Even Rick Santorum admits they helped the Green party because it helps him

[LynneSin]

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16996118&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Monday, Mr. Santorum freely admitted his donors and campaign staff helped Mr. Romanelli because third-party candidates benefit incumbents.

So guess what Greens everywhere - it's officially proven now they you are nothing more than a tool of the republican party. Bought and paid for no less than Rick Santorum.

Get off your moral high horse and welcome to the 2 party system. This statement proves that if you voted for Green in PA you are voting for the Republican candidate. I mean even RICK admits it.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It's pathetic when a candidate makes his opponents give him credit

for not lying.

[Gman]

2. K&R

THe whole friggin' world needs to see this.

[Divernan]

3. K&R - hope the green DUers weigh in on this.

And I hope they are outraged at Santorum/GOP brazenly shanghai-ing their party.

[Tesla]

4. And from Santorum... he's a freak!

That's like doing the weirdest guy in school!

[auburngrad82]

5. A few weeks ago there was a post about Santorum asking the GOP to sign the

petition to get the Green Party on the ballot so he could split the Democratic ticket. Guess it worked.

When are we going to learn that the GOP will do anything to win and we need to stop allowing ourselves to be willing participants in their game?



Liberal bumper stickers

[LynneSin]

6. When will the Greens learn they are a part of the 2-party system

Voting Green is just a minor detail to make yourself feel better even though you're technically voting republican

[welshTerrier2]

9. "technically voting republican"

this is illogical ...

which would you rather have, a vote for the Green Party or a vote for Santorum? clearly the two are not the same thing ...

[LynneSin]

10. When the republicans paid for the Green Party candidate - yes they are

I mean, have you read any of the articles? The candidate wouldn't have had the signatures needed if Santorum didnt' step in and ask his people to contribute and help gather the signatures. Santorum even ADMITS they did it because it helps incumbents!

Fool yourself into thinking the Green Party is some politically moralistic high road - it isn't.

It's just a pretty way to vote republican without actually pulling the republican lever

[welshTerrier2]

11. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION

you said voting Green was technically the same as voting republican ... IT IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME ...

let's try again ... which would you rather have a Dem who will not vote for an ANTI-CHOICE candidate do, vote for a Green or vote for Santorum?

[LynneSin]

12. I can't argue with someone who doesn't have a clue

read my orginal post

Google Rick Santorum Green

Green Party would have never had the signatures needed to get on to the ballot unless Rick Santorum asked for some of his supporters to make the donations and gather the signatures. He even said he did it because it benefits INCUMBANTS (which is Rick Santorum btw). And there is even violations in Federal Campaign Contributions done to get him on the ballot.

THE PENNSYLVANIA GREENS WERE PAID FOR BY RICK SANTORUM

Hence if you're voting for the Green Party, as far as I'm concerned you're voting to support the republican. But I guess it just makes you feel better at night when you go to bed thinking "OOh, I showed those democrats by voting green" then live in your fantasy world.

Because this is NOT the only example of republicans doing this. I had a link (which was sent to my home email, need to find it again) of several other examples of where the Republican financed the Green Party to put them on the ticket (oddly enough no examples of them financing the Constitution or Libertarian party)

GREEN PARTY IS A BRANCH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTy

Anyone who doesn't get it is a dumbass!

[welshTerrier2]

15. it is pathetic to refuse to answer this question

first of all, i made no statement about "showing those Democrats by voting Green" ... that's your homegrown bullshit ...

what i said is that your statement that there is no difference between voting Green and voting republican is ILLOGICAL ... but you want to rant and rave and screech and whine in your ineffective way ...

there's a very easy to answer question here that you still are twisting and squirming and tap-dancing around but you just won't answer ... that's because you are using FALSE LOGIC to try to make your case ...

none of my points in this thread argued whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for people to vote for Greens ... that's what you are hearing but it is NOT WHAT I SAID ... i'd be happy to discuss my opinions on that subject but it is NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE ...

since you've chosen to get personal, let me simplify this for you since you clearly want to rant and rave and be emotional rather than dealing with LOGIC ... ready? i'm confident you'll be able to grasp this ... well, maybe not too confident ... but do your best ... we're all here for you ...

