Here they go again: TX-Gov: GOP pays to get Green candidate on the ballot

[WI_DEM]

by kos
Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:15:44 AM PDT
Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas GOP know they are in serious danger of losing the governorship to Democratic nominee Bill White. If only there were some useful idiots around to help the secessionist governor keep his job ... Aha!

Mike Toomey, a lobbyist and former chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, personally paid for an aborted effort to qualify the Green Party of Texas for the ballot, according to court testimony Thursday morning.

The testimony came from Garrett Mize, who led the failed petition effort beginning last fall. He said Toomey paid him $2,000 a month for about six months with a personal check.

Mize was subpoenaed by the Texas Democratic Party, which has filed suit to block the Greens from certifying their candidates for the November ballot.

Another subsequent petition gathering campaign, paid for by an out-of-state corporation called Take Initiative America, did get the requisite signatures to get the party on the ballot. It is unclear where the money for that $500,000 effort came from.

But the Democrats contend that the in-kind contribution from Take Initiative America is an illegal corporate contribution that should preclude the Greens from qualifying for the ballot.

Is the Texas Green Party really trying to move forward with petition signatures paid for by a shadowy outside corporatist group? That would demonstrate a shocking lack of principle, and isn't that really the only thing the Greens have going for them?
www.dailykos.com

Latest Texas poll (by PPP) has White tied with Gov. Goodhair.

[Hannah Bell]

1. KR

[bluestateguy]

2. I remeber back in 2004

Republicans in Virginia were passing around Ralph Nader ballot petitions at monster truck rallies (a honeypot for fat white male good ole boys) with the message of "help out President Bush. Put Ralph Nader on the ballot!"

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. Introducing: George W. Bush!

Thanks, Green Party. Your contributions to this country have been epic.

[Raineyb]

4. I wasn't under the impression that the Green Party was responsible for ANY of the

Supreme Court justices who put Bush in the White house in the first place. Nor am I aware of the Green party being responsible for the Democratic party's refusal to fight certification based on the bad faith actions of the Supreme Court in the first place.

Oh that's right, because they weren't.

Ignorance fail!

[xchrom]

6. +1

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. Two things

If not for Ralph Nader's candidacy we wouldn't even be having a discussion about the Supreme Court's decision.

Who exactly did you propose they appeal the US Supreme Court's decision with, God?

[Raineyb]

11. Nader had every right to run. You have no right to tell anyone that they have no right to run.

The candidates have to deal with whatever political realities exist when they run. Gore knew Nader was running so it was up to him to do what he could to counter Nader. He didn't and because he didn't the election was close enough for the Republicans to steal. THAT is not Nader's fault. He didn't steal the election. In addition, your attitude that Nader caused Gore to lose belies an appalling sense of entitlement when it comes to the Democratic party and the vote. The party is not, I repeat NOT entitled to anyone's vote. They have to earn it and if someone appeals to certain voters more than the party does that's the fault of the party not the fault of the person who made the appeal. THAT is how elections work.

In addition, the Supreme court ruling merely stated that the vote count in Florida stop. There was enough questionable activities around the vote including the use of private companies in order to knock voters off the rolls without notice and seemingly based on race that the Senate certainly could have not certified the vote if they had enough courage to do so and actually gave a damn about the security of the vote. There was no need to appeal the Supreme Court decision to do so.

Apparently however, it would appear that it's much easier to take shit out on the party with the least power (The Greens and Ralph Nader) than to probe the systemic problems that are still in place to this day which could cause something similar to happen again.

Congratulations, you must be so proud to have managed to get your head that far into the sand.

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. By all means show me anywhere I said he didn't have the "right" to run.

I never said that, nor have I said he should have been exempt.

But him having the right to run doesn't change the fact his candidacy severely boosted Bush's chances at victory, and ultimately gave Bush the Presidency.

Ralph Nader knew he would be giving Bush a huge boost, though he refused to admit it.

Ralph Nader knew he had zero chance of being elected and he ran anyway.

In my opinion Nader put self ambition and self promotion before the good of the country. While he's free to run and I would never ask for that right to be taken away, as an American citizen I'm free to express my opinion about him.

"Congratulations, you must be so proud to have managed to get your head that far into the sand."

Do you think you might be able to hold a conversation without personalizing it?

[Raineyb]

21. "Ralph Nader knew he had zero chance at being elected and he ran anyway"

Translation: Ralph Nader had no right to be on the ballot. You just proved my point.

