governor and to be honest I don't suspect him to be in there for more than 1 perhaps 2 terms. I think the PA dems knew that Casey was the most popular statewide elected official (He has received more votes statewide in PA than any other candidate ever including any president) and figured the most important thing was to get Santorum out of office now. Then perhaps in 2010 either Casey appoints his replacement or a new candidate runs in 2012

[LoZoccolo]

23. ARE YOU REALLY ASKING THIS, OH THE HUMANITY!

NOT THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, PLEASE LET IT NOT BE!

[Hardrada]

5. Scumbags!

[Warpy]

6. Not surprising, but did the Greens know it was dirty money?

Or were they so grateful they didn't look at the source?

Seriously, folks, the Greens wouldn't be a problem at all in that race since Santorum is so widely hated if only women could trust Casey on choice. Many feel they can't.

If the Greens get a decent showing and Santorum gets returned, don't blame the Greens. Blame the genius at party headquarters who thought running an antichoice candidate was a bright idea.

[Bretttido]

14. When people give you thousands of dollars

You know who the hell they are.

[Warpy]

26. You'd think so

but I know a few of these guys. They honestly think those dollars come from people who are disgusted with both parties.

They only find out the awful truth at the same time we do, when somebody does some digging and follows the money.

[MH1]

52. Some official of the Green Party was on NPR praising Santorum

for supporting "ballot access."

They knew.

[Mike Niendorff]

27. agreed

There is absolutely no excuse for the Green Party allowing itself to be used as a front for Republican dirty tricks, and there is no way this campaign was not aware of who was supporting them. Hell, they had to report it themselves.

The Greens involved should be held directly and publically accountable for accepting this funding, and for failing to disclose to their supporters who was actually funding them.

And let's not forget the Republicans, who had to be the muscle behind this scam and who funded it with five figures of backdoor donations.

Everyone involved in this should be scurrying back under a rock.


MDN

[disndat]

75. Didn't Nader

accept money, '04, from Republicans?

[bklyncowgirl]

88. Yup, Howard Dean blasted him on it in thier debate.

Poor Ralph was left stammering something like " but Republicans are people too...."

[pnwmom]

19. I'll blame the Greens, because they don't care at all whether the

better candidate of the two major parties wins -- all they care about is getting their 5%, no matter who they take down in the process.

[purduejake]

34. Blame whoever you want....

But the fact of the matter is their votes come from voters who the Democratic party isn't satisfying - for whatever reason. Maybe if the Dems made a stronger stand and became more of an opposition party, they wouldn't have to worry about Greens popping up and threatening elections. Since voting for the lesser evil in the 2004 elections and then having my candidate throw in the towel when he really won, I'm not sure I want to fight for a party that doesn't really fight for itself - or for me.

If the Dems loose, it will be because of Diebold and/or their own weak positions.

[pnwmom]

38. I agree with you about Kerry. But that won't keep me from supporting

the nominee in 2008. (But I hope it isn't Kerry.)

[MrBenchley]

39. LOL!

"But the fact of the matter is their votes come from voters who the Democratic party isn't satisfying - for whatever reason."
M<ostly because they're far left loonies woh hate Democrats.

"I'm not sure I want to fight for a party that doesn't really fight for itself - or for me."
Funny, I know I don't want anything to do with the sort of person who makes excuses for the Green party.

[Buzz Clik]

62. You are simply wrong.

"M<ostly because they're far left loonies woh hate Democrats."

Absolutely not. You sound like the neo-cons who claim that anyone who criticizes any policy of the current administration does so only because they hate Bush and/or hate America.

I thought this "moral clarity" crap was the exclusive purview of the knuckledraggers on the right. I was wrong.

[MrBenchley]

108. I'm right on the money about these Green Party fuckwits

"I thought this "moral clarity" crap was the exclusive purview of the knuckledraggers on the right."
Fine way to describe your party's sugar daddies, buzzy boy.

[pokercat999]

45. Exactly......nt

[creeksneakers2]

60. The Greens represent only a tiny fraction of the electorate

If Democrats took up the Green's platform the Democrats would only represent a tiny fraction of the electorate too.

[nosillies]

111. I know people who vote for Greens and other "off-party" candidates

Some of them have admitted they will vote a third party just to be cool and "fringey." And I know they're not alone. There are plenty of third-party voters who are nothing but immature and uninformed, so there's nothing that differentiates them from more "mainstream" voters. An uninformed voter is dangerous, period, even if they're voting Green. So for many, it has nothing to do with being dissatisfied with the Democratic party. It has everything to do with trying to stand out.

[LynneSin]

20. They hired FSM to gather the signatures

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/pa_dems_will_ch.html

Trust me, you better have some money on hand if you're going to pay someone to collect signatures

[LynneSin]

37. Why do you assume that women don't trust Casey?

I we so single minded issue that this is all that our brains think about? Damn that would be a pretty pathetic lifesytle.

I am pro-choice, I vote, I support, I organize and I participate in pro-choice activies in groups including NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Emily's List.

And if I was still registered in Pennsylvania I'd vote for the guy.

Stop worry about Abortion and start worrying about how were gonna end this quagmire in Iraq. Perhaps that's just a tad bit more important. I mean with your flawed thinking I guess woman should be scared to vote for John Murtha because his stance on choice is harsher than Casey's.

But here's something to think about why women shouldn't be scared about Bob Casey.

http://www.bobcasey.com/issues/security/
The Struggle in Iraq

The situation in Iraq has no easy solutions. Our troops are doing an outstanding job in battling insurgent forces. But the administration's misconceived and badly executed strategies have been turning Iraq into a worldwide haven for terrorists and endangering hope for a stable democracy to emerge.

