Green Party supporters should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES

[zcflint09]

Currently Rick Santorum is using the Green Party in an attempt to draw votes away from a Democratic challenger. The Green Party accepted the funds, even when Santorum ADMITTED that he did this for politically motivated reasons.

This is a travesty and the leadership of that party should be ashamed of itself. Anyone who supports the Green Party in Pennsyvania is taking away essential votes from Casey, and since the GP accepted funds from Santorum even after knowing his reasoning for funding the GP, is supporting the SANTORUM CAMPAIGN.

The acceptance of campaign money from the GOP for the reasoning that it was given makes the Greens JUST AS POLITICALLY DISGUSTING AS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. They are ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BEING USED AS PAWNS IN AN ELECTION TO ATTEMPT TO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRATIC CANIDATE ELECTED.

The fact is, they know why Santorum is giving them the funds. So he can STAY IN OFFICE, SPREAD BIGOTRY, AND CEMENT REPUBLICAN CONTROL IN OUR LEGISLATURE. The Green Party is a collection of hypocrites of the worst ilk.

Flame away, and yes, this may have been posted before, but it needs to be posted AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. HEADLINE. FRONT PAGE.

The Green Party's platform of supporting equality and strong stance on civil rights is great. Too bad they're directly violating that stance by indirectly supporting a bigoted moron like Santorum.

[Tesla]

1. I guess the "Green Party" means the " Green Party" $$$$$$

[Skidmore]

89. Greens are political streetwalkers.

And not picky ones at that.

[Buzz Clik]

96. Unlike the politicians in the major parties, right?

God knows not a single Democrat took money from Enron or the groups represented by Jack Abramoff. Right? Right?

[Glorfindel]

2. You're exactly right...their complicity with Santorum is unforgivable

If they were manipulated innocents, it would be a different matter.

[Zhade]

3. Woah, bad if true.

So...evidence?

[zcflint09]

20. Here's a link...

It's what first popped up on Google, I'm sure there's other articles out there but it sums it up fairly well (shocking for the Faux network)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206612,00.html

"Liberal Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli has gained enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in the Pennsylvania Senate race — thanks in large part to Republican donors. Romanelli raised $66,000 to gather the signatures — nearly all of it from contributors who have given to Republicans. What's more, $29,000 came from donors who also gave to Romanelli's Republican opponent, Rick Santorum.

Democratic front-runner Bob Casey has accused Santorum of trying to steal the election by funneling campaign cash to Romanelli — a pro-choice candidate likely to attract some Democratic votes away from Casey, who is anti-abortion. But Romanelli denies any conspiracy, saying, "I have friends in all political parties. It's just that my Republican friends are more confident about standing with me ... than my Democratic friends."

[MH1]

23. It was on NPR this morning (WHYY)

The head(?) of PA Green Party was on a clip saying something like, "We appreciate the money from Santorum people - it shows they support ballot choice."

:puke:

I disagree with the op though, perhaps - I think IDIOCY might explain this instead of hypocrisy.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for any of these people for dogcatcher. I don't care if what they say their goals are, match my own: they are either idiots, hypocrites, or downright venal liars. Take your pick.

[DemoTex]

4. Did Santorum use campaign funds to prop-up the Greens?

That money is coming from somewhere. If it is from Santorum campaign funds, perhaps the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) should look into it.
Meanwhile (because nothing will be done about it before the elections, even if it is illegal), the Democrats must turn this to their advantage. I don't know what, but there must be some whiz-kids somewhere that can come up with something. It will cost the Democrats campaign treasure to counter Santorum's ploy, so it would be nice to pick up a few more points in the poll (at Ricky's expense) as a result. Ideas?

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. No. But, but people who have given a lot of money to Santorum have

It isn't too hard to connect the dots.

[Robbien]

5. Oh sure.

I see some DUers are not satified with demanding Progressives vote for DLCers, they also feel they have the right to tell other parties what to do and not do.

You guys fit right in with the bully parties of the GOP and the DLC

[Divernan]

7. Damn straight DUers have right to tell GP it has sold out.

We criticize our own quite freely & we certainly have not merely a right but a DUTY to tell it like it is in regard to the latest in Santorum's sleasy moves.

