Green (Party): This Color Does Run

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15224083.htm

IN LESS THAN a generation, the Green Party has morphed from dedicated idealists to naive pawns to outright whores.

As reported last week by Daily News reporter and blogger Will Bunch (www.attytood.com), the petition drive by Carl Romanelli, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, was funded by Republicans who support Sen. Rick Santorum for re-election. The money went to hire JSM Inc., a Florida firm that pays people to gather petitions and that has garnered a reputation for deceit and downright fraud. Some "volunteers" moving petitions for Romanelli actually work for the Santorum campaign.

The idea is that voters attracted to the Green Party's progressive message will vote for Romanelli and not Democrat Bob Casey, Santorum's opponent, who is much closer to them on many issues.

<snip>

Now the Greens are actively involved in the "politics as usual" they claim to abhor. Sharing a political four-poster with the Santorum crowd undercuts the party's own putative principles. For example, the Green Party claims that - unlike Santorum and Casey - it accepts no corporate money. But its current donors include lobbyists for Halliburton and Chevron.

The party has become an acronym punchline: "Green" equals "Getting Republicans Elected Every November."

[Buzz Clik]

1. Yet another "I hate the Greens" thread? How original.

[creeksneakers2]

2. He came up with a good acronym n/t

[RamboLiberal]

4. Well as far as I'm concerned in PA the article is right

A viable Green party needs to build from the grass roots up. But if they take money from Repuke whores and get their name on the ballot by Repuke whoring just to spoil a Dem's chance, then yes, the acronym for Green is correct.

I will forever curse Nader for what his arrogant pride cost this country! As far as I'm concerned he sold his soul.

Maybe their are good honest candidates and elected Greens in other areas of the country - if so then they need to take the Green party back!

[movonne]

3. I think the repugs have taken over the green party...

[Ignoramus]

5. I found this response

From a "Green Party USA". I'm not sure if that's "the green party" or what:

While the action of the GP of PA is understandable, that does not make it acceptable. Part of the reason for its bad decision is that the GP of PA is part of GPUS. GPUS models itself on the corporate parties by refusing to have a defined membership. Since it does not base itself on a dues-paid membership, GPUS must look to other sources. Years ago, many Greens predicted that this source of funding would be from corporations. In PA, events did not turn out exactly as predicted, since the funding was from the corporate-based RP rathern than directly from the corporations themselves.

Not all Green Party activists accept the corporate structure of GPUS and the GP of PA. The original Green Party, the GPUSA, is based on a dues-paying membership. It is this defined membership, not anyone who shows up, who makes policy, including what money to accept and from where. GPUSA has never knowingly accepted money from any anti-worker, racist or war-mongering source, including the Republican Party or Democratic Party.


http://www.greenparty.org/PA_funding.php

[Rowdyboy]

6. Nice acronym! Pennsylvania is a sickening case of Greens selling out

to do Republican's bidding. These people (at least the ones in Pennsylvania) are the enemies of progressives, not our friends.