We now know that the Bush administration's rationale for its rush to war was horribly flawed. The supposedly imminent threat posed by the Hussein regime's possession of weapons of mass destruction did not exist. And it has become evident that the administration did not have a real plan for keeping the peace after our military's rout of Hussein and his military forces. Thus our soldiers have suffered more loss of life and limb from terrorist guerilla warfare after the toppling of Hussein's dictatorial regime.

Too many Washington politicians continue to shirk their duty to press the hard and necessary questions about our involvement in Iraq. Bob Casey will push for a clear exit strategy and real plans for the Iraqi forces to take care of their own security, and development of a government structure that is widely seen as legitimate among Iraq's various ethnic groups. This year should be a year of transition for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security and governance.

Now you tell me - does this sound like Rick Santorum's plan? I don't think so. It sounds a plan to ask questions and put together a strategy to get our soldiers out of Iraq (it's prerty much inline with the Levin amendment)

So you tell me - why women are scared. Perhaps if the woman has a child over in Iraq they might be scared of possibly losing that child

:shrug:

[MH1]

53. Yep, that assumption is pretty insulting to those women, isn't it?

To suggest that a) all many women care about is being able to get an abortion and b) that they are too stupid to see the difference between having a Senator Casey vs a Senator Santorum, even on that issue.

[ikojo]

8. Santorum and his supporters are only doing this

to split the Democratic vote.

[Buzz Clik]

56. What split? The Greens will attract 0.01% of the vote.

If you can't be a piece of trash like Santorum, you cannot beat anyone.

The PA Dems are doing this as a media trick and to provide a built-in excuse if Santorum somehow manages to win.

[LynneSin]

68. Seriously - do you have a fricking clue?

You think this is the only time that republicans have pulled strings to help out the green candidate.

We know Casey and we know he will win - this IS NOT the issue at stake here.

It's two-fold

First, that the republicans are so scared of losing that they would try such profound tactics as paying for a Green candidate to be on the ticket. That candidate would have NOT had enough signatures had the republicans not intervene. Now before you go off about "Oh but 3rd parties have the right to be on the ballot" bullshit answer me this - why didn't the republicans contribute $100k to the Constitution or Libertarian Party - both whom also failed getting the required signatures. Had Rick helped all 3, then perhaps he was fighting for a democracy but helping just one and the only one that could affect his opponent is nothing more than dirty politics

but the second issue and the more pressing one is these holier-than-thou Greens here at DU (and it's not all of them - many have denounced this scandal here) who think somehow they're the better party because they are of the people and not of the corporation or corruption. Well when you take republicans money to pay for a signature-gathering group that is also CORRUPT (google FSM Ohio Nadar) then suddenly this flawless party devoid of corruption looks no better than the democrats and republicans they demean. Greens are now one of us - a part of the corrupt electorial process where we'll do whatever it takes regardless of what the will of the people really want.

[ikojo]

112. Gore did not RESOUNDINGLY beat Bush

neither did Kerry, although they both won IMHO.

Bush was the most insipid candidate and the Democrats could not manage to mount a campaign that would lead to an overwhelming victory.

[TygrBright]

10. Hilarious!!! I hope it gets WIDE coverage...

::running out to tell all my contacts & lists::

heeheehee...

How do YOU spell "desperation?"

S-A-N-T-O-R-U-M!

mirthfully,
Bright

[citizen snips]

12. I should not be laughing about this

but only $30 is actually legit. :rofl:

[nam78_two]

15. I observed this a lot at the local level here in Michigan in 2004

well that wasn't the Green Party but Nader, but the same principle.

I knew the chair of the college Nader Campaign at my U. and 90% of the people doing petition drives to get Nader on ballots etc. were Republicans.
I remember meeting this one guy at a cafe who was working on the Nader campaign and he said something really racist and I was shocked at first and then realized within 30s that the guy was basically a republican.
(not that all repubs are necessarily racist, but this guy was in no way someone who liked Nader).

[LynneSin]

16. HOLY BAT CRAP NO WAY

And people thought I was just pissed because a Green wanted to run

I have been justificed

[Lerkfish]

54. "justificed"?? lol

maybe you mean vindicated?

[WestSeattle2]

17. Oh this tactic is old, check out this link from Seattle.....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/34242_green07.shtml

Pubbies can't win unless they lie, cheat, steal, or fracture the dem vote. We all know why. Their stated policies and beliefs are contrary to the financial and social well-being of 4/5th's of electorate.

If folks voted their pocketbook, and only their pocketbook, republicans wouldn't even win a race for dog catcher.

[mirandapriestly]

28. Isn't that true, They are liars and cheats & proud of it

on that note, hi from Seattle :hi:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

21. I wonder how many contribute to the D.U.?

Seriously.

How many other sites with "Democratic" in their name allow such an uninterrupted stream of Democratic bashing by people who openly admit to being Greens and/or frustrated Communists? Or provide such a huge soapbox for people who outright cheer for terrorist organizations responsible for bombing U.S. Soldiers?

Lord knows, I'm not a conspiracy minded person, but the D.U. sure does sometimes seem like it's doing its best to remind Independents why they can't vote for Democrats. If you were a Republican, you couldn't pay people to act more like caricatures of hate-filled anti-semitic, anti-American, lunatic left. So I wonder if they do slip in a few large donations here and there.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bvar22]

29. I wonder how many Compassionate Conservatives...

...post at DU trying to drag the Party ever further to the Right?