let's take a single registered Democrat ... and let's have that Democrat choose, whether we agree with their decision or not (you seem to have trouble with that), to vote for the Green candidate ...

now let's do some math ... the Dems have lost one vote ... with me so far?

now let's look at an alternative scenario ... that same Democrat, instead of voting for the Green candidate, votes for the republican candidate ... the Dems lose one vote AND the republicans gain one vote ...

now, here comes the important part ... in the first case, a vote for the Green puts the Dems in a minus one situation ... in the second scenario, the Dems are in a minus TWO situation because not only did they not get the vote BUT THE REPUBLICANS DID ...

if you have trouble understanding this, you might consider an introductory text on first grade arithmetic ...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

19. "the democrats you put down"

have i "put down" any Democrats??

there are certainly some i strongly disagree with ... i hope that's OK with you ... but i haven't made any statements here even disagreeing with any Democrats ... and i certainly haven't said here that anyone should vote Green ...

where do you get these things?????????

and after all this, you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION ... lots of smoke ... lots of noise ... lots of distraction ... but no answer ... it's rather easy to see why ...

[welshTerrier2]

22. "after this exposure"

you stated: "I'd rather vote for Joe Lieberman (only if he were on a dem ticket) over any Green after this exposure."

am i to understand that prior to our exchange here you would have voted for a Green candidate over Joe Lieberman but now that I've made you angry you are somehow punishing me by telling me you would even vote for Lieberman over a Green?

I AM NOT A GREEN!! and i won't begin to tell you my opinion of anyone who would change how they vote because they get mad at another DU'er ... interesting approach to voting you have there ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Hold your nose and vote for the Dem.

Support the party that supports most of your goals, and once that party is in solid, weed out the ones you can't tolerate.

There is a green wing of the Dem party. They will ALWAYS have more power than the green party itself. A vote for the green is as bad as a vote for the repub, because the vote is taken from the dem column which means someone else's vote will have to counter a repub vote.

To vote for a candidate who cannot win is, simply put, stupid. It doesn't send a message to anyone, doesn't help anyone, doesn't support anyone, doesn't fight anyone. It might as well be left on the floor of the voting booth.

[welshTerrier2]

16. whether i agree with voting Green in PA or not ...

is not what my post was about ...

i was merely commenting that arguing there is NO DIFFERENCE between voting Green and voting republican is NOT A VALID REASON TO ARGUE AGAINST VOTING GREEN ...

[LynneSin]

18. CARL ROMANELLI WAS PAID FOR BY RICK SANTORUM

Is this statement not clear? Romanelli would have NOT been on the ticket had Santorum not gotten his Supporters - some of which came from out of state to chip in and help him get the signatures needed.

Did Rick help the Constitution Party senate candidate - NO!

Did Rick help the Libertarian Party senate candidate - NO!

Constitution & Libertarian would only hurt a republican.

There are Greens on this board smart enough to know to denounce this move. Those who somehow can't see the difference, to me, are republican supporters. Because you're will to get in bed with republican party in order to get your candidate on the ticket.

[welshTerrier2]

24. "your candidate"

my candidate? here's a hint for you ... i have no idea who the Green candidate is in PA ...

my candidate? where do you get this stuff ??????

and you STILL haven't answered the question ... we all know why, don't we??

[auburngrad82]

25. I'll answer

In an election where a Green Party candidate actually had a chance of winning, I would consider voting for the Green Party candidate.

In this case I would vote for neither Romanelli or Santorum. I would not vote for Romanelli because he is acting as Santorum's tool in this election and I would not vote for Santorum because he's a crazy prick.

Where you are wrong is it's not EITHER a vote for a Green Party candidate OR a vote for Santorum. In this case it's EITHER a vote for the Democratic candidate OR a vote for Santorum.



Liberal bumper stickers

[LynneSin]

27. Thank you

:D

[LynneSin]

26. I've answered the questions about 6-7 times

hell I have people PMing me saying to ignore you because you refuse to accept my answer.

