GOP helps Green Party in Santorum-Casey race

August 1, 2006

For a political party that positions itself as the principled, unflinchingly liberal ones, I’ll never understand why the [tag]Green Party[/tag] allows itself to be used in such a blatant matter by the right.

Thanks to the generosity of GOP donors, a Green Party candidate is expected to make it onto the ballot in Pennsylvania’s Senate race and siphon votes from Democratic front-runner Bob [tag]Casey[/tag] in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Rick [tag]Santorum[/tag]. […]

Green Party candidate Carl [tag]Romanelli[/tag], 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.

Asked to explain all the help he’s getting from [tag]Republicans[/tag], Romanelli told the AP, “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. And as a group, my Republican friends are a little better off.”

I’m sure Romanelli isn’t a complete fool, and I suspect he realizes that his “Republican friends” aren’t really his friends.

But at some point, doesn’t a sense of personal pride kick in?

There can be little doubt that Romanelli is being used. A total of $66,000 went into Romanelli’s signature-collecting efforts — and nearly every single donor had given to Republican candidates in recent elections.

Some Greens realize the game the GOP is playing and don’t like it. Peter Camejo, Nader’s running mate in 2004, said he believed in returning the money sent to the campaign from conservatives who wanted to exploit an ideological opportunity. “[I]f your purpose [for contributing] is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don’t want that money,” Camejo said. “I take no money from people who disagree with us. We’re not interested in that.” As it turned out, Nader disagreed with Camejo’s beliefs and wanted the money anyway, but at a minimum, Camejo’s position is ideologically consistent.

But for guys like Romanelli, it’s absurd. The GOP wants to use him as a tool, split the left, and help keep Santorum, one of the Senate’s most conservative members, in office for another six years. In response, Romanelli, the champion of progressive ideals, essentially responds, “Sounds good to me.”

By the way, why don’t the Dems do more to support far-right candidates, offering the polar opposite of this GOP/Green stunt? Because, in the vast majority of states, the hyper-conservative Constitution Party isn’t organized enough to field half-way credible candidates. And even if they did, it’s not altogether clear that they’d welcome support from [tag]Democrats[/tag], the way Greens gladly accept “help” from Republicans.

I have three words to say about the Green Party: Ralph Nader 2000.

  • It is sad, this guy know’s he has no chance except to siphon votes from the democratic party. In other words he loves helping the GOP. I wonder if they pay him as well? This guy Santorum MUST BE DEFEATED! talk about a snake! Mark Kennedy also must be defeated ( another snake )

  • Are there really people stupid enough to vote for the Green Party after what Nader has done to the world by handing the presidency to Bush?

    I’m not sure I want to know. The answer might be just too depressing. 🙁

  • “Green Party” is a synonym for “Moron Party.” Most of the Greens I know are left-overs/warmed-overs from the 60s who were idiots then and have gone downhill since.

    Let’s ask Ralphie-boy if he still thinks there’s no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans after 6 years of Boy George.

    They have no principles. That fool in Pennsylvania probably really believes his own bullshit. “Legends in their own minds” these idiots are.

  • Seems to me that the name “Green Party” no longer refers to the “green” of grass, trees, and meadows. It’s now known as “TheColorOfMoney Party.” Fine—so be it—and the wrath of the gods upon any “green” candidate who dares step up to my doorway. The world has more than its share of Judas-types who’ll sell out; Romanelli now has his “thirty pieces of silver.”

    Let him choke on it, I say—and let him bear the brunt of blame if Santorum wins the day. Extreme Northeast Ohio is close enough to Pennsylvania to rattle some cage-doors

  • Disgust with Santorum is so high that I doubt this clown will have any impact. That Greens are relying on the retalibans for cash, speaks volumes.

  • Every so often those of us who follow politics closely have to remind ourselves that there’s a boobocracy out there. Once in while we get that lesson by being kicked in the teeth by people like Nader.