"In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans DSemocrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

31. And if that's what we campaigned on, we'd win...

In fact, the only way we can lose is if the Democratic party is seen the way Republicans would like us to be seen:

1. Blatantly questioning the right of Israel to exist and/or defend itself.

2. Blatantly questioning the right of the United States to exist and/or defend itself.

3. Openly cheering terrorist organizations that attack the U.S. military

4. Cheering when the U.S. military fails to reach recruitment goals.

5. Calling every measured and limited response by Democracies a "war crime", while studiously maintaining a blindness to real war crimes constantly perpetrated against Democracies.

6. Asserting that President Clinton, with an 85% approval rating among Democrats, isn't a Democrat. Pretending instead that he is a "traitor" to "true" Democrats.

7. When losing an argument, resorting to lying about moderate Democrats. (A curiously Republican trait, actually.)

8. Attacking people of religious faith as somehow insane.

9... ahh, forget it. I could go on all night, but it's just PBS anyway.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. It seems to me that most DUers would rather lose an election than actually try to appeal for the votes of anyone - even 3/4s of their own party.

[MrBenchley]

50. You will notice

that by turning the podium over to the loony-tunes at ANSWER last March, the far left seems to have strnagled the anti-war movement. There not only haven't been any marches since then, there isn't even the promise of one.

You will notice also how many of those who have been angrily accusing the rest of us of being "Republican enablers" and all that bullshit, are on the board right now desperately trying to shout down the news that the Green Parfty has been unmasked as a GOP dirty trick.

[creeksneakers2]

61. RW propagandists now encourage their followers to read

leftist blogs. The RW followers will in turn show independents comments from the far left that would shock 98% of the American public.

[Buzz Clik]

63. The Dems do that to themselves.

A perfect example is the exploitation and subsequent alienation of Cindy Sheehan. She started out as a sympathetic, grieving mom. Now, she's a radical, leftwing extremist who makes even left-leaning moderates cringe.

We don't need any help from the GOP to make us look out of touch.

[creeksneakers2]

109. Those are all mainstream Democratic positions

except cutting defense spending. Your poll on that one though lumps it in with two other issues so its hard to tell how popular that view is. I've looked for hours for a poll on public support for bigger defense spending and I've never found one.
There are no cites for any of the polls you list.

Anyway, I don't understand where the idea that Democrats are so opposed to items that help the poor, middle class, and working class comes from.

[Demeter]

33. Frustrated Communists?

Haven't encountered any of those, mostly a lot of frustrated Democrats with the occasional GOP interloper.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

69. The word "corporatist" bandied about here...

..is nothing more than repackaging of the old "capitalist running-dog" epithet.

Asserting that some corporations are run by bad people, is an obvious statement that nearly all Democrats believe; as is saying that trade agreements need to be balanced so as to spread their benefits to all income levels.

Asserting that all corporations are good, and that GOP donors deserve special tax breaks for all the McJobs they create, is the Republican position.

Asserting that corporations are, and international commerce is, by its very nature, evil (and anyone who defends it is, therefore evil) - is a Communist position, and one well represented in the D.U.

Crypto-communism is like crypto-racism: the names they use may have changed, but the ideology is the same.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[MrBenchley]

40. That IS a good question, isn't it?

[liberalmike27]

59. You aren't a Communist

If you are simply trying to level the playing field a bit. Certainly the rich have their representation, and have our government do things that make them more money. No one calls them Communist, though I call it corporate welfare, which is a current-day substitute for national socialism. There is nothing wrong with the poor fighting for the government to set some minimum requirements for humanity to exist in our country. When we have Billionaires with 50 Billion dollars, certainly one would have to see the irony in the fact that many here don't have insurance, or any access to preventive health care. In other words, people die because we allow vast wealth in the hands of a few.

Anyway, I'm surprised that middle-class democrats have such a hard time realizing that how the poor go, so do they eventually. The minimum wage and the general status of the poor can be looked at as a foundation that your job, your pay, and your lifestyle is based upon. As you cut down the state of the poor, you do the work of the right wing, and you tear down your own abode, just as if you had taken a sledge hammer and knocked the foundation out from under a house.

The comment that Green Party members are communist sounds more like a comment that a right-winger would make on iwon's message boards than something we'd see here. Democrats need to stop fighting the poor, and realize that the state of the poor has a direct influence on their lives. They need to join in the fight to establish minimum standards for all of our population, or eventually you will end up destroying your own lives, by your own hands.

I do, of course, realize that a lot of money and media attention has gone to demonizing ideas in our media, since bullets can't kill ideas. Since your birth you've had words demonized like Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Progressive, and lately even the idea of Peace as an eventual objective. Believe me, these ideas or ideologies don't deserve to be bombed out of existence, but the media has done a pretty good job of making our population hate them without much thought. Why do you hate Communism? It is something you've been taught, and teaching is just a form of brainwashing.

Somewhere between rotgut capitalism and socialism is an ideal place, where we are all served well, where motivation is maintained without the unnecessary squalor that is prevalent in our society. That is the sweet-spot, and that is where I aim, for our society.

[Maedhros]

70. Direct anger at PNAC, not Leftists please

If you were a Republican, you couldn't pay people to act more like caricatures of hate-filled anti-semitic, anti-American, lunatic left.

A Conservative (Democrat's) Political Dictionary:

Hate-Filled - Disagrees passionately with the status quo; probably supports Ned Lamont

Anti-Semitic - Criticizes Israeli foreign policy

Anti-American - Criticizes U.S. foreign policy

Lunatic Left - Votes with a conscience

Enough with the hyperbole...doesn't help the cause.