I'm the democratic party and all candidates are a part of my party regardless of whether I like them (ie Barbara Boxer) or not (ie Joe Lieberman). I take responsiblity for all of them. When Lieberman sucks up to Bush, we democrats take the beating ESPEICALLY from smug Greens who think somehow they are better. And btw, I'm neither from California or Connecticut.

Clearly you do not. You obviously have no desire to understand what is going on and feel that since this guy ain't might state then who gives a flying fuck. It's the Green Party - they need to denounce this and their lack of doing it means they are in bed with the Republicans. And since there are many Greens & Green sympathizers here at the board that don't get it but yet have no problem yelling at us democrats because of what Lieberman does or any of the other 'bad democrats. Then how dare any green try and wash their hands from this PA/Romanelli mess. Carl Romanelli is a green candidate and his stain affects all greens, not just those who live in his state.

[welshTerrier2]

31. your argument is illogical

what is the point about saying you've received PM's to ignore me ... are you showing me how tolerant you are? i couldn't care less whether you ignore me or you don't ...

and all this "Carl Romanelli" and bashing Dems stuff is crap ... frankly, i've never heard of Carl Romanelli ... i haven't said (perhaps i'll post a thread on my PA views) anyone should or should NOT vote Green in PA ... yes, i have a definite opinion on how I would vote but i haven't said a word about my opinion here ...

what i have said is that there is a huge difference between NOT VOTING DEM and VOTING REPUBLICAN ... and no, you have not answered that question ... ranting on about how Santorum is helping the Green is not an answer ...

here, let me make this even easier ... we'll make it a multiple choice question ... that way we can both see your answer and no questions will remain ...

would you rather have a Democrat who will not vote for Casey because he is ANTI-CHOICE vote for:

a. Green party candidate
b. Santorum

for you to argue they are the same, you would have to make the case that all Green votes in this race should be added to Santorum's vote total ... i assume you would NOT support that ... but to argue that there is no difference between voting Green and voting for Santorum would be making the argument that the two are the same and that the vote totals should be combined ...

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. The correct answer is C.

Green Devil! Green Devil!

What do I win? :rofl:



sorry :yoiks:

[LynneSin]

34. ANSWER C: I'm a pro-choice democrat who would still vote for Casey

because I know that the green party candidate only got on the ticket through REPUBLICAN MONEY.

Where aren't you understanding it - here - let me give you some quotes about it

From State College:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15174922.htm
Romanelli, a former Luzerne County family-court officer who is making his first bid for statewide elective office, is considered to be a potential spoiler for Casey's campaign to unseat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Romanelli has acknowledged that most of the $100,000 that his campaign spent gathering signatures probably came from GOP donors.

From Harrisburg:
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/115448192768210.xml&coll=1
While many independents, Libertarians and members of the Constitution Party fell short of the 67,070 signatures required to make it onto the ballot for a statewide office, three Green Party candidates believe they were successful. (why wasn't Rick helping those other parties like he did the green party - lms)

Forbes Magazine
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/08/01/ap2917576.html
Records on file with the Federal Election Commission show the Luzerne County Green Party received $66,000 in June from 20 contributors who gave between $1,000 and $5,000 apiece.

The Luzerne County Green Party in turn reported paying $66,000 in June to a Florida company called JSM Inc. for work that Romanelli described as an integral part of his signature-gathering campaign.

An analysis showed that at least $29,000 came from donors who also have given to Santorum's campaign, and nearly all the donors had given to Republican candidates in recent elections.

Scranton:
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16996118&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6
The high-ranking Republican senator’s backers contributed $66,000 used to gather at least 90,000 nominating signatures for Mr. Romanelli, far more than the 67,070 required. His nominating petitions were filed Tuesday, the deadline for minor-party candidates.
<<<<snip>>>>
Santorum donors and what appear to be their relatives contributed at least $35,000 of the $66,000 raised between April 1 and June 30 by the Green Party of Luzerne County, which hired a company to collect signatures, according to its financial report. His campaign committee listed it as $66,000 in in-kind contributions, which are contributions other than cash.
<<<<<snip>>>>
In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Monday, Mr. Santorum freely admitted his donors and campaign staff helped Mr. Romanelli because third-party candidates benefit incumbents.