    How can any thinking person believe that Rick (the “P” is silent) Santorum favors the Greens’ causes? I participated in the very first “Earth Day”, at the University of Oregon (where I was in grad school), Apr 22, 1970 and have been sympathetic to Green-like causes from the moment I became aware of them. But it’s just too obvious that voting for them – or any other single-issue minority party – is always a vote for the Bush Crime Family.

  • Delusions of grandeur…

    But… this is a good litmus test for 2008:

    Has B fouled up the world to such an extent that even those prone to delusions won’t allow their votes to be siphoned away into a third party sink?

    In other words: Has B made cold realists out of them? Yet?

    If not… cheer up… he still has two more years…

    [Here is a local (Tucson) article about the “petition passers” phenomenon.]

  • I’ll never understand why the Green Party allows itself to be used in such a blatant matter by the right.

    Party like it’s 1933, baby!

    Nach Hitler, Uns!

  • By the way, why don’t the Dems do more to support far-right candidates, offering the polar opposite of this GOP/Green stunt?

    Because they’re too principled?*

    Because, in the vast majority of states, the hyper-conservative Constitution Party isn’t organized enough to field half-way credible candidates. And even if they did, it’s not altogether clear that they’d welcome support from Democrats, the way Greens gladly accept “help” from Republicans.

    *Just kidding!

    Could Rudy Ray Moore serve as a useful idiot? Or Pat Buchanan?

  • First of all if Ricky and the GOP want to spend money they need to win re-election by giving it to the most lefty candidate in teh race that is their problem.

    Second, if the democrats had any solidly environmental positions in their platform and actually tried to execute them there would be no green party.

    Third, Casey is hardly the posterchild for Progressive Dems. He’s no Paul Wellstone.

    Fourth, for all you Nader haters who blame Bush on Nader 2000 explain to me how it was not the 50% of eligible voters who stayed home in November 2000 who are not responsible! Gore’s message resonated so strongly that he managed to get just over half of the votes which is 1/4 of all eligible voters in the US. How many electoral college votes did Nader get?

    I hope Romanelli runs a campaign that highlights serious issues about both parties and candidates and then drops out and asks his supporters to boot Santorum.

    What we need is instant run-off voting so that third partys can enter the race and highlight issues whithout causing this division in the electorate. In the end however, if the Dem’s were so great nobody would vote for the Greens.

  • One of the sad things about the structure of American politics – and there are many – is that it’s almost impossible to form a credible third party that will have a positive impact. We’ve always had a two-party system, and there hasn’t been a replacement for one party since the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850’s. As Nader demonstrated in 2000, the more support a minor party gets the worse it is for the political party and philosophy that they’re most in sync with. This keeps their support at a minimum.

    One solution to the problem would be a tiered voting system. Under tiered voting, I could vote for the Green candidate as #1, and the Democratic candidate as #2. If the Green candidate won, great. If not, my vote would still count for the Democratic candidate and I wouldn’t be helping to elect a Republican.

    Tiered voting is probably the best way to determine how much real support third parties and their philosophies have, and would give them some real influence.

    Unfortunately, I have virtually no hope that it will ever be implemented.

  • Egomaniacs like Nader, and apparently Romanelli, would run no matter what the Dems did or do. Lets not be naive: Nader freaking loved being coy, and saying “maybe if the Dems bow down before my piddling little 3% support, I’ll honor them by not running. Maybe. But I might have my fingers crossed.”

    Be serious – he sabotaged the author of “Earth in the Balance” for chrissakes. Frankly, Gore had better environmental credentials than Nader. Yes Gore ran a terrible campaign, although it is hard to say “blame the 50% who don’t vote” or worse to blame Gore for failing to motivate them: that number has been in the same neighborhood for nearly a generation now, through all sorts of candidates. That is just a given.

    What mattered was literally a couple of hundred votes in Florida, where Nadar had tens of thousands. Does anyone seriously believe there weren’t 600 of those who bought into Nader’s “not a dime of difference between the two parties” bullshit? Tom and Ed have the relevant question right: do even the progressives most disappointed in the Dems really still contend there is “no difference” in whether Gore got elected or Bush? If so I have some great land in Louisiana to sell them. . .