[LoZoccolo]

22. GIVE BACK THE FUNDS OR WE WILL DESTROY YOU, GREEN PARTY!

YOU CAN HAVE THIRTY DOLLARS AND THAT'S IT!
HOPE YOU DIDN'T SPEND MORE THAN THAT ALREADY!

[Nestor Mahkno]

24. If third party candidates accept dirty money

then how are they any different than the two we already have? Until we can have publically financed elections then any third party candidate is as easily corrupted as any other candidate.

[Duncan Grant]

25. This is antithetical to progressive values.

Carl Romanelli and the PA Green Party should return the money immediately. Taking money from Santorum is no way to build a sustainable community of progressives.

It can't be justified.

[bvar22]

30. The REALLY cool thing to do...

Take the money, slime the Republicans with every penny, and withdraw the day before the election endorsing the Democrat.

[nam78_two]

77. Now that I could get behind :)/nt

[onehandle]

32. The Greens worked specifically to make Gore lose in Florida in 2000.

With full cooperation from the GOP (via Rove). Mission accomplished.

And people wonder why third parties are not embraced in the U.S.

[elocs]

35. It makes you wonder how many Greens are really Greens

and not simply Republican Trojan Horses, even here. The Democratic Party is not perfect and has made mistakes and will in the future. But they have something that the Green Party does not have, experience. Democrats have actually governed, they have made policy, made decisions that impact people's lives, they have created budgets and figured out how to pay for programs. Democrats have made important life and death decisions. The Green Party may be full of great ideas and promises, but they have done nothing of substance as far as governing goes. So they are certainly green in more ways than one. Plus, they have shown they are more than willing to be used by the Republican Party in spite of the fact that most Green Party supporters would probably call themselves Democrats otherwise.

The Green Party's attitude about their negative impact in close elections where the Democratic candidate loses a close election is absolutely disingenuous--butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. So long as they get that 5%, that's all that matters. I will never, ever vote for any Green Party candidate just as I will not vote for a Republican because they both have the attitude that the ends justifies the means. I would guess that I am not alone in feeling this way because there are probably thousands or maybe even millions of those who consistently vote Democratic that feel the same way. But the Greens do not apparently care if they piss off people who might otherwise support them in certain cases. Good luck with that attitude and philosophy.

[The Wolf]

41. A Green defending why the hell I am a Green

First of all, I am not a simple little puppet that can be danced around by Republicans. I will never vote for any person with the letter R next to their name. Many people in my family are Republicans, but I am a proud fucking liberal who happens to believe in the main points of what the Green party was created on. Speaking about this scummy son of a bitch Romanelli, he's an absolute embarassment to this party and I'd gladly chuck his ass straight under the bus Katherine Harris style! Taking any money from supporters of that sack of horse crap Santorum should get this man banned from the party for life. He does not represent every damn Green in this country. But thanks to the fact most people barely know who the Greens are and still think Ralph Nader is one (the sole reason we never nominated him in 2004 was because he NEVER REGISTERED AS A GREEN!!). Before Cobb was nominated, that's how most of our Presidential candidates were decided. They remember this, but they forget that in 2004 David Cobb openly campaigned that Greens should vote for Kerry in swing states and for Cobb in already decided states.

As for this notion Dems have about us being crazy people who would take out anyone just to get their 5%, it's absolute rubbish to put it nicely. I'd gladly vote for any Democrat that would make this country better as much as I'd vote any Green on the ballot in the state of Nevada or nationally. I don't hold bitterness to Democrats. I disagree with things the Democrats do, but I also cheer them when they have shown themselves to be the opposition party they claim to be. And equally I boo them when they shirk those duties. People like Lynn Woolsey, John Conyers, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold are Democrats I openly respect. All we Greens have ever wanted was a voice in the political process. Something to give the people of this country another choice. That's it! We're not evil, idiotic pawns on the chess table. Only that son of a bitch is.

[Jim Lane]

47. The big question for the Greens

Welcome to DU, and thanks for maintaining civility while presenting a defense of the Green Party. Perhaps you can tackle the tough question that I've never seen any Green deal with satisfactorily.

You write: All we Greens have ever wanted was a voice in the political process.

You have a voice. It's called "primaries". Reformers struggled for decades to end the party bosses' control over nominations, and to give that power to the people. The Greens act as if that radical change in the political system had never occurred.

Sure, it can be hard to win a primary. But it's inconsistent for Greens to disdain a primary for that reason, and then run a hopeless race in the general election. Usually, if you had the votes to win in the general, you could win the primary. Progressive candidates have won primaries, such as Carol Moseley Braun's victory over incumbent Senator Alan Dixon in 1992. Even when they don't win, they can have their voice and spread their message. The Ned Lamont campaign might unseat Joe Lieberman but, even failing that, will have provided an effective vehicle for anti-war voters.

So, why should progressives support Green Party candidates, when they could devote their time and energy to good candidates in the Democratic primary? A focus on primaries has the advantage of not dividing the progressive vote and possibly handing the election to a conservative. We here in New York elected the repulsive Al D'Amato, who won with a minority of the votes, because of that kind of divisiveness (although the culprit there was our now-blessedly-extinct "Liberal" Party, not the Greens).

In passing, I'll respond to another of your comments: As for this notion Dems have about us being crazy people who would take out anyone just to get their 5%, it's absolute rubbish to put it nicely. I'd gladly vote for any Democrat that would make this country better.... I disagree with things the Democrats do, but I also cheer them when they have shown themselves to be the opposition party they claim to be.

The Green Party ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. It's that kind of lunacy that gives a lot of credence to the charge that you deride as "rubbish".