“This is politics,” he told the newspaper.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Smar questioned why Mr. Santorum didn’t help other third-party candidates.

Virginia Davis, Mr. Santorum’s campaign spokeswoman, said the campaign had been “transparent” in directing supporters who asked to help Mr. Romanelli because the Green Party candidate is more willing to debate the senator than Mr. Casey.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "Where aren't you understanding it"

you seem to want me to recognize that the source of Green support is coming mostly from republicans ... fine ... i read your posts on the subject ...

and you seem to be making all kinds of arguments about how you would vote ... i have made no statement here about how i would vote and yet you seem to be stating that i have ...

you seem bewildered that i am not understanding your point - the reason it seems that way to you is because i am not even addressing most of your points ... you are making all kinds of arguments about the evil Greens and you seem to think i've been defending their position ... i have not been ... my views on this have not been posted here at all ...

and when you REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION by choosing choice "C", that ducks the question ... see my last post on the math ... i may well take issue with some or all of your arguments about how people should vote in PA ... but to argue that there is no difference between staying home or voting third party versus VOTING FREAKIN REPUBLICAN is just absurd ... again, voting Green and the Dems go down one ... voting republican and not only do the Dems go down one BUT THE REPUBS ALSO GO UP ONE ...

if someone said to me they are a Dem but they refuse to vote Dem and that they're torn between voting Green and voting republican, i would tell then to vote Green ... if you couldn't convince them to vote Dem, i hope you would do the same ... telling them it would make no difference would be incredibly bad advice ...

[LynneSin]

41. Whatever you believe

:boring:

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. And still you choose to not get it.

You keep pressing for people to say, 'Of course, we'd rather support a Green than Santorum'. But rational dems know that a vote for the green is a throw-away vote, one that enables Santorum. The vote for the Green doesn't harm Santorum, it harms the Dem candidate who you've already said is not in the running because of a single issue. Both choices you offer help Santorum.

WE ARE DEMOCRATS. WE ARE NOT SINGLE-ISSUE REPUBLICAN VOTERS. We support the party. It is the party taking control that will make the difference, not any single candidate.

IMO, a 'Democrat' who will not vote for a democrat because of any one particular issue, is not a democrat but a lying independent. Party affiliation matters.

If I were in CT, and Lamont were to lose against Lieberman, I'd vote for Lieberman no matter how bad he is, because that's one more 'D' in the senate, regardless of his votes. It could make the difference between getting control of the agenda or being the minority again. Same for Pennsylvania.

If you don't feel you can vote FOR someone, you hold your nose and make the choice that is the most effective vote AGAINST the worst choice.

Why are you trying to help divide progressives by giving straw-man options? Greens are always welcome in the Democratic big tent. We have a common foe -- the republican majority. That's what we need to fight against.

[welshTerrier2]

54. "Both choices you offer help Santorum."

you wrote: "Both choices you offer help Santorum."

i have not argued otherwise ... if you aren't hearing me state that, you are arguing against shadows of your own making ...

it would be most useful, if you continue to disagree with me, to respond to post #35 which makes the argument i'm making as clearly as i'm able to make it ...

stating that "Both choices you offer help Santorum." is NOT THE SAME AS stating that there is no difference between voting Green and SWITCHING from Dem to republican ... obviously, Santorum would rather have a Democrat vote Green rather than vote for the Democrat ... just as Dems should prefer that a Dem vote Green rather than vote republican ...

the issue here is not what your first choice would be, it is comparing the choice between the other options ... the original statement that, regarding the other options, there is no difference is absurd ...

post #35 clearly demonstrates the difference ...

if you want to have a separate discussion about third parties and two party systems and voting strategies, i'm happy to do that ... i have my own preferences and values just as you have yours ... i haven't made any arguments here about where i stand on that issue ... my statements in this thread are limited to the bogus argument that there is no difference between voting Green and voting republican ... it is not an argument that anyone should vote Green ...

if you want to make arguments against voting Green, you should make sound, logical arguments ... arguing that a Green vote is a republican vote is NOT a sound, logical argument ... and arguing that a Dem voting Green helps Santorum does not address the issue made by the OP'er that there is no difference ... yes, if a Dem votes Green it helps Santorum ... if a Dem switches his vote and votes republican, it helps Santorum MORE than a Dem voting Green ... the issue is one of comparison, not direction ... it's the MORE that i was pointing out ... arguing they are the SAME is illogical ...