[zcflint09]

16. I'm a LIBERAL

This is a supposedley "progressive" party that is being used by CONSERVATIVES to gain advantage over the DEMOCRATS (PS-What's the name of the message board you're on right now?)

The Green Party of PA SOLD OUT to the Rethuglican party and thus I have every right to condemn that party.

[Buzz Clik]

37. I agree completely.

Santorum is hideous. If the Democratic opposing him is not viewed as a viable alternative, then forget it. Why would I condemn the Green Party for voting for someone they support unflinchingly rather than holding their nose and voting for yet another political whore from the two major parties?

[Bretttido]

42. Campaigning for a seat in the senate whose only effect

will be diluting progressive votes in a tight race is NOT PROGRESSIVE. Get off your high-horse and wake up to reality.

[LWolf]

46. Yes.

It seems a little counter-intuitive to me. Either we welcome progressives within our own ranks, or we accept that they will find homes outside our party. It's not "Democratic" to silence voices that dissent from your own, or to attempt to. I don't see the Democratic Party "winning" by acting like the Republican swift-boat machine towards inner and outer dissent. I think that's shameful.

[rosesaylavee]

6. Here's a link

from yesterday listing the info on the PA race.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1789161&mesg_id=1790127

I used to think the Green Party was progressive... that went out the window yesterday. I agree with the poster above. GREEN now = $$.

They are sellouts with no vision and no goal other than to disrupt and give the race to the rethugs.

[Maraya1969]

9. Ralph Nadar helped give the last 2 elections to the GOP by runnning!

- while everyone was asking him to get out. Remember Michael Moore and Bill Maher getting on their knees and begging him nicely to get out of the 2004 election?

[rosesaylavee]

12. Yes. And he too took money

from the rethugs in 2004 - lost him his party's nomination but apparently he has more likeminded Greens in his corner than previously thought.

He is a self-serving a**hat.

[1932]

32. 2004? He got .3% of vote! In Ohio he got ZERO votes.

Four write-in candidates got votes. Nader was not a factor in 2004 at all. He wouldn't have been a factor in 2000 if Gore actually had every vote counted.

Here's the Ohio vote:
Republican 2,859,764 50.81% President George W. Bush (20 Electoral Votes)
Democrat 2,741,165 48.71% Senator John Kerry

other-party candidates:

14,676 0.26% Michael Badnarik
11,940 0.21% Michael Anthony Peroutka
Write-In 192 0.00% David Keith Cobb Green Party
Write-In 114 0.00% Joe Schriner
Write-In 22 0.00% James Harris Socialist Workers
Write-In 17 0.00% Richard A. Duncan
Write-In 11 0.00% Thomas F. Zych
Write-In 2 0.00% John Thompson Parker Workers World

[cgrindley]

61. He didn't TAKE the votes, the Dems LOST them

If the freaking party hadn't drifted so far to the right, then the Green Party wouldn't be necessary.

That the election was close was an embarrassment. The Repukes should have been slaughtered. To bitch and moan over the Green Vote is idiotic. The Democrats lost those votes by abandoning their traditional support base.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. Only 2000.

If Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Al Gore would have been president. However, I don't believe that Kerry would have won even if he hadn't run in 2004.

[Laotra]

8. This former green voter is ashamed :(

The local Green party has moved so far to the right that I had to move to the revolutionary socialists.

[DiverDave]

10. The green candidate took repuke money.

Ergo, he is a rethug...and the green party is a fascist enabler. period.

[mainegreen]

11. You are aware that every state GP is really independent of the others?

The GP by its nature is distributed. I'm about as responsible for the PA GP as I am for the FL 2000 election results: 0% responsible.

The Green Party is a collection of hypocrites of the worst ilk.

Oh, yeah, your hate spewing does a lot of good. Nothing like absurdly broad generalizations. Gotta love those.

[rosesaylavee]

15. The lack of national leadership is

unfortunate for the individual GREEN groups that have integrity as the individuals without integrity are getting exposed. The same happens with all political parties. For instance, a dem in CT, say, supports the president and the war and the majority of the dems around the country object. I live in Illinois but that dem does effect my life and my party as a whole.

Or that is what I interpret from "the GP by its nature is distributed."