[The Wolf]

80. Re: The big question for the Greens

All very interesting points you brought up, Mr. Lane. To try to answer the main question on the post, as best as 2 years of college education can muster up, I'm actually with you on your sentiments about trying to plug ourselves into other primaries since we have very few Green primaries nationwide. It'd provide a great voice for the issues and for the candidates as well as boost any financial worries that focusing on primaries would bring. Success would breed exposure which would bring in bigger donations from not just our supporters but others across the political spectrum. I'd love to have seen Medea Benjamin take on Dianne Feinstein in the Democratic primary in California a couple of months ago. We'd have gained a hell of a lot more supporters for the party throughout the state and possibly have picked up some nice PR nationally along the way. But I have this sinking feeling that why this doesn't take place more often is we're blinded so much by the negatives of Republicans and Democrats sometimes that creative stuff like this gets lost in the paperwork. And it's ideas like those that would help grow our party into the legitimate force it deserves to be, eventually becoming that behemoth that can ignite great change in this country. I'll forever be a Green, but it's great opportunities lost like these that make me shake my head in disbelief.

[Jim Lane]

113. Just to clarify my position....

I don't recommend that the Greens get involved in Democratic primaries to help grow the Green Party. I recommend that progressives work within the Democratic Party instead of wasting time with the Green Party. The whole Green Party enterprise is fundamentally wrong.

You want to see the Green Party become a "behemoth". How many decades will that take? And, along the way, as the Green Party grows, and as it has more and more ability to split the progressive vote with the Democrats, how many Republicans will win with minority pluralities? And then, after the Greens become larger than the Dems (as if), how many more Republicans will win because the Dems act as the spoilers? How much human misery will all those Al D'Amato types cause, while we wait to complete the supposed transition to a Green vs. Republican system?

Perhaps some of the Green supporters would go on record here with their predictions. Tell us the approximate year when you think each of the following will happen:

- Greens (meaning candidates elected solely on the Green Party line, with no Republican or Democratic cross-endorsement) hold at least 5% of the seats in each house of Congress.
- Greens outnumber Democrats in either house of Congress.
- Greens hold a majority of the seats in either house of Congress.
- A Green candidate wins the Presidency.

I say "never" to all of them.

Wolf, I think you're right when you mention the negativity factor. I've heard Greens say that they won't run in Demcratic primaries because they aren't made to feel welcome. People aren't nice to them. They even get criticized (as you can see in this very thread). Well, boo hoo hoo! That's politics. The Democratic Party establishment didn't make Carol Moseley Braun feel welcome and it isn't making Ned Lamont feel welcome. People who actually get something done -- people who care about the practical effects of their actions -- push ahead despite such adversity. Sometimes they win and sometiimes they lose, but at least they're trying. That's the course of action for pragmatists. In particular, it's the course of action for people who recognize the enormous human cost of Republican electoral success.

[The Wolf]

117. Answers, or rough attempts at them

I'll be honest Mr. Lane, I don't think any of the landmarks you mentioned (A Green President, Green majority in Congress, etc.) are gonna happen in my lifetime. Under the current system, it's gonna be the type of enterprise that'd take 60-70 years at its current pace. And even if the current system is changed dramatically, we'd be lucky to have the numbers in Congress equal to those of Greens in German parliament. Personally, I think the Party should take a page from the Libertarians and try to be more inclusive instead of confrontational. Although there are good people that call themselves Greens, I don't think you're gonna see the change administrationally to this policy, going back to my earlier point on the negativity factor.

I became a Green not out of particular hatred for Republicans or Democrats, but because I believed in the values they stood for like Universal Health Care, greater focus on the Environment, and so on. I think that may be another problem the Party's having that may spell its demise in the future: most of us who call ourselves Greens don't let the issues speak for themselves.

For all of those who fought to try to expose the electoral corruption in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 as well as those who called out Bush's bullshit in the run up to the war in Iraq, we have people like Nader and Romanelli who let the hatred of the 2-party system corrupt all those great values on which the Party was founded. We have to get back to promoting these values at our core or I might be switching my Party affiliation to Independent in another 5 or so years.

[Vickers]

51. "All we Greens have ever wanted was a voice in the political process."

How's that workin' out for ya?

:eyes:

[onehandle]

48. The GOP sent operatives into Green and Democratic forums in 2000.

During the sane moment of the "vote trading" trend. The paid GOPers were out in force to convince their "fellow Greens" to stay the course and not trade their vote with a voter in a "safe state" for Al Gore.

90,000+ Green votes in Florida. Less than one half of one percent would have saved our country a lot of pain. Florida was clearly in the jeopardy column for Gore and yet in the final weeks of the "race", Nader, out of state Greens, and of course GOP "Greens" spent a lot of time and money there.

Statistically, that one half of one percent would have voted for Gore (not for Bush, nor not voted at all) if it wasn't for the effort of the above individuals and groups.

[peace frog]

42. More info here

So there you have it -- every single donor to the Green Party effort in Pennsylvania, all $66,000. Not a single dollar came from the progressive causes that Romanelli and the "liberal" party claims to espouse. Every dollar from Republicans or strident social conservatives who oppose the very pillars of the Green Party platform.

A couple of huge questions. Why was the money given to the Green Party in the Luzerne County, as opposed to the state committee and the Romanelli campaign? Was it a failed attempt to kep this under wraps longer? Why are the name of three major donors misspelled, and other identifying details either left blank or, in the case of several company names, also misspelled? Sloppy recordkeeping, or something more sinister?

The majority of that $66,000 was in turn spent on a Florida company that conducted the petition drive to get Romanelli on the ballot. It looks like he could succeed, since this week he turned in some 90,000 signatures, far more than what is needed. (Expect a challenge, for sure.) And Santorum's strategy counts on every vote for the supposedly liberal Romanelli to be one less vote his real rival, the Democrat Bob Casey Jr.