[Bake]

61. But it IS the same thing. It has the exact same result.

If that were not the case, why would Little Ricky give a damn about getting a Green candidate on the ballot?

And isn't the Green candidate, IN THIS RACE, no more than a bought and paid-for tool of the Santorum camp?

Someone long ago said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." I'd start checking the Green limbs and see what's hanging there.

Bake

[welshTerrier2]

63. the exact same result?

if you're interested in discussing this further, please respond to post #35 ... it clearly demonstrates that the results ARE NOT THE SAME ...

thanks ...

[auburngrad82]

23. In this case it is the same thing

The Green Party candidate has no chance of winning. If you vote for him you take a vote away from the front runner (a Democrat) and moves Santorum one vote closer to winning from behind.

The whole purpose of the GOP supporting a Green Party candidate was to siphon enough votes away from Casey to allow Santorum to win. If it works here, they will try it in every close race in the future.



Liberal bumper stickers

[welshTerrier2]

28. not a math major, i gather ...

you started off OK but didn't complete the analysis ...

this statement is absolutely correct: "If you vote for him you take a vote away from the front runner (a Democrat) and moves Santorum one vote closer to winning from behind."

so, if the argument had been that voting Green INSTEAD OF VOTING DEM helps the republicans, your analysis would have been right on the money ...

but that is not the issue raised by the OP's bogus statement ... the statement was that voting Green is the same as voting republican ... that is total nonsense ...

in your example, the Dems lose a vote that helps the republicans ... so far, no problem ... but it IS MUCH WORSE to not only LOSE ONE VOTE but to ALSO HAVE THE REPUBLICANS GAIN ONE ... a Dem who either doesn't vote at all or votes third party costs us a "minus one" ... this means we are one vote less, compared to the republican total, than we would have been if the person had voted Dem ...

but, if instead of voting Dem, the person voted republican, we would be "minus two" compared to the republicans ...

put another way, someone (i.e. a Dem) not voting Dem costs us one vote; someone SWITCHING from Dem to repub costs us two votes ... clearly, the two scenarios are not the same ...

[LynneSin]

30. What nonsense is that

You get one vote

Either you vote for a democrat
You vote for a republican
Or you vote for a Green party member who only got on the ballot because of republican money.

And since the Green Party are on the left side the spectrum it's highly unlikely that Santorum is going to lose any votes to the Green Candidates.



You can paint this any pretty picture you like

Voting green means you support the republicans. And I stand by that statement until the Green Party grows a set of balls and demand that their candidates distance themselves from this kind of Republican manipulation and they pull all support & finance from Carl Romanelli.

[welshTerrier2]

35. let's try an example

here we go ...

let's start with a bunch of registered Dems and a bunch of registered republicans ... we can use any number you prefer ...

i'll start with 10 of each ...

now let's look at the two scenarios ... case one has a Dem voting Green ... case two has a Dem voting republican ... your initial statement has been that there is no difference ... let's see if that holds up ...

Case one (Dem voting Green):
the Dems started with 10 registered voters and receive 9 votes ... the Greens get one vote and the republicans get all 10 registered republicans ...

the final tally: Dems 9, republicans 10

Case one conclusion: the Dems lose by one vote (given these numbers) when one Dem votes Green ...

OK, now Case two (Dem SWITCHING to repub):
the Dems started with 10 registered voters and receive 9 votes (Same as Case One) ... the Greens get ZERO votes ... BUT, and here's the difference and it clearly demonstrates that Case ONE is NOT THE SAME AS Case TWO: the repubs now get 11 vote - the original 10 plus one switching Dem ...