I'll hold my conversations anyway I see fit. If you don't like it don't engage but I damn sure don't take orders from you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

26. Complete and total strawman

"Ralph Nader knew he had zero chance at being elected and he ran anyway" does NOT translate to what he said. Let's break this down.

Do you honestly believe Ralph Nader thought he had a chance to win? Answer: No

Did Ralph Nader run anyway? Answer: Yes

My statement is factually accurate, thus, it doesn't mean anything else besides what it says. Here's a helpful hint. If have to make up statements to argue against perhaps you don't have an argument.

[Raineyb]

27. And he ran anyway. The use of the word anyway implies that he did something

contrary to what he should have done.

Your ignorance of basic phrases and their use in the English language does not make my inference a straw man. Nor does it change what you've implied.

And even if he knew he couldn't win? So what? There is nothing that says that one has to know that he or she has a chance to win in order to run so your implication that he ought not have is still specious.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. My ignorance of basic phrases?

OK, let me break it down ABC style for you.

I do not believe he should not have the right to run.

By running, I believe he put his own ambitions before the good of the country.

Both statements are mutually exclusive. I know it's easier for you to debate against made-up arguments, but it's intellectually dishonest.

[Raineyb]

38. Yes, your ignorance of basic phrases. Did I stutter? n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

44. No, you didn't studder. Nor did you address anything in my post.

[Raineyb]

50. Why rehash the same old tired shit? When you blame Democrats who voted for Bush with

the same zeal you reserve for Nader then maybe I'll be interested. Otherwise, this is just an exercise in stupidity and I've got better things to do.

:shrug:

[USArmyParatrooper]

57. Find me an individual Democrat who voted for Bush...

and I will flame the shit out of him/her. Can you point to one on this board?

[Raineyb]

59. I don't go asking people how they voted. That's none of my business. If you're looking for someone

with whom to play police officer you'll have to do it without my help.

[USArmyParatrooper]

62. Then don't imply I'm not equally hard on Dems who voted for Bush

Clearly you don't know that to be the case. I'm not even sure if I've ever ran into one who admitted it.

Also, by your own standards everyone on this board "plays police officer", being that we post opinions of other people's actions and try to influence their decisions.

[Raineyb]

74. I can tell that's the case by the argument you make.

WTF? Have you ever put up anything yelling at the Dems who voted for Bush? Hell no you didn't so don't give me that shit.

[okie]

45. Of course that's true

Ralph Nader knew he wasn't going to win the presidency. But a major goal of his 2000 campaign was to win 5% of the vote in order to get federal matching funds and give the Green Party a bit more national visibility. Money makes campaigning easier, which gets your message out, which might mean more voters in future elections and that might have allowed Green candidates access to things like the Presidential debates.

The might be some issues with this strategy, but it seems sensible to me.

[11 Bravo]

32. Horseshit! Your translation skills do not approach your Nader-fluffing expertise.

And to then go on and claim that a totally imaginary "translation" somehow proves your point bespeaks a truly frightening disconnect from reality.

[Raineyb]

37. Your lack of reading comprehension skills are of no interest to me.

And it doesn't make your Nader blaming, Green party accusing, revisionist history fact either.

Although it does seem to belie a rather galling sense of entitlement shared by many that assumes that had Nader not run that those voters would have gone for Gore. There's nothing to say that those votes would have as it's entirely likely that those voters would have gone for a different third party, write in, or abstained altogether. None of which you and your ilk bother to take into consideration when you blame the 2000 debacle on Nader. No you'd rather fluff up your undeserved sense of Democratic party entitlement to the votes of anyone who is left of center (all while not doing a hell of a lot for said left of center voter I might add. Galling indeed!) or worse, completely ignore the role of Democrats who voted for BUSH. At any rate, I'm not the one who said that Ralph Nader ran anyway with all that the use of the word anyway implies. He did. So if he doesn't like what I inferred he ought to be more careful with his implications.

At any rate none of this changes the fact that blaming Nader for 2000 is head up the ass fuckery which belies a desire not to deal with the real issues at hand which was my point in the first place.

[USArmyParatrooper]

40. Setting YOUR lack of reading comprehension skills aside..

Bush "won" Florida by what, 500 votes? Are you really trying to suggest there wasn't easily enough votes in the Nader block that would have gone to Gore? I doubt you're going to deny it and do so honestly.