It's funny, because Santorum is legendary for his 2005 remark about "man-on-dog" sex. Maybe so, but even by the senator's odd standards, these Green Party donors are very strange bedfellows indeed.

http://www.attytood.com/archives/003603.html

[Hubert Flottz]

43. This is the story that needs to be sent to Keith Olbermann ASAP.

A mass emailing might get the story on TV.

[pokercat999]

44. Hmmmmm....could it be that this is actually a good thing?

Someone running for office that is beholden to no one, no special interest group. The candidate has to know the "support" is fake so he can speak the truth and only the truth as he sees it. Kinda refreshing don't ja think?

[mac56]

49. yeah, like the GOP will allow that

Dream on.

[creeksneakers2]

107. I won't count on somebody who runs as a Green but is

financed by the GOP to tell the truth. Sounds like a total whore to me who will say anything he feels is in his interest.

[HuffleClaw]

46. erm, i don't get it

what is the point?

[Buzz Clik]

57. The point is the noisy ones at DU want everyone marching in lockstep.

If you break ranks, you're a traitor to the cause.

Sound familiar?

I thought we were trying to flush that hideous mentality.

[LynneSin]

67. Obviously the Green Party is in lockstep with the Republicans

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

71. Step back and examine that statement. It makes no sense.

[LynneSin]

73. After reading your posts I'm not to worried about it not

making sense to you!

[Buzz Clik]

78. Perfect. Now it's time for the insults.

You'll understand if I don't join you.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

66. So how long have you been a Rick Santorum fan?

I mean, you've basically lumped yourself with him with that donations.

Perhaps if you really cared about the Green Party you'd find a race where the candidate wasn't so corrupt.

At least us democrats know we have some questionable skeletons in our closet. I'd rather have that then some self-righteous group that claims they are above all this corruption even though THEY ARE JUST AS BAD.

[Buzz Clik]

72. So, I'm supposed to be impressed that the Dems are as bad as the GOP?

LOL!

I never cease to be amazed at the level of hysteria at the DU. The panic and paranoia are so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[LynneSin]

74. Turns out the Greens not only are as Bad but SUPPORTED by them

So seriously, what is it about Rick Santorum you like?

[Buzz Clik]

79. More logical disconnects.

I reject the notion of crapping on the Green Party for accepting donations from conservatives, and suddenly I love Rick Santorum.

Gee where have I heard this kind of logic before ....

Oh, yes. The Dixie Chicks criticize Bush for invading Iraq, and suddenly they are labeled as loving Saddam.

Beware of the intellectual company you keep, LynneSin.

[Dr Fate]

81. yeah- but the Dixie Chicks dont change money with Saddam or the GOP

Poor analogy.

[Buzz Clik]

83. It's not the analogy, it's the fascist attitude.

"Either you're with us or you're against us."

So, yeah, if I have to choose between being free to support the Green Party's actions in PA and being forced to kiss the butts of the hotheads on this thread, I'll go with the Greens any day.

I'd suggest you step back and think about why the Democrats are losing the support of the Greens.

[Dr Fate]

84. Democrats losing support of Greens? When did we ever have it?

Even when we run perfectly good Liberals like Wellstone you guys run someone against them.

Al Gore, Mr. Natural himself- a tireless advocate for the environment was not good enough.

Lynne's charge that a vote for Rick's pick helps Rick & the GOP stands- your analogy about how that is like saying the Dixie Chicks support Saddam falls flat- the Chicks never took money from Saddam.

Rick's pick takes GOP money, that is all we need to know.

[Buzz Clik]

89. I have not ever voted Green, but...

More heavy-handed crap like this, and I'll consider it. I voted Gore in 2000 and was ticked at Nader. I held my nose and reluctantly voted for Kerry.

But environmental issues are huge for me as are anti-war and other typically key Dem planks.

Put the blame where it belongs -- in Santorum's lap. Calling the Greens traitors is a questionable way of luring them back.

[Dr Fate]

91. I do blame Santorum AS WELL as his new allies- the Greens.

Why should his close allies not be a target as well?

Are you saying I should just sit by and ONLY attack Santorum, but not attack our other opponents?

[LynneSin]

92. Well Greens do it to us

I mean why else would they run a candidate against one of the most liberal, uncorrupted senators ever in our time (ie 2002 against Paul Wellstone).

So as far as I'm concerned it works out like a perfect mathetical equation because for some greens this is their logic.

So seriously, what is it about Santorum you like?

[kenfrequed]

114. Isn't that like asking

"Why do you hate America?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. And we could do the same but we won't

finalnce the libertarian folks

[LynneSin]

65. HAHAHAHA! Read this new story from TPM!!!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001257.php

In PA, Big-Time GOP Donors Show True Colors: Green
By Justin Rood - August 2, 2006, 5:51 PM
A Halliburton lobbyist giving money to the Green Party?

That's right, folks, you have now officially heard everything: A $1,000 donation to a local Pennsyslvania Green Party chapter came from Bill Wichterman, a senior lobbyist at Washington, D.C.'s Covington & Burling. Wichterman, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), now lobbies for such corporate behemoths as Halliburton, Chevron and Unisys.

A Green Party candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate race can't win -- even if he's well-funded. In fact, it might even throw the race to the Republican incumbent, Sen. Rick Santorum. But that hasn't deterred Wichterman and other GOP power players from quietly supporting their secret dream: to see a Green Party senator emerge from the Pennyslvania hills

[Voltaire99]

76. Not as much as the Democrats aided Bush.

Various disastrous appointments.
Patriot Act.
Tax cuts.
Homeland Security.
Iraq war.