SO, in comparing the difference between the two cases after a Dem either votes third party or SWITCHES to vote republican, Case One shows the republicans ahead by one vote (10 to 9) and Case Two shows the republican ahead by two votes (11 to 9) ... republicans gaining one vote is NOT THE SAME AS republicans gaining two votes ...

clearly there is a difference in the two scenarios ... it is better for Democrats to have one of their registered voters vote third party than to have one of their registered voters vote republican ...

make all the arguments you want to about why people should vote for the Democrat ... i've made no argument to the contrary and your points, whether i agree with them or not, have nothing to do with the point i raised ... a Democrat voting Green is NOT THE SAME AS a Democrat voting republican ...

[LynneSin]

38. Whatever

Answer me this

If Rick Santorum was so interested in getting other parties on the ticket for US Senator then why didn't he help out the Constitution or Libertarian Parties. They both tried but failed to get the signatures needed. ANd I'm sure $100k from Santorum/GOP supporters is a drop in the bucket to them.

Walk with your heads in the clouds - GREEN PARTY = REPUBLICAN SUPPORT

After this thread I'm not even bothering with your dumb explanations since you clearly have not bothered to read the like 4 articles I've posted (and google news has a total of 63).

But don't worry - keep posting and I'll be happy to reply back and remind the readers of this thread that you have no intentions of reading the articles published EVERYWHERE at how

1. Romanelli did not have enough signatures originally
2. Santorum stepped in about 10 days ago stating that the Greens should be allowed to run
3. Donations came in from various Republicans/GOP supporters (many from out of state)
4. The remaining signatures were gathered using the $100k of republican money
5. No other 3rd Party candidates were helped by republican money
6. Green Candidate Romanelli admits it was republican money that got him on the ticket
7. Santorum admits he did it because it helps "Incumbants"
8. Green Party and an entity has done NOTHING to deny or distance themselves from this

As democrats we have to accept all the democrats who have been elected both the good and the bad. Green party can't pick and choose their good greens from bad.

BTW, this is not the first time republicans have paid to put greens on tickets either. If greens need republican money to get on election ballots then they ARE REPUBLICANS VOTES. It's just a pretty way to dress it up so you don't have to pull the "R" lever

[welshTerrier2]

42. "not even bothering"

i see it as totally unable to answer ... what's nice is that everyone can just read the thread and form their own opinions ... i trust you concur ...

as for your list of 8 items and your statement that i have not read them, the key point is that they have NOTHING TO DO with your inability to support your contention that voting Green is the same as voting republican ...

when presented with an example, and a very clear one that shows the total absurdity of arguing that voting Green is the same as voting republican, you were "not even bothering" ... i can understand why fighting a losing argument would be a bother to you ...

[LynneSin]

44. I'm not bothering because you have your eyes shut to what is happening

You seem to be the only one that doesn't get it. I seem to have overwhelming support from other DUers who do get it and are disgusted by it. Hell I wasn't even the first one to answer C: to your assinine question

It's like trying to convince Don Quixote to not go after the windmills.

Have fun!

[welshTerrier2]

46. good strategy ...

completely fail to make your point and then resort to personal attack ...

yes, it's been fun ... have a nice day ...

[LynneSin]

47. Call me silly but everyone else pretty much has agreed with me

read the rest of the thread. How many other people see what is going on with the Green & Republican party.

You're just obessed over somehow thinking you're going to get this one right and the thing is no one is backing you on this one. YOu're floating out there all by yourself on this one and no one is backing you.

Greens are in bed with the republican party and enabling them to win.

GO figure.

Hey, there's some windmills over there - go chase them down!

[welshTerrier2]

48. "call me silly"

hmmmmm ... seems like you're the name caller in this thread ...

and you want to take a poll ... how about this poll question:

which hurts Democrats more, a dem voting Green or a Dem SWITCHING their vote to republican??

wanna try that poll even on a mostly Dem board?

and what would it prove? ... do you think if you could get a majority that that would make your bogus argument correct? something like 50% of Americans believe they found WMD in Iraq ... polls are not the determinant of truth ...

[LynneSin]

50. Wow, can you call me tonight - this is better than Lunesta!!

which hurts Democrats more, a dem voting Green or a Dem SWITCHING their vote to republican

Is there a difference? I say it's THE SAME EXACT THING!