Peace.

[mainegreen]

17. Yup. That's about right. nt

[mmonk]

13. Remember that third parties aren't in a position

to refuse money. Even tainted money by nefarious republicans.

[MH1]

25. ?????

Why not? What about ethics and values?

[Perky]

40. ????? I agree

Why not? What about ethics and values?

You dare call us hypocrites for taking Corporate dollars when your guy is taking cash from the GOP to get on the ballot?

[mmonk]

48. Yes, I dare.

Republican money won't force Greens to vote like republicans in government.

[Perky]

53. But the only way Greenie gets on the ballot in PA is if the GOP

Subsidize the pettition drive. SO you have no money and no grass roots support so you go to the guys you purportedly hate to get the money to buy your way on to the ballot?????

[mmonk]

77. I'm a believer in ballot access.

Barriers to ballet access are undemocratic. So your arguments won't work on me. Greens have a lack of support because the system is geared to marginalize third parties as it currently exists. By the way, I'm not a Green. I just support their right to run.

[bleedingheart]

14. First, very few people are going to vote Green in the election

second...the Democrats kind of set themselves up for this kind of bullshit.

Our candidate was handpicked for his name. He is a nice and personable guy and he genuinely cares about people, BUT...on major issues people (even moderates) get a bit queasy. This past weekend, I was at a democratic event when friend came up and asked..."What is Casey's position on stem cells"...and I had to tell him the truth...which is that he holds the same position as Rick...

Check out his web site...he carefully avoids those topics where he and pRick are in agreement...
look for info on stem cells, choice and the war...to start off

http://www.bobcasey.com/

And before people start jumping all over me...while I supported Pennachio in the primary, I swore I would help Casey...and I have ..I have canvassed for him and donated money to him...

[zcflint09]

18. But more of those people will vote Green, especally...

If they're on the ballot or have enough money to advertise. I'm not suggesting a Florida-like Green turnout, but we've seen how third parties can effect elections. I don't have a problem with the Greens doing this by themselves--but they are accepting Rethuglican cash to do so.

[bleedingheart]

22. I think that the Greens have hurt themselves immensely doing this

and that is really sad.....

The failure of the Green party to attract voters to switch is due in part to the fact that many of us liberals who are so disillusioned with the Democratic Party still keep trying in spite of the way they ignore a lot of issues.

Look at the Democrats on issues like:

The war
Bankruptcy Reform
Healthcare
Confirmation of Conservative judges...etc

and yet no mass exodus from the party and that is due to the grassroots efforts to move the Democrats back from the right wing direction they have taken in some cases.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. The Greens have nothing to be ashamed of. They aren't anti-choice.

Unlike Casey.

[zcflint09]

21. I'm Pro-Choice

But given the fact that the Greens aren't going to win the election, who would you rather have in that Senate seat, Santorum or Casey?

They do have something to be ashamed of for all the reasons I listed in my original post.

The Greens stance on social issues is great, but the fact is they are $$$ELLING out to the GOP.

Green Party: GOP without the "O"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Democrats accept money from Republicans all the time.

Just check the contribution lists from almost any major Democratic candidate. Why shouldn't the Greens take money from the Repugs? I see no sign that it makes them beholden to them. Unlike the rather obvious influence wielded by the corporate donors to the Dems and Repugs.

If you're pro-choice why are you voting for someone who isn't?

[zcflint09]

27. Why

Simply because the Green's don't have a shot in hell in winning this election, so it's down to a process of selecting the best of two evils, and I think Casey is probably a bit more progressive than Santorum.

We have a two party system--it's a damn shame that Casey isn't pro-choice, but in this case, we can't do any better and we need to support Democratic canidates until a viable 3rd party choice rises with a chance to win an election on this scale.

[Perky]

33. BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY OTHER ISSUES BESIDES ABORTION

IF WE TAKE BACK THE SENATE WE STOP THE WINGNUTS AND THE NEOCONS DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS. THAT IS WHAT MATTTERS THE MOST!!!!!

I also happens to think it is ok to have a few pro-lifers in our midst as it tells the moderates that we are inclusive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. If you believe that abortion is just another issue you should vote

for anti-choice candidates without a blink.