Gee, see a pattern?

Who's helping whom is a little more complicated than diehard party-hearties would have you believe. As Gore Vidal is fond of saying, there's one party in Washington. And it has two right wings.

[Buzz Clik]

82. You nailed it!

It's this kind of spineless leadership from the Dems that leads to desertion to third parties.

If John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Liebermann would have had the fortitude to vote against supporting the war, we might not be in this mess. But, they showed no leadership at all. Now, Kerry continually has to justify flip-flopping, Clinton has to dance in a minefield about still supporting a war she voted for but really doesn't support, and Liebermann is being flushed by the Dems in Connecticut.

Last time I saw a poll, Santorum was losing by 30 points. If the Dems can't beat a piece of crap like Santorum, then screw 'em.

[Dr Fate]

85. But none of that would have gone down if Gore had won FLA in 2000.

So we are kind of back to the Greens now.

And dont be hypocritical in your response- Greens cant join the media & the GOP in fighting Al Gore and then turn around and say "he should have fought harder against the GOP and the media" (and apparently the Greens)

[ProudDad]

86. Gore DID win in Fla

Stop with the stupid Green bashing.

Gore won in FLA and (if you want to blame someone) blame Sandra Day O'Conner for giving bush the White House...

[Dr Fate]

90. Stop the bashing? Like saying "Gore & Bush are the same thing?"

How hypocritical. Greens are "benevolent gadflies" when they criticse DEMS "for their own good", but when we shoot back with factual charges, it is called bashing.

No- when a Green tells me of all the awful things we Democrats supposedly let the Republicans do, I'm not going to let them forget how they joined the GOP & Media in a tooth & nail fight against Gore & Kerry.

I'll blame the Greens for contributing to the fiasco- if they had not joined the GOP & Media in fighting against Gore, the vote would not have been so close.

We could have beat two ememies in 2000-the GOP & media, but the greens had us fighting 3 enemies and tipped the scales.

[ProudDad]

95. There's a significant difference

The Greens had nothing but their good ideas to try to push the dems toward the right path. The pukes, on the other hand, had money, dirty tricks and SCOTUS in their corner. Which is the real enemy? Are you afraid of good ideas?

You should embrace the Greens' platform, co-opt their good ideas and quit yer' whining.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2754014

Know your real enemy. This is a class war and the upper-upper class, the haves and the have-mores are winning because you folks are busy fighting your allies.

on edit:

Thanks to the influence of the DLC in Gore's whishy-washy campaing -- In their promises, policies, the debates, etc.; bush and Gore's positions were seldom distinguishable. They were certainly two tools of the corporate capitalist establishment that is ruining our Earth...members in good standing of the two right-wings of the business party.

Gore has changed his public presentation, for the better, but he wasn't allowed to do that in 2000.

[Dr Fate]

96. Bull Crap. Greens lied through their teeth about our good Democrats.

You are NOT my ally if you tell bald faced lies about good men like Kerry & Gore.

You have no credibility- first you lie and say "Gore/Kerry will do the same things Bush will do"- then you tell us you are really on our side after all.

Greens had more than just ideas-dont frame them as underdogs w/o access to the system- Nader had TONS of access to cameras and the mainstream media- and they dutifully repeated his lies about Gore.

Too bad your media allies did not give Democrats the same benefit-except we would have been happy if they had just repeated our TRUTHFUL allegations about Bush.

Sorry, the charade is up- we wont let you have it both ways. You dont join the GOP & media in lying about us and then turn around and try to say you are our buddies.

[ProudDad]

101. What lies?

I never said that Gore and Kerry would have done the same things bush has done. I didn't say that in my post nor in 2000. I've known all about bush since before he was created Gov of Texas... He does evil, always has.

Because of that knowledge about bush in 2000 and 2004, I was dismayed at the watered down, wishy-washy campaigns the DLC required them to run because I KNEW BETTER THAN YOU what kind of abortion bush is. They should have called him on his shit!

As for your ravings about the media, you're re-writing history again. Nader didn't have 1/1000th the access to media that the dems and repukes did in 2000. On the few instances when his policies were broadcast at all, all Nader said was that when it came to the "rights and privileges" of corporations, there was no difference between bush and gore -- and there was NO difference between them on that point. He also decried the current electoral system where politicians are bought and sold by their corporate masters -- that also was and is true. There's your real enemy, the electoral system and it's corporate owners...

As for 2000 and 2004, blame the DLC and the Dem leadership for their shitty campaign strategies, not us Greens.

[Dr Fate]

103. Nader and the Greens on TV said it. Every day. I dont know who you are.

Who cares what you, as individual says in the vaccum of this thread?- I'm talking about what the Greens as a whole did and still do.

I see once again on this thread that Greens have to distance themselves from the very face of the Green party-Ralph Nader- in order to defend their position as our supposed allies.

And he did get tons of media coverage- and it was all the same lie everytime- "Gore & Bush are the same"

He got WAYYYYY more coverage in proportion to his percentages than he should have. The media seemed to treat him as an actual contender.

Sorry,but for all the flaws of the DLC, at least they never lied about Al Gore like Nader, the GOP & the media did.

[ProudDad]

87. Some Points

At least Bob Casey knows who to blame, "While Santorum said Monday that he would welcome another candidate on the ballot, Casey's campaign accused Republicans of "trying to steal the election." unlike the knee-jerk anti-greens on this board...