[welshTerrier2]

51. soooooo ...

would you be willing to advocate for adding the Green votes to Santorum's total?

if they're really the same, i can't see what difference such a ridiculous scheme would make ...

i'd comment on Lunesta but i've never heard of it ...

[LynneSin]

52. They why did Rick not help out any other 3rd party candidate

They only helped one - the Green party; claimed that no other party was actively trying to get signatures even though both the Constitution Party and Libertarian said they were.

If the Greens got on their ticket through the support of Green Party members hard work and money (and yes maybe even some support from other progressive thinkers and perhaps disgruntled democrats) I would considered them a valid candidate for office. I mean there are only 20k registered greens in PA and to be honest, I really don't think they 'll make a difference although it's too early to tell.

But when one party with the exact opposite ideologies of the Green Party makes a point to help pay for a company to gather the remaining signatures needed, the it raises a major flag that the Greens are being used by the REpublican party to help pull votes away from the Democrats and help them pull out a win. Because even though Rick is 20pts behind I can assure you that won't last - he's a dirty fighter.

ANd my anger is simple - the Green Party and the candidate in question have no qualms accepting this money from Republicans. There have been rumors in the past of Republican/Green collaboration but this is the first time very proof positive that it does happen. And when the green candidate got on the ticket solely because of republican help, then to me that means Green Votes = Voting Republican. And for any Green to pooh-pooh this collaboration with the standard "We have the right to be on that ticket and an option for voters" is just full of themselves. YOu know your candidate ain't gonna win and you now know the only reason you even have the ability to choice that candidate was because of republican funding. The two are one in the same.

And Lunesta is a sleep aid I use from time to time - works like a charm too!

[welshTerrier2]

55. "why did Rick not help out any other 3rd party candidate"

would it be fair to guess that he didn't "help out any other 3rd party candidate" because he believed helping the Green Party would help him the most?

you think i'm arguing about that? you're still not hearing me at all ... you may think you are but you aren't ...

what a shock ... those darn old republicans are trying to provide support to the Green Party to lure away Democratic votes ... did you expect them to play fair? i sure didn't ... and they'll cheat at the polls too ... imagine that ... and they'll kick as many Democrats off the voting rolls that they possibly can ...

do you think i support that? i think it's crap ...

but that has nothing to do with a single point i've made anywhere in this thread ... of course, having a Dem vote Green helps Santorum ... that is NOT the issue i'm disagreeing with you about ...

i'll just refer you to post #35 that clearly demonstrates the point i've been making ... if you prefer to ignore it, fine ... all i've asked is that you stop using the argument that people should not vote for Greens BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS VOTING REPUBLICAN ...

the rest of it is a very separate matter ...

perhaps better for a separate thread is what i see as a not so simple issue ... i believe it is your position that the Greens in PA should not accept money from the republicans ... i assume the reason is that the money is not genuinely given to support the Green cause but rather that it's been given in the most cynical way to help republicans beat Democrats ...

i wonder if you would support Dems turning down "tainted" money from big corporations that only seek to further their own interests ... many of these corporations hedge their bets by giving to both parties ... all they're trying to do is boost their own profits ... they don't give a damn about republican beliefs or Democratic beliefs or any beliefs beyond woshipping money as a god ...

is it wrong for Democrats to accept money from these "not genuine" sources? i really haven't given the issue of Greens taking republican money much thought ... in the end, i suppose as long as the money is given with no strings attached, I probably would support the Greens accepting the money ... it helps them get their message out and as long as they aren't forced to return a "quid pro quo", i guess i think it's OK ...

on the other hand, whether the law should prevent the republicans from giving money in this manner is an entirely different issue ... it seems to me that's much less clear ... i can see a major party lending support to a legitimate "splinter group" whose cause they support ... the purpose here is clearly bogus ... perhaps that should not be legal ... it would be a tough case to make, though ... it's not often easy to make the case based on the intent of the party giving the money ... that becomes a bit speculative and more difficult to prove ...

[LynneSin]

60. Please, I've quit reading your posts since you've been nothing but rude

which is pretty much why I'm rude back.