    (as for why the Dems dont set up a far-right candidate, I suspect it is that we are usually at a financial disadvantage to the R’s and need to spend that cash on our own candidate’s race, which is more efficient than setting up a 4th party).

  • As Zeitgeist says, in the end it was the votes Nader siphoned off in Florida that gave the election to Bush. And what’s worse, Nader swore that he would drop out if the race got so tight his presence might swing the race to the Republicans. As history dismally shows, he did not keep his promise.

    Nader lied, and tens of thousands of people are dead who might be alive today if he had kept his word. And that’s the legacy that will dog him for the rest of his days.

  • Had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee, he would have won the election even without Florida. My understanding is that it’s hard to lose your home state in a presidential election. Even Walter Mondale carried Minnesota on his way to being trounced by Reagan.

    He ran an anemic campaign and even weaker legal battle in the Florida recount. Primary responsiblity for losing the 2000 election rests solely with Al Gore.

    … and Donna Brazille.

  • I agree with both MNProgressive and Zeitgeist. Nader showed that he actually believed that there was no difference between R’s and D’s, which is really stupid, but the fact that Gore/Lieberman (cough) couldn’t get people excited enough to even show up and vote for them speaks volumes for the DLC garbage we’ve been forced to live with. Until now, that is.

    We do need Instant Runoff Voting, but first we need voting that can’t be hacked. When people have testified under oath that they have been asked by Republican officials to make vote-rigging software*, it should be fairly obvious why the exit polls are off by wide margins and the Republicans manage to squeak out another “miracle”.

    All the votes in the world won’t do any good if they’re counted by felons who work for the GOP.

    * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559202389150&q=hacking+the+vote

  • prm, just for the record I want to make clear I am not letting the Gore campaign (or Gore himself) off the hook. You may recall a post here not long ago where I argued that had Gore merely embraced, rather than run away from, the terrible, awful, intolerable peace and prosperity of the two-term Clinton presidency, he’d have won handily.

    but the Naderites also should lose sleep every single night over lying to the public that it mattered not because Gore and Bush were allegedly just the same.

    Two words: Alito. Roberts.

  • If the Democratic Party could keep its head out of its *ss, then the raging right wing Republican party would be nothing more than a sideshow of political freaks. To blame the Green Party for Democratic failure is the apex of defeatism.

    If Democrats were really interested in progressive ideals, then they should be tripping over themselves to reforming our electoral system so our democracy would actually reflect the will of its people; one without gerrymandering, without incumbency protection, and without the “spoiler votes” of first past the pole balloting.

    Apparently, the political elitists of all types have one fundamental thing in common, a thirst for power. American representative democracy is for suckers, real politicos bow to The Party before all else.

  • (Argh. I had a good post/response that just got eaten.)

    I can’t believe the selective memory of some of the folks here.

    In a nutshell– don’t blame Greens for the weaknesses of the Dems. The Dems were weak in 2000 and have only grown weaker over the past 6.5 years. Then they nominated Kerry in 2004, which only made things that much worse. There is no progressive savior in sight. We can’t just keep hoping that the GOP blows it so hard that the Dems will win back the House and/or Senate. Especially when it seems they can just lie, cheat and steal and the Dems *still* can’t win.

    I’m hardly a big Nader supporter, but I know that when it comes to party platforms my views and values are better represented by the Greens, not the Dems. Hate Nader all you want (I do) but the Green Party or people who consider themselves to be aligned with the party are not the problem– they’re just a convenient scapegoat. Dems are weak, they run from their core values and wonder why the appear weak. The GOP has exploited their weaknesses successfully for over 6 years now and people have the nerve to blame the Greens? C’mon, people. Whatever the Dems are doing it isn’t working and they don’t seem to be able to shake it, to take charge and change their future. It’s just more politics as usual even when the electorate is aching for something different, something new, something that taps into their deep well of frustration and anger.

    That being said, I think accepting that much help from the GOP is mind-blowingly hypocritical and shameful. Sorry, but getting Santorum OUT is of prime importance, taking money from GOP homophobes is not acceptable. Fortunately I don’t think the Green candidate will siphon off many votes in PA, Santorum is just loathed far too much.