[w4rma]

69. You deal with that in the Democratic Primary rather than abstaining from

it and voting in a spoiling party's primary. The DLC loves it when lots of liberals abstain from voting in the Democratic primary.

[Bretttido]

52. But they love money when it comes from anti-choice people who actually

only give them money so Rick Santorum will win?

[Perky]

54. It is indefensible n/t

[MH1]

93. These "Greens" ARE anti-choice

They are TAKING MONEY FROM SANTORUM TO HELP SANTORUM.

How much more anti-choice can you get?

And DO NOT spread the canard that Casey is "no different" than Santorum - that is insane bullshit.

There are plenty of NARAL and Planned Parenthood supporters who are avidly supporting Casey.

[bleedingheart]

24. Keep in Mind that The Democratic Party may also use a trick or two

I suspect that the Green Party candidate will barely have enough signatures...

So....wait and see...those signatures will be contested...

and the green will get thrown off the ballot.

[Warpy]

28. Green Party leadership is jumping the shark

but the real problem is that women aren't going to trust Casey on choice.

Maybe running antichoicers in key races is a stupid idea.

[Imperialism Inc.]

29. I'm getting tired of this crap.

In the other thread people are calling progressives supporting Greens dumb asses?

No. You know who the real dumb asses are? The people who see an unfair system and then blame the Green party (who supports the solution to the broken system) for it instead of the system. A system where a 60% lefty vote that gets split, and causes the candidate that the majority least wants to win, is broken. Deeply flawed. But instead of directing the outrage where it belongs, at the broken system, it gets directed at the Greens. Now that is truly being a dumb ass.

Instead of yelling at the wrong people, be smart and support Instant Runoff Voting and go here:

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

or here:

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

or here:

http://www.fairvote.org/

and hmmm, wadda ya know. The Green Party supports IRV. Maybe the clueless whiners should get their dem representatives to support it too. You think they will? Or are they more interested in maintaining the 2-party duopoly? I know what the facts seem to indicate, but at least Howard Dean supports it so maybe there is a chance it might get promoted if enough whiners get a clue and press him to do so. I know I have , have you? Stop being an anti-democracy thug and do it today!

[Ian_rd]

31. I agree. I'm a proud Green. But as soon as the Party begins

accepting money from rightwing elements as they did in 2004, they are accepting their position as spoilers and enablers of Republican Rule. And that I cannot accept or support.

[Perky]

36. I will listen to a Green when they quit whoring themselves to get GOP $$

Deal with the issue raised by the OP>

If you support theis pig in PA then you are a dumbass.

[Imperialism Inc.]

39. I am dealing with the issue

can you read?

And by the way, I am not a green. I've voted for 2 greens in local elections ever. But I almost always support their candidates positions. If you aren't getting your reps to change the voting rules then you have nothing to complain about. If you aren't trying to fix the problem (per above) then YOU are the problem, not the Green party.

[Perky]

43. You support the GP guy in PA?????????

ANd what he has done to get on the ballot?

[Imperialism Inc.]

47. I do not live in PA (n/t)

[Imperialism Inc.]

49. I don't really care what he "has done"

He didn't court conservatives to donate. What is the guy supposed to do, give out a quiz to every donor and if they don't pass refuse the money? No one is explaining exactly how he is supposed to determine who is allowe dand who isn't. It wouldn't even be an issue if there was IRV. Thus, either support the solution or quit your crying.

[Perky]

57. OMG

Yes he is supposed to know who hie is taking money from. And in this case he does. Read the article instead of bemoaning they system. Your responses are not even close to beiing on point.

[Imperialism Inc.]

64. The hell if they aren't.

YOU read the article. The GOP is not allwoed to give money to the green party and neither is Santorum. What it says is that people who have given to repubicans have also given to the Greens. So you are saying his campaign should spend a bunch of money to make sure no one that donated has ever given to the GOP. What if the person has had a change of mind? Is that not allowed? Can you give us a precise list of who is and who isn't allowed to donate? Are you willing to foot the bill for all that work his campaign would have to do to implement you purity requirments? Fix the broken voting system. Support IRV if you dare. I doubt you will as my experience is mst people that complain about this stuff simply don't want Greens to be allowed to run and IRV would put a damper on their thuggery to try to force other parties out of the system. If you all put half the energy in to doing something to make instant runnoff voting a reality as you do crying about Greens we would already have IRV. Support the solution (IRV) or quit crying. Write Howard Dean today and ask someone ,anyone , just one Dem to make IRV a national issue. Then I'll listen to what you have to say.