So perhaps you might be better off by just moving on and finding other crusades to follow

[welshTerrier2]

62. thanks for the tip ...

i'm confident that if you look upthread you'll notice a deleted post ... i can confidently tell you it was not one of mine ...

and i'm certainly not going to abandon "my crusade" just because you are being "rude back" ... post #35 makes the case very, very clearly ... if you don't want to address the actual issue because i've been "nothing but rude", that's fine with me ...

if you've quit reading my posts, i'll assume you're not reading this one either ... or are you???

tough to respond now, eh?

ahhhhh, blessed silence ...

[Cosmocat]

7. Keep fighting it ...

Cause that is what we have to do, not give in in any way ...

But, this thing or not, Santorum is going down ... I caught Nora O'Donnell on Imus this morning (ACK), and she said she had heard that Santorums' internal polls had him down 20 points ... Took too long, but gotta give PA some props for getting clue and getting ready to put this freak to rest ...

[LynneSin]

8. Those polls make me nervous

Because his approval rating went up 7pts according to SurveyUSA (36% to 43%).

Santorum is one of the dirtiest fighters when it comes to campaigning and there is no low-blow too low for him out there - he'll do it all. I expect this to be a cat fight til the end and the Green Party is just another tool to help get him perhaps 2-4% closer towards election time ESPECIALLY since there are people who keep labelling Casey 'conservative' even though Casey's record is hardly conservative outside the area of choice

[Cosmocat]

13. Your right ...

Can't get complacent ... And, NO DOUBT, Santorum will do and say ANYTHING ...

This is why Casey was the choice ... He seems to be able to not hurt himself, and has just enough money to keep pace with the advertising wars ...

[KKKarl is an idiot]

20. ..

How did Rick find time to this after his hard mission petitioning the WH to release its report on all those dangerous WMD's we found.

[alvarezadams]

21. Just like

the Olins and Bradleys supporting the DLC.

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. Shhh

We don't discuss that here.


Were to busy going after the green devil to actually do any work for a Democrat candidate.

[LynneSin]

36. Oh trust me, I'm out there working the races

But just pointing out the obvious Republican/Green connection here.

YOu want every detail of what I did this past weekend working various campaigns?

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Yes, all of them. Time tables would be good too.

We'll cross reference them with your timestamped posts here on DU. It will be fun, and educational.


P.S. Are you with the Wilmington Dems subgroup?

[LynneSin]

40. There is one local candidate who I'll help with because she is a doll

but most of the time I drive up to Pennsylvania and help out with 2 very close house races. Carper will win, Castle win win (but I'll vote for the democrat even though I was somewhat tempted by seeing Michael Berg running on the Green Ticket)

I want the Green Party to be sucessful but as long as their willing to crawl into bed with republican financing then no way!

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. Good On Ya for being involved!

:yourock:

[LynneSin]

45. I'm not the best democrat, I just try

:pals:

[colditalianpizza]

33. What is a Democrat?

A Democrat is a Green with a stake in his or her community.

[citizen snips]

53. a vote for the greens is a vote for the repubs.

n/t

[jonnyblitz]

56. Once the green guy receives funding from the GOP he

becomes damaged goods and should be SHUNNED, IMHO. I don't care if I agree with his views or not. this also is IN SPITE OF THE OBVIOUS fact that a third party candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of EVER beating a Democrat or Republican the way the system is set up.

I don't blame you for being pissed. :hi:

[IronLionZion]

57. I respect your point but you'll attract more with honey than vinegar. nt

[lisainmilo]

58. GREEN PARTY

HOW TRUE!! THE REPUBICANS ARE VERY GOOD AT DIVIDING AND CONQUERING. THESE IMMORAL TACTICS FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEED TO END. THE REPUBLICANS JUST WANT TO DIVIDE THE VOTE. PLEASE SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND STOP THE MADNESS. DON'T BE FOOLISH!....BESIDES THINK ABOUT IT ...THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GREEN PARTY...LOOK AT GORE.

[auburngrad82]

59. Dude...

Watch the caplock. It hurts my eyes.

:)

And welcome to DU...



Liberal bumper stickers

[lisainmilo]

64. dude-ette

I know someone else told me....but thnx for heads up!...Getting older CAPS easier for me to read....lol..:-)