  • He ran an anemic campaign and even weaker legal battle in the Florida recount. Primary responsiblity for losing the 2000 election rests solely with Al Gore.

    The key here is the first sentence “even weaker legal battle in the Florida recount.”

    This is absolutely true.
    And really we shouldn’t forget it.

    When the world needed Gore to be indignant and stand firm–he caved and went craven and surrendered.

    I don’t know if you saw Gore being interviewed by John Stewart but Gore actually says in the inteview that he won Florida!

    Holy Christ!

    At home people down the block probably heard me scream at that moment:

    WHERE WHERE YOU WITH THAT IN 2000 YOU PUSSY-FACED PRINCELING!

    But as for the second sentence of prm’s post:

    Primary responsiblity for losing the 2000 election rests solely with Al Gore.

    No. You need to read Vincent Bugliosi’s “The Betrayal of America” as badly as I need to reread it.

    The election WAS stolen by:

    Renquist, Thomas, O’Connor, Kennedy and the master architect-cum-arsonist: Scalia.

    This is something that should never be forgotten and never forgiven.

  • Romenelli has a very thin political resume Here is the full extent of it from Wikipedia:

    Romanelli was the Luzerne County Coordinator for Gary Hart For President in 1984. He has been the Chairperson of the Luzerne County Green Party since 2001. He presently a member of both the International and the Media

    Committees of the Green Party. And he was the United States Green Party representative to the Global Green Summit in Bogota, Columbia in 2005.

    In 2001, Romanelli was a pro-Boston Proposal delegate at the Green Party USA convention in Carbondale, Illinois.

    That is not much to base a run for the US Senate on. It is likely that he will be little more than an annoyance to Casey.

    However, I will be better able to gauge the situation here in Pennsylvania after I have had a chance to talk with some of my less pragmatic progressive friends. For example the woman who begged me to vote for Chuck Pennochio in the primary. She said come the fall vote for Casey, but don’t vote for him in the primary. Send a message about being pro-choice. Now that she has a third choice to vote for in the fall , I’ll have to see if she backs out of her support for Casey. (This is also a woman who reacted as if I said, “I am going out to kill some helpless children after dinner” when, in fact, I said,” I’m going to get some dental floss at Wal-Mart after dinner.” This set of about fifteen minutes of pleading for me not to go to Wal-Mart. Needless to say I went to Wal-Mart, since I don’t take well to being told what to do. It’s the anti-authoritarian in me. ) If she decides to vote for Romenelli there may be some reason for concern because she is not alone in here lack of common sense amongst some progressives.
    I have said this before, but it bears repeating. I think as a practical matter we on the left should use this tactic in Red States. In the short run, we have no chance of getting much of the GOP base to vote for our candidates since Democrats have been thoroughly demonized. We can win with a divide and conquer strategy that in part uses third party candidates to siphon off support for the GOP. But we should do it better than Santorum has.

  • This “we’ve always had a two party system” idea is false in my opinion. The Republican and Democratic parties are a coalition of people, each with their own ideas and hot-button issues. Note the nominating conventions and the often damaging primary elections. The difference between a parlamentary system with multiple parties (ignore the PM versus third branch part for this example) is that third parites can swing votes on particular issues by breaking with the ruling party.

    The Democratic party is much closer to this coalition style than the Republicans are. Newt figured out that one party in lock step would appear stronger than a party with multiple factions and multiple plans. Sound at all familiar?

    By taking this anti-third party position you advocate for a lock-step Democratic party. I do not think that improves our Democract even if it improves the chance a Democrat will win.

    Beating the Republicans at their own game is satisfying but overall I do not think we are a srtonger Democracy just because we can hold the party line better.

  • Fourth, for all you Nader haters who blame Bush on Nader 2000 explain to me how it was not the 50% of eligible voters who stayed home in November 2000 who are not responsible! Gore’s message resonated so strongly that he managed to get just over half of the votes which is 1/4 of all eligible voters in the US.