[Raineyb]

47. There were enough Democrats who voted for Bush to counter that as well. A fact that you seem to

quite willing to ignore in your zeal to blame Nader. The Nader voters had no more obligation to vote for Gore than did those Democrats who voted for Bush a fact you seem either unwilling or unable to consider.

[USArmyParatrooper]

51. And yet, even more strawman from you

Did I say they had an obligation to vote for Gore?

Can you copy and paste anywhere I said or implied such a thing? The fact that you can't means you're using strawman. Again.

I said he easily would have gained enough votes from the Nader Block to win Florida. That does NOT = saying they were "obligated" to vote for Gore.

[11 Bravo]

48. "anyway": adv ..."used to indicate that something ...

happened or will happen in spite of something else". It contains no negative connotation despite your fevered and comically defensive assumption to the contrary. "Ralph Nader knew he could not be elected President, yet he ran ANYWAY". Unless it is your contention that Nader was clinically insane in 2000, then that is a statement of fact.
How very amusing that someone who fails to discern the meaning of such a commonly used word should question anyone else's reading comprehension skills.

[USArmyParatrooper]

55. I must admit, that was very eloquent bullshit

I am criticizing his choice to run. Being that I'm recognizing he had the choice, how does that translate to me saying he doesn't have the right?

[11 Bravo]

63. Ummm ...

I'm AGREEING with you. (Did you respond to the wrong post?)

[USArmyParatrooper]

66. My mistake

I misunderstood your post. Sorry about that.

Quick question... why is the sky blue?

[11 Bravo]

73. I was a "leg". We didn't do that sky shit, but let's hear it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

76. It's an 11B thing

How long ago were you in?

"Why is the sky blue?" "Because God loves the Infantry!" referring to Infantry blue.

[11 Bravo]

78. I've been out since '72.

I've got to plead ignorance of that one.

[USArmyParatrooper]

79. I don't now about in '72

But today infantry Soldiers wear a sky-blue cord our uniforms.

[USArmyParatrooper]

80. I don't now about in '72

But today infantry Soldiers wear a sky-blue cord our uniforms.

[cali]

43. lol. logic and critical thinking are not your strong suits

[Raineyb]

52. Posted by the poster queen of illogic and invective. I'll take your words for what they're worth.

Nothing.

[sendero]

67. Fuck Ralph Nader..

... and to his apologists I can't say anything without getting banned.

[Raineyb]

75. Same to you. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. And the old bastard promised he wouldn't be on the ballot in close states.

Florida would have been irrelevant had Nader kept his promise.

[Raineyb]

39. Florida would have been irrelevant if Gore won his home state.

Florida would have been won if they'd counted the whole state. Perhaps if Gore had shown an interest in the reports of voter intimidation and other shenanigans things would be different. But they weren't and they can't be changed. As to this promise, frankly, that's not a promise Nader had any business making in the first place. Run or don't run but you can't deliberately cripple yourself by keeping yourself off the ballot. Only those with a rather high sense of entitlement would expect anyone to make such a promise.

[USArmyParatrooper]

42. There are a lot of IFs...

and none of them negate the fact that Nader's candidacy gave us 8 years of Bush. Were there other factors that could have also changed the outcome? Sure. Do they negate anything we've said? Nope.

[Raineyb]

53. Yes a lot of ifs. But you only focus on one as if that if were the end all to be all when it's not.

But continue with your two minute hate. I'm sure you and the others will enjoy the distraction.

[okie]

60. If there are a lot of ifs...

...doesn't it seem strange to say Nader's candidacy is ultimately responsible for Bush? Plainly there were many factors at play (what about Pat Buchanan? What if he hadn't been in the race?).

[Raineyb]

77. They don't want to hear that. It's easier to beat up on Ralph Nader. It's not like he has any

power that they might need to wrest from him.

:shrug:

The truth is that our electoral system needs some serious work and NEITHER party is at all interested in doing a damn thing about it. It's easier to blame Nader than to actually do something concrete which would at the very least get our voting systems out of the hands of private corporations who hide the source code from we the people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Blah...Blah...Blah....

Nader broke his promise, and you can filibuster til the cows come home. The man has no honor, nor indeed, shame.:eyes:

[Raineyb]

54. And neither does anyone who would expect such a promise to be made and kept. n/t

[redqueen]

5. Of course...

this is a routine tactic of theirs now. It's smart - if you can manage to split your opponent's vote you raise your own chances significantly.