[Perky]

75. If it Quacks like a duck

from the AP article.

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, making his first bid for statewide elective office, acknowledged Monday that Republican contributors probably supplied most of the $100,000 that he said he spent gathering signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot.

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.

Santorum said he hopes Romanelli makes it onto the ballot.

"This is politics," the second-term senator told reporters Monday while campaigning in suburban Pittsburgh. "It's no surprise when you're an incumbent, it helps to have more people on the ballot."

Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, declined to answer questions about whether he solicited the contributions.

[Buzz Clik]

83. This is ridiculous. You simply want everyone to line up like soldiers...

and spout the party dogma and vote Democrat down the line.

You want Greens to vote Dem? Give them a reason. Give them viable candidates and honest incumbents.

[charlie]

84. Honk!

The reasons for their support differ, and are not always clear. Most of these contributors did not support Mr. Lieberman in 2000, and many have supported only Republican candidates in Connecticut; the only other Connecticut candidate to receive a contribution this year from Areva Cogema, for example, was Representative Nancy L. Johnson, a Republican.

...

The Ohio law firm, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, which supported both Mr. Lieberman, for re-election to his Senate seat, and George W. Bush in 2000, did not respond to a message yesterday. Neither did the Hardwood Federation, which represents the lumber industry and gives to Republicans about 80 percent of the time. That national group, whose president runs a hardwoods company in Connecticut, has contributed $7,500 to Mr. Lieberman.

“It doesn’t mean much to us,” said Sean Smith, Mr. Lieberman’s campaign manager. “If people give us money because they support us, that’s great. But Joe Lieberman is under no obligation to support them. We’re just trying to keep up with the money machine that Lamont is.”

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13931

Let's spare a little outrage for Big Bill, Boxer, and Shumer (and the DCCC!), who are campaigning for a guy who promises to run against the Democrat if the primary doesn't go his way. And he'll be using Repub money to do it. I think your words, "vile and whorish" will do nicely.

Joe Lieberman "joke":

There, he asked the clerk about whether many people were coming in to register for the Democratic primary. Yes, she replied, but then she noted a strange anomaly: Lately, a number of those who'd been trying to register for the Democratic primary were, in fact, Republicans; because it was less than three months before the primary, however, it was too late for them to switch parties. Lieberman, as always, was ready with a quip. "Those are probably my voters," he said.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/07/21/liebermans_voters.html

[Buzz Clik]

41. Political whores are dime a dozen.

The Democrats are hardly immune to that label.

The Greens can vote for whomever they choose, and they don't have to answer to a herd of hysterical Democrats.

If you want the vote of the Green Party, I'd suggest you find a way to appeal to them.

[Imperialism Inc.]

45. Exactly

Which is worse. Possibly accepting money from conservatives or enacting conservative policies? I guess conservative policies are just fine and dandy as long as the person voting for them has a D after their name.

[Buzz Clik]

50. You've captured the problem exactly.

I won't criticize the Green Party until I've run out of reasons to criticize the Democrats for failing to uphold their own platform issues.

[Perky]

51. This is absurd..

THE GP want to play fascist enabler by taking Santorum money to cut in to DEM support how if you think Santrum has to go can you defend this crap.

It is hypocritcal, whorish and vile at its core.

[Imperialism Inc.]

59. So explain exactly what they are supposed to do.

Give a political position quiz? Look up every donor to see if they've ever given to a GOP candidate? What?

[Perky]

78. Build Grass roots support. raise their own money

Run locally. Win a race before you have the audacity to jump into a very important Senate race in a very important election year.

From the AP article

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, making his first bid for statewide elective office, acknowledged Monday that Republican contributors probably supplied most of the $100,000 that he said he spent gathering signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot.

Romanelli said he expects to turn in far more than the required 67,070 signatures by Tuesday's deadline.

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.