Agent provocateur -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
In this case, the repukes have (allegedly) figured out a way to do it one better by buying entry into the election for a good, decent candidate (with a brilliant platform and all the right positions) in order to harm the wishy-washy centrist who would otherwise scrape out a win against a fascist crook.


If you want something different, quit your moaning and whining at folks who are really trying to change the system in progressive ways and support PUBLIC FINANCING of elections!!! We're moving that way here in California (lucky us!) this November! www.caclean.org

[LynneSin]

93. I'll agree that we need publically financed elections however

the fact that Santorum did nothing whatsoever to help either the Libertarian or Constitution parties to get their candidates on the ticket pretty much says that Santorum is using the Greens to help him win. For greens to deny that there was any wrong-doing with what happened in PA to means they literally have their heads up their asses.

[ProudDad]

99. What "wrong doing"?

I admit that it's somewhat ethically challenging on the part of ONE person, Carl Romanelli, to make the decision to knowingly accept repuke money to put his name on the ballot. That's Carl's problem (and Bob Kerry's problem).

It is not the policy of the Green Party to elect right-wing republicans to the Congress. Anyone who tries to make that allegation is guilty of making a great leap of illogic. Please try not to paint a few million people with the broad brush of one candidate's renegade actions.

If you want the Dems to win, give them money, work for them, push them to voice the kinds of policies that would surely help them win (not the DLC 'centrist' BULLSHIT -- you might point out the Green platform for them) and tell them to emulate Paul Wellstone (the best of them in recent memory) but don't trash your potential allies for progressive change who happen to be in the Green Party.

[Dr Fate]

100. But this is not the 1st time Greens were caught taking GOP $$$$$$$$$$$

It's a pattern- they have done it in several-if not all the other recent races.

I see wrongdoing when the Greens join the GOP & media in attacking Democrats.

They are connected by their actions and by the dirty money.

[ProudDad]

102. Ah

guilt by association.

Wasn't that the favorite trick of Joe McCarthy???

[Dr Fate]

104. Guilt by constantly taking GOP money & joining them in attacking DEMS.

Lets see- the greens constantly take money from the GOP, then they join them in attacking us in elections.

Then when I point that out that fact, I'm all of a sudden a McCartyite.

That's even worse than your lame Dixie Chicks analogy that you could not back up when questioned.

"Dr Fate = Joe McCarthy" is no more honest than "Gore = Bush"

[LynneSin]

105. Do you know anything about me?

If you did you wouldn't be asking questions about what I do to support the democratic party :grr:


It's called a PARTY which means anyone who slaps that title next to them is a part of it. I've taken a ton of lumps for the Joe Liebermans out there and yet our party is filled with plenty of wonderful democrats who have worked hard to push the progressive agenda.

If it's not the policy for Greens to elect neo-con republicans like Rick Santorum then the leaders of the Party need to speak up. They can't force him off the ticket but they can denounce what this person has done and pledge to not support him if he doesn't return the money.

And the thing is, this Green/REpublican collaboration isn't brand new with this incident. There were stories about how the republican party did the same thing in Michigan and plenty of other non-Nadar stories out there. This is the first time it was caught.

Greens, for all I care, are NOT my allies. They serve no purpose other that useless rhertoric and corruption. I'd rather support someone like Chuck Pennachio or Ned Lamont who want to have the same values as the Green party but do that fight within the democratic party.

This is the Democratic Underground and as policy states we support Democrats - you want some sympathy I'm sure there is a green underground out there somewhere

[Dr Fate]

106. I dont understand why some defend rather than denounce this scandal.

Great post- thanx.

[Dr Fate]

94. Very nice- but Rick's Pick cant win in PA.

And some of think progressive causes would be better served with a DEM majority and Santorum on the street rather than in the Senate.

I'd rather have Howard Dean's pick than Rick's pick- A cenrtist is ten times better than a "a fascist crook."

[ProudDad]

97. If the fascist crook

wins, it won't be the Green's fault.

It would be the fault of the Dems...as they allow themselves to be driven by an electoral system which rewards Big Money with bad ideas with more time in office.

Put the blame where it belongs...

[Dr Fate]

98. It will be the fault of whoever is attacking us and lying about us.

Which includes the GOP and their frequent wards, the Greens.

[alvarezadams]

110. And the Bradleys and Olins

support the DLC.

[kenfrequed]

115. A matter of tactics.

I think there are problems with large scale Green Party runs like this. They are far to vulnerable to manipulation at this point. Really the best thing that could happen is if the Green Party would just take the Re-pub money and run. If possible the senatorial candidate could bow out and transfer the funds down to (mostly)uncontested local elections where it could make a difference and do a lot more towards party building.

[kenfrequed]

116. I think its odd

That everyone seems to obsess about the Greens in this way.

This is, at best, a desperate tactic by Santorum who is facing near certain defeat.

Hating the greens, for the actions of one rather self-interested candidate, is short sighted and bad form. There were several democrats I could pick out and get upset at. But this does not make me believe the Democratic Party has ever been the party of Zell Miller (no matter how long his presence was deemed politically acceptable).

I agree with several others on this forum. Learn a lesson from this take back the parts of their platform that were traditionally democratic anyhow. It's a hell of a lot better than trying to castigate the left end of the party. The wing of the party that, by the way, was absolutely right in opposing BushCo early and often while the moderates of the party were preaching constant collaboration and cooperation with the Republicans.

As far as the offenses of the Greens? Well they cared more about your party than you did In some of the states where the Republicans were busy stealing the elections. The southwest. Ohio. Florida. These are places the Greens mounted challenges to violations of peoples rights to vote. But don't let that inconvenient fact get in the way of your silly hate-fest.