[socialist_n_TN]

So why don't some leftists help..................

a Texas Teabagger get on the ballot to split the Republican vote?

[blogslut]

7. Go ahead, TX GOP - throw your money away

Bill White is still going to win and Texas Dems are going to make some substantial gains this November.

[damntexdem]

9. And a judge just ruled him back off the ballot.

Next stop -- appeals court.

While meanwhile, White has moved into a tie with Perry in the polls.

[Riftaxe]

10. How dare they offer more choices for voters to choose from,

next thing you know they will claim we are in a democracy! :sarcasm:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. They did it illegally and as a means for the GOP to dilute the Democratic vote

It was ruled illegal today by a State District Judge.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. That was knocked down in court today

Judge rules Green Party ineligible for Texas ballot

An illegal corporate contribution used by the Green Party of Texas to field statewide candidates will keep the party's nominees off the November ballot, a judge ruled Thursday.

At issue was the origin of about 92,000 petition signatures, valued at $532,500 , that qualified the party for a place on the ballot. Take Initiative America, a Missouri-based nonprofit corporation, gave the Green Party the petitions in May and has not disclosed who paid for the petition-gathering effort at a cost of $4 per signature.

Political intrigue overshadowed the legal issues Thursday as the Texas Democratic Party, which brought the suit against the Green Party, sought to trace the petition effort to allies of Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

State District Judge John Dietz found that the in-kind donation from Take Initiative America violated a state prohibition on corporate contributions and that the Democratic Party would be harmed if the Green Party were allowed to enjoy the fruit of that illegal contribution. Dietz, a Democrat, had asked the Green Party's lawyers before the hearing whether they wanted him removed from the case, but they did not.

More: http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/judge-rules-green-party-ineligible-for-texas-ballot-767884.html

It will be back again in a about a week as an appeal.

[TexasObserver]

14. Greens and Nader are often the tools of the GOP in elections.

This is the reality for Democrats running against the GOP, with Greens carrying water mindlessly for the GOP.

[Raineyb]

15. Right because democracy is only a democracy when there are 2 parties to choose from.

:sarcasm:

The fact that Republicans will use the Green party as a foil does not negate the need for more electoral choice.

[TexasObserver]

17. I'm interested in electing Democrats.

You may have other priorities.

[Raineyb]

23. I'm interested in democracy. You clearly have other priorities. n/t

[TexasObserver]

25. I'm interested in result. You're interested in process.

[Raineyb]

28. What results? The ones that make the Democratic party keep their words?

Oh no you're not for that because you don't think there should be a third party which is the only leverage people have in order to get the Democrats to produce the results you claim you're interested in.

[TexasObserver]

30. ELECTION results. I want more Democrats than Republicans elected.

I have no illusions about this process and its results. There's a struggle, and the best option in that struggle is the Democratic party and its candidates.

Third party actions on the left, funded by the GOP, are the bane of electing Democrats.

This site is dedicated to supporting Democrats, not fulfilling the need of third party types to express their disdain for Democrats. I like that about it.

Are you not committed to electing Democrats to office?

[Raineyb]

31. Electing Democrats who act like Republicans isn't much of a result is it? I'm more

interested in pushing a progressive agenda and a good number of Democrats just aren't there so I'm not at all interested in pushing the party just to push the party. It's about policy results which the party has apparently forgotten.

[TexasObserver]

34. Do you understand why Democrats don't care for third party efforts?

If you're pushing Greens where they're running against Democrats - as you are clearly doing in this instance, since we're talking about the Texas race for governor - you're opposing the Democratic nominee.

We finally have a chance to retake the governor's mansion with Bill White. Without knowing anything about White or the race, you favor allowing the GOP here to fund the Green candidate to illegally get them on the ballot.

[Raineyb]

41. I don't live in Texas. But I do believe in having more choices on the ballot period.

And I didn't say that I favored allowing the GOP to fund the Green candidate. Had you bothered to read an earlier reply as to the illegality you would have managed to figure that out. That does not however, mean that I don't think that having more choices on the ballot is a bad thing. It's not. Our electoral system needs an overhaul and a viable 3rd and 4th party would definitely go a ways to that end.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. So you'll support a party who takes illegal "corporate" funding as

long as it furthers the cause? That there's some really twisted logic. I hope Dems make a national story of this, so that people can finally see that Greens aren't what they claim.

[Raineyb]

56. Actually, if you bothered to read you'll see that I did mention that this is a problem.

But it's not an excuse for a broad brush condemnation of third parties either.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Why not? Democrats get painted with a huge brush daily on DU.