    To your first question, those potential voters who stayed home are somewhat culpable. However, to deny that Nadar’s thousands of votes in Florida didn’t effectively give Florida’s electoral votes, and thus the White House, to W is to ignore reality.

    I, along with plenty of other commenters here, would like Nadar to answer the following question: after nearly 6 years of W’s administration, does he really think there is no difference between Bush and Gore?

  • but the Naderites also should lose sleep every single night over lying to the public that it mattered not because Gore and Bush were allegedly just the same.

    Two words: Alito. Roberts.

    I voted for Nader in 2000 in a “red” state that Democrats conceded to Republicans in two consecutive presidential elections. I don’t know if that makes me a “Naderite,” but I’m hardly losing sleep over the vote I cast then. When Gore spent a good chunk of a debate saying “I agree” to almost every point Bush made, he lost my vote.

    As for Alito, Roberts and other far-right judicial nominees, you’ll notice there wasn’t a single Green vote cast for Bush’s picks. But there were at least a few Democrats who broke ranks and voted for confirmation. All of them should have been subject to a filibuster.

    Sorry, but most days, the Democrats are their own worst enemy.

  • With examples like the above, and good ol’ Nader, I have come to believe that many associated with the green party are all too willing to paint their noses brown when it comes to ponying up to potential power.

    If Romenelli were a truly principled man, he would return the Christian Capital and earn his way on the ballot the old fashion way – with his own well established party machine. Oh, I forgot, the Green party has no well established party machine. In fact, if I recall correctly, it is the Green party that is fighting the good fight against the well established 2 party political machines that all ready exist.

    One question Greens: Where have you been, where are you now, and where are you going? If Romenelli’s willingness to whore himself is any indication, you are on the same path as the two major parties – tainted political discourse anchored in putred vested interested corruption. So much for going Green! -Kevo

  • To Tom Cleaver, and slip kid , and others,
    As a registered Green(but wayyy further to the left) I am deeply sorry that that a green party candidate has shown himself the human frailty of greed. But please refrain from the rock throwing, lest you break your own house.

    This twit shouldn’t be going any further in the party, once this hits the fan. And I agree, he does not deserve to.

    As for Greens being idiots, if one troubles to see the definition and origin of the word, it is from Greek, id, or ones self. -ote, as in devoted, The word means self-devoted. It applied to citizens who were too concerned with private matters(business, leisure,etc.) to participate in public forums, and democracy itself.
    That is the exact opposite what the Green party is all about. The Greens all about citizen involvement, not sitting on your ass and losing an election because you have no distinction between the corporate sponsored twit to the right, or the corporate sponsored twit in the middle. (The Dems do not represent anything of the left. If you beleive that, you are as blind as the neocons. Example?Leiberman, Feinstein, wow, what liberals!)

    Morons?

  • Oh, and just another thought,
    If having a “thin” political resume is bad, was not this country and it’s constitution, founded by a group with “thin” political resumes too?
    There have been great Americans leaders from non-political backgrounds. Show some respect.
    What were Davy Crocketts’ qualifications? Or Ben Franklins’?

    Perhaps you prefer “professional” politicians??

    One step closer to Fascism.

  • The Greens are idiots. I was an idiot for parroting the stupid south park rhetoric. Nader supporter 2000. Regret it every step of the way.

    Running again in 2004 was the last straw.

    fuck Nader.

    I am happy to support green candidates in local races. but Stay The Fuck Out of National Elections. You. Idiots.

    mutters something about Aaron Dixon

  • When candidates of the Green Party (such as Nader and Romanelli) enable the right-wing bastards (the Republicans), they commit a criminal fraud on the political process and eschew their own principles and policies.

    Are all Green Party candidates and members tools of the Republican Party? No. But, the Green Party has to ask itself a serious question every time they field a candidate: “Will it help a Republican to be elected and result in the disabling of “the Green agenda.”

  • This is why I’m a reform libertarian conserative democrat now, After what the green party did, I’m no way am voting for them.

    • Comments are closed.