Santorum said he hopes Romanelli makes it onto the ballot.

"This is politics," the second-term senator told reporters Monday while campaigning in suburban Pittsburgh. "It's no surprise when you're an incumbent, it helps to have more people on the ballot."


Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, declined to answer questions about whether he solicited the contributions.

[Bretttido]

60. Okay, I'm in favor of IRV also

But since IRV doesn't exist at the moment, they know EXACTLY which votes are being deluded yet are doing it anyway... and in tight races that they have no chance of winning. So who are the real dumb-asses again?

[Imperialism Inc.]

67. The people crying about it instead of addressing the problem (N/T)

[Bretttido]

71. Multi-tasking is an option. I prefer to do both

[rude boy]

74. The way I look at it

the stark reality is the Green Party and people like Nader will inject themselves into this election and every election even though they know full well by doing so they become spoilers and thus give aid and comfort to the Republicans, the greatest threat to the environment mankind has ever known. It's a kind of extortion, like saying to Democrats, "You see this planet? Unless you want to see the Republicans turn it into a burning cinder you will do exactly as we say, or else!" Personally, I don't give in to demands made through threat and intimidation because it emboldens them to demand more of the same the next time around and it becomes a never ending cycle. Naturally, I'd like to see the Democrats get as serious as cancer about the environment but not because of any threat from the Green Party. If they want to play this game so be it. It's not just the Democrats who will pay a price. It hurts the Green Party a great deal as well and if that's what they want to do then, oh well! Their legacy will be that of the party who helped put the Republicans in office so they could rape our national resources.

[DiverDave]

106. DING!,DING!,DING!

We have a winnah folks!

Well said, Rude Boy, and welcome to D.U.

[zcflint09]

95. Work within the system we have now

Runoff voting certainly isn't a terrible idea, but I tend to think that we won't be seeing that change for a while, and regardless of that, if you don't agree that this GP cash grab isn't disgraceful then I'd question if you really want to have Santorum out of office at all.

Is our two party system shitty for 3rd parties like the Greens? Yes. But the Greens are being used knowingly by the Santorum campaign in order to syphon votes from the Democratic Party. The Greens know they are being used in this way--and what ends up happening is we get Rick Santorum back in the Senate next term.

What the Greens are doing currently is a disgrace. They know what they're doing and how they're being manipulated for it--and don't care. They've lost alot of respect in my eyes and in various other progressive eyes. While IRV is something we should look at in the future, it's not going to change between now and November, so let's speak out against this shameful act of greed by the Green Party.

[Perky]

30. K&R This guy Disgusts me. I posted as much yesterday

I said as much yesterday as the OP on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1786821

[Buzz Clik]

34. As soon as the Democrats espouse the ideals of the Greens,

then the Greens won't need their own party.

Rick Santorum is the most repulsive member of Congress. If the Democrats cannot beat him, then there is no hope at all for the Democrats.

[Perky]

38. If he is so repulsive then why is your guy taking

money from him????

Get rid of him and we will talk about policy.

[Buzz Clik]

44. My guy? I've never voted Green and never will.

However, I am just as disillusioned with the spineless Dems in Congress as I am with the corrupt, anti-freedom Republicans.

You can bitch at the Greens all you want, but the problem with the Democrats is their own ineptitude.

[Perky]

62. So Dem ineptness is the justification for this guy's taking money

from the GOP. So much for principle.

[Buzz Clik]

66. That is correct.

The Democrats have demonstrated endlessly that they will not defend our core beliefs consistently unless it is politically expedient. So much for principle.

[Perky]

79. wow.

So it is ok for the Greens to sell out because the Dems have?

[Buzz Clik]

82. "Selling out" is your label. They are simply running an election.

[Imperialism Inc.]

80. And the perfect example of this is Instant Runoff voting.

Every single election season this same crap goes on. But, there is a solution. Instant runoff voting. Now, how many national democrats are making an issue of Instant Runoff Voting. The only 2 I can think of are 1) Dennis Kucinich (proactive) and 2)Howard Dean before he was DNC head and only in a passive way in response to interview questions. He has done nothing to seriously promote it.

