Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

by **Gouda** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:04 am

The blogger concludes that rightwingers are funding the Greens to siphon votes away from Democratic challengers, which may be (partially at least) the case. Are the Greens really sell-outs for accepting such funding? Does funding in this case equal platform or policy influence, or more sinister misdirectioning/tainting? Are the Greens just victims of this awful electoral system? Should they stay pure and reject the funding and associations?  Iraq mercenaries supporting political mercenaries: More on the appalling sell-out of the Pennsylvania Green Party <a href="http://www.attytood.com/2006/10/iraq_mercenaries_supporting_po.html">www.attytood.com/2006/10/...ng_po.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You may have heard of Blackwater USA. They're the shadowy, Virginia-based soldier-for-hire company with roots in the U.S. military intelligence community. It has reaped untold millions in Pentagon and Homeland Security contracts since the advent of the Bush administration, from the fires of Fallujah to the floodwaters of New Orleans. Simply put, Blackwater USA is not the kind of company you'd expect to get behind the Green Party, with its far-left platform that ostensibly seeks to pull the United States out of Iraq and end the type of military actions that have proved to be such a good source of new business for the mercenary industry. Yet, new Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Attytood (thanks to blogger Bernie O'Hare for the initial tip) showed that that founder and owner of Blackwater USA, Erik Prince, and his wife donated $10,000 -- the legal maximum -- on July 21 to the once obscure Green Party of Luzerne County, the group that apparently spent well over $100,000 in a now all-but-failed bid to get its U.S. Senate candidate, Carl Romanelli, onto the November ballot. Last summer, Attytood and other sites like TPMMuckraker told you how all of the initial $66,000 raised by the Scranton-area branch of the "ultra-liberal" party in fact came from GOP and far-right sources, including California's leading pro-life activist -- the Green Party is supposed to be rabidly pro-choice -- and a lobbyist for a division of Halliburton and Chevron. Many of those conservatives had also given money to Sen. Rick Santorum, who would actuallly benefit from the Green Party candidate because it would siphon liberal Democrats put off by the socially conservative views of their party's nominee Bob Casey. The new records show that the $66,000 was the smaller portion of the iceberg. In the three-month quarterly period that ended on Oct. 15 (Sunday), the Green Party took in another $90,899 in new money, most of which went to the party's efforts to get on the ballot. Again, it appears that most of the money came from GOP or conservative donors with some ties to Santorum. Bob Guzzardi, the one-time 12th Street Gym owner here in Philly whose fervid backing of Santorum touched off a firestorm of criticism among his heavily gay clientele, gave $5,000 to the Luzerne Greens on July 1. Daniel Ledeen, the son of well-known neoconservative writer Michael Ledeen, also gave the maximum $5,000 on Aug. 15 (Daniel Ledeen was once an intern at the conservative New York Sun, where he asked Michael Moore at a news conference if "Fahenheit 9/11" has been financed by Hezbollah.) Manny Stamatakis, the Philadelphia-area power broker who is top local fundraiser for George W. Bush, gave the Greens $2,500 on July 18. What did the conservatives buy with their money? A lot of it -- tens of thousands of dollars -- went to JSM, the Republican-oriented ballot access firm with a highly controversial history, and another large chunk went for lawyers. According to the records, the funds also supported four Green Party candidates running for U.S. Congress -- the 2nd District's Dave Baker, the 14th District's Titus North, the 15th District's Greta Browne, and the 19th District's Derf Maitland. In other words, the Republicans -- desperate not to lose control of the U.S. House, and with Pennsylvania the key swing state -- may be using the Green Party again to rob votes from the Democrats. Compared to the Green Party, you do have to give Blackwater USA some credit. At least they admit that they're mercenaries.<hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:41 am

Oh, the local Greens will love it when I post this. Remember Nader was taking rightwing money as well. If it started as naivete, I don't think that can be argued anymore. Also, there are rightwing greens. And I don't know how to characterize the Greens around here who are about withdrawing to their little decentralized communities, knowing that overpopulation and peak oil condemn most of the world to starvation and misery. To be honest, I'm pretty sick of people talking about that possibility almost with glee...a sort of sick apocalyptic reverie..which I called in my blog the "fetishism of Apocalypse". It's really starting to piss me off, and this is another way Greens are pulling activists away from actively opposing the system. I shouldn't be too hard on them. They are on the ballot in many states and naturally, the bad guys will do everything they can to make sure they don't actually mount an effective opposition.

by **tbdp** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:24 am

It's the same in California. I have no hard evidence, but I can speak from personal experience. When I first moved to LA, about five years back, I worked with them A LOT. I quickly became disillusioned. They really came off as breadhead hobbyists and short cons. The final deal breaker was their exploitive manipulation of volunteers. TO BE CLEAR: I'm not knocking the average green. They are good, hardworking people and most have their heart in the right place. It's the leadership that blows; a house in the hills, a jag in the garage, a tattoo and a credit card... que' lastima. From Dreams end: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>They are on the ballot in many states and naturally, the bad guys will do everything they can to make sure they don't actually mount an effective opposition.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, exactly. Buy them out before they're even relevant. IF ANYONE HERE IS FROM CA: Vote yes on Prop 89. "Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. Imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new restrictions on contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and corporations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected offices." --From CA ballot sample. Gives indies a fighting chance. An indie Gubernatorial Candidate would receive upwards of 40 million bucks and disallowed to take a dime from anybody else. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I like it.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:45 pm

Yep there are 2 political parties and thats the way it shot stay. Fancy the greens trying to challange tweedledumb or tweedle shit for brains. IMO Democracy ends when political parties begin.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:50 pm

So, having already pissed off the local peace group by questioning peak oil and Paul Craig Roberts, I posted this article with little comment. Not a single response. Like it never appeared. And the group not only has several greens but one who is "running for governor" and two who are running for congress and senate (maybe a little more serious) say nothing. One I'm absolutely sure is not a closet fascist...very sincere. I did not assume this was something happening here, though we DO have a very, very close senate race between a Republican and a Democrat who is trying to outrepublican the Republican on immigration and the war an terror. Still, it's way too close to call, but the Green running for Senate has no infrastructure and I see no evidence he has much budget at all. So...they just sick of me or they simply not want to deal with it, I wonder?

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:18 am

Presuming that it's legally possible, I think the Greens should take the money and refuse to run any candidates. They can use it for some other party-related activity. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/20/06 10:20 pm

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:34 am

Proposition 89 is of negligible worth without ranked-choice voting. As a matter of fact, ranked choice voting is so much more important that it ought to be the only issue with which the Greens should concern themselves. That goes for any other political party challenging the presently locked-in duopoly, for that matter. That, and returning to real-hardcopy balloting. The ONLY way that there will be anything close to a complete accounting of the American electorate will be when people are able to vote for both 1st and 2nd choices, in honestly tabulated elections not subject to massive untraceable ballot fraud. UNTRACEABLE ballot fraud. That's what a lot of the people claiming that "it's no big deal, a little bit of election fraud has always been part of the process" don't seem to get. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/20/06 10:34 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:36 am

TRACEABLE ballot=absentee ballot. So .....vote absentee.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:39 am

Well, it's too late for me- or anyone else- to request one, at this point. Besides- although it's a good idea, as far as it goes- I'm not interested in simply knowing that MY vote was tabulated properly. That means practically nothing, unless everyone's vote was tabulated properly. If the Bush Axis has been resorting to computerized ballot fraud in the last 2 elections, they'll use it in this one. Presuming that they're capable of it, this is the most important election they'll ever have to steal. The cynicism about how "the Democrats won't be much different" ignores the fact that they're different enought that if they win a majority in at least one house, they'll be able to take the wind out of the sails for the more grandiose ambitions of the Bush administration. Otherwise...the Republican gloating will be insufferable. And their power ambitions will go through the roof. Because there's only one poll that really counts- and it's one that won't be re-run until 2008. Two long years. And if you don't think that people like Karl Rove and George Bush don't know the value of a fait accompli...if they can steal a decisive number of these elections after the fact, yell all you want after the fact. The popular media and punditocracy will