And I suspect it's largely by third party advocates.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. It was illegal

And that's not even touching on the lack of ethics they exhibited.

[Raineyb]

20. That would be the problem then. It is not grounds for blanket condemnation of

having multiple parties on the ballot.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

24. I didn't see the blanket condemnation. I saw the Green Party being called out for being a GOP tool

Which they were, and they were happy to do it until they got caught breaking the law. In the end this move is going to turn many Texas voters against the Green Party. If the news spreads it could have the same effect in other states. You don't get your name out there as a viable alternative party by being a willing tool of the Texas GOP.

This was unethical, illegal and flat out stupid of the Texas Green Party.

[Raineyb]

29. That has always been the accusation. The fact that it happened to be true in this case with this

one state doesn't really change that. But I'll grant that you didn't see a blanket condemnation where I did.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

35. I saw it for what it was. The Texas Green Party deserves no defense for their actions

This is strictly about the actions of the Texas Green Party. Who've shown themselves to be willing to set aside ethics if it furthers their political goal. Which is exactly what we don't need more of in any political party. There's no viable argument that having them on the ballot offers an alternative to voters when they exhibit behavior worthy of any Texas Republican. It is disgraceful and should be renounced by the National Green Party. Do you think that will happen?

[Raineyb]

58. I"m not sure. The National Green party has had some fractures since 2000 so I

find it hard to keep up with factions and I'm not a member of the party. I would hope that whatever passes for the national party would denounce this as it's the last thing that's needed. We already have two corrupt parties as it is.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

65. The problem with our current system is both viable parties exploit the third parties

For example, the Democrats have exploited the Libertarians, and the Republicans have exploited the Greens. With our current system that is not going to change. The major parties corrupt the minor parties whenever it's to the major parties advantage and the minor party goes along with the big boys. That how politics are done in the USA.

If the US were to ever change our current system, perhaps to something akin to the current system in the UK, then things might be different. However, I'm beginning to realize that won't happen in my lifetime. The country as a whole is not even close to ready yet.

Change is hard because it takes a majority to evoke change, and the majority of people don't like change.

[tammywammy]

68. +1 n/t

[mzmolly]

82. There are several political parties in the US. Yet only THREE make the ballot in important races?

Where is "democracy" when it comes to splitting the right wing vote?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Mindlessly is right

Christine Morshedi, of the Green Party of Texas, said, she welcomed the opportunity for the party to get its message out to voters by running statewide candidates and was not concerned about who footed the bill to get them on the ballot.

The message they sent out here is that they're not concerned little things like legalities, or whats in the better interest of the state and the people so long as they get some press and get paid. It's really a shameful moment for the Green Party.

[okie]

61. Where do candidates from the two major parties get their money?

Do you think it all comes from 'clean' sources? C'mon. There are a lot of dirty tricks in American elections.

I think the process is simply incredibly dirty. Those Greens (futilely, in my view) trying to play inevitably have to get messy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

71. So they're aspiring to be what, the GOP light?

What they did was illegal and unethical. Period. If they want to run as a third party of higher standards then they have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Lip service is a dime a dozen on Capital Hill. How are they any different if they're willing to bargain with the worst of all political parties?

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

88. This is a Democratic site, not a Green party site.

If you're unclear on that, consult Skinner's last big thread, please.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Then help a Teabagger get on the ballot

as an independent to split the Republican vote. JMO, but that would make more sense than having LESS choices on the ballot. There's GOT to be a REAL Texas secessionist who's nutty enough to WANT to run for Governor.

[tammywammy]

69. The last governor election we had in Texas did have 4 candidates on the ballot

That's how we ended up with 39% Perry as governor for a second term.

Bill White has a damn good chance of beating Perry and Texas getting a democrat back in the governor's mansion (well, not really the mansion, since it's under renovations, but you get the point).

[depakid]

70. Here you go again- posting the same divisive story that been on DU for almost a week

Gee, I wonder why?

:eyes:

Isn't there something a little fresher to try to bash progressives with?

[tammywammy]

72. The fact that Toomey led the Green Party effort just came out yesterday.

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

83. cartoon on it

[mzmolly]

81. Gee do you think the Green Party will help the Republicans again?

I'm betting, yep.

[tammywammy]

84. Not this time, they're off the ballot. n/t

[mzmolly]

85. Good.

That's "democracy" too. ;)