In my opinion that removes any right the DNC has to complain. They don't want it fixed or they would be fixing it. And who can blame them really. Why allow third party competition when they can count on their dense base to misdirect their anger toward the symptom (Green Party) instead of the problem (lack of IRV).

[UTUSN]

55. K&R #5 n/t

[GreenArrow]

56. nm

...

[cgrindley]

58. People wouldn't vote Green if Democrats had Balls

Honestly. Do you really think that Gore and Lieberman or Kerry and Edwards had progressive platforms? Do you really?

Why should anyone vote for a diet Republican? The progressive wing of the party, through the grassroots, needs to retake control of the Democrat party and purge all those center right assholes who ensure that the Green Party gets Democrat votes.

If the Democrats want their traditional voters back, then maybe they should stop being so right wing. Perhaps they should stop being so spineless and take some difficult positions on important issues.

EG Let's get Lamont the nomination. Screw this Lieberman jerk. He's what's wrong with the party overall. A bunch of center-right cowards, too afraid to stand up to the Repukes.

That's why people vote Green.

[Bretttido]

65. So then Greens are also the problem

Instead of joining the "progressive wing" of the democratic party, which would actually help get progressives elected... they back progressives that have no chance of winning.

[Buzz Clik]

68. If the Dems cannot beat Santorum as a result of a handful of idealists,

then the Dems are truly irrelevant and who cares?

[cgrindley]

72. Pol Pot could beat Santorum

Honestly, only an absolute asshat could lose to Santorum. He's the anti-christ.

[Bretttido]

76. I'm all for the Green party to get out and push progressive values

but for god's sake, can they do it when they have a chance of winning or in states that don't have close races? Is that so much to ask?

[Buzz Clik]

70. Exactly. Beautifully stated.

[zcflint09]

81. You're spot on. We DO NEED TO GROW BALLS

My issue is not with whatever has happened in the past--my issue is with the blatent Green hypocrisy that is being shown RIGHT NOW by the acceptance of Rethuglican cash.

That doesn't negate the fact that Demos have to grow balls and fight for a more progressive platform--as I have talked about multiple times in this thread, I agree with the social platform of the Green Party--but this backdoor bribing politics BS contradicts that platform. This shows that the PA Greens are about the Ca$$$$h...not the principles.

[Lilith Velkor]

91. Thank you!

:applause:

[MH1]

92. Gore / Kerry platforms were progressive...

Those you describe as "progressive" are advocating a RADICAL approach to achieving social progress, NOT a "progressive" approach.

I don't give a damn what some now defunct political party in this country's history decided to call itself, or whether or not it was true for that party at that time in history.

Today's Greens and extreme left-wing are trying to co-opt the word "progressive" because they don't want to be called what they are - RADICAL.

I have no problem being called what I am: a liberal. Why don't the so-called idealists GROW SOME BALLS themselves and admit to who they are - RADICALS.

And stop undermining and insulting people who really are trying to make progress in this world.

[cgrindley]

94. No co-opt but reclaim

To describe a center-right democratic platform as progressive is lunacy. Progressivism, to me, means income redistribution, support for the trade unionization of all workers, aggressive control of corporations, full support for environmental causes, and the creation of a true socialized health care system (eg no more HMOS, private hospitals, private clinics, private practice doctors etc). That's traditionally a progressive view. Now, you're saying that those features belong to the Radical Left? No. These are Progressive Ideals. It's just that some people have moved so far to the right that they don't even recognize traditional progressive values anymore.

[MH1]

98. Look up "progressive" in the dictionary. n/t

[cgrindley]

99. Why? Do you even know what dictionaries are for?

Or how they're made? How they're edited? By that stellar logic, you'd feel perfectly comfortable using the word "niggardly" in general conversation? Because, after all, the dictionary says...

[katinmn]

85. There sure are a lot of threads trashing Greens lately

What's up with that? Do I smell fear?

[Perky]

102. You smell anger over this PA thing

[Patiod]

86. "Well, we might lose, but at least our guy is pro-choice!"

Meh.

They forget how many obsessive one-issue Catholics there are in this state. I watched priests herding groups of decrepit elderly parishioners wearing pro-life rose pins into the voting booths 2 years ago to be sure they voted for Bush. They would do it again this year too if the Dems hadn't run Casey.

Since we don't have a charismatic, popular pro-choicer to run (like our Governor Rendell), the kind of guy who many pro-lifers will vote for regardless of his stand on abortion, we absolutely have to run someone who will keep the priests and the obsessives at home. I heard Chuck Pennacchio speak, and God Bless his Progressive heart, but he just doesn't cut it in the charisma department, and wasn't going to sway anyone who wasn't already in our camp. I'm glad he's on our side, but you can listen to someone speak and see if they're electable or not.

I'm sure the PA Greens will be very proud of their high standards as they watch Santorum be sworn in again in January.

/note: much of my family and their friends are elderly obsessive Catholic pro-lifers, and Casey will keep them from voting Republican this Fall - I hear these people talk politics, and it's all about "saving the babies" (until they're born, that is, but that's for another rant).

[IdaBriggs]

87. Yawn. Get a clue -- if the Democrats can't put up someone to

beat the pants off of a man like Santorum, they don't deserve to win. Its called being "principaled" (sp?) and while I don't know anything about Santorum's Dem challenger, I can only hope they are worthy of enough respect to get that piece of fecal matter out of Washington.

In the meantime, count the blessings that 3rd party candidates bring to the ballot -- if it weren't for them, the 2004 fraud would have passed quietly into the night, like the Democrats wanted. Three cheers for the Greens, say I! Three cheers!

And as for ANYONE who dares to criticize the concept of offering voters a CHOICE, I spit upon them for their willingness to sell out democracy in the name of political power. Its such a "Republican" thing to do, I'm surprised someone was nervy enough to post it on a DEMOCRATIC discussion board.

[zcflint09]

88. You get a clue

That's not the point.

I have no problem with Greens being involved as a 3rd party alternative in PA. What I find morally repugnant is the fact that they are accepting campaign funds from Rick Santorum in order to do so, when they know that Santorum is only giving them the cash so he can benefit from his own campaign and draw votes away from the Democrats.

I have no problem offering voters a CHOICE--the way the Greens have gotten the funding to offer voters a choice is a disgrace to all true progressives. Like it or not, the Green Party is now assisting getting Santorum sworn back into the Senate--just like he planned.

[Buzz Clik]

97. Clue? Here's one...

"What I find morally repugnant is the fact that they are accepting campaign funds from Rick Santorum..."
The Greens in PA did not accept money from Santorum. It's a simple case of a few of those who donated to Santorum also donated to the Greens.

The difference is neither small nor subtle yet extremely important.

[Imperialism Inc.]

90. They've had the "nerve" for 3 national election cycles so far.

2002, 2004 and 2006. And yet still no major Democrat has made Instant Runoff Voting or other solutions a national issue. That should tell these people something. The Dems do not want it fixed. They know they can count on their supporters to be anti-choice and pro-2 party duopoly.

Quite frankly I think 3 election cycles is plenty of time to see some kind of action. We know the DNC chair is aware of (and even supports IRV) , so why have Dems yet to bring it to the national stage? For the people saying , yes but we don't have IRV yet I say why not? isn't 3 election cycles enough? How long am I required to wait before I can say "Well if they aren't going to fix the problem then they have nothing to complain about"? Believe me I understand. I want Santorum gone too but 6 years is enough time so I have no sympathy.

[lies and propaganda]

100. bastards. this is sick and disgusting

and wrong.

Its why I made my own party, The Hiberal Party. Our slogan: When the Democratic Party isnt enough for you, but the Green Party is way too much.

[Kolesar]

101. Pretty lame subject line & original post

The least you could have done when posting a follow-on thread was put some background in it.
This looks like formula FLAMEBAIT to me. :nuke:

[BlooInBloo]

103. Why? Republicans aren't ashamed of *themselves*, and as we all know...

... the Green Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party. So it stands to reason that we shouldn't expect them to be ashamed of themselves either.

They might at least admit their craven and cowardly nature, however.

[UTUSN]

104. I'm kicking this because I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!111 n/t

[mdmc]

105. eyes

:eyes:
Plenty of shame to go around. Build a progressive dem party, and let the greens do the same.

At least we know what Rick S. stands for... What do we stand for? "But... We are less evil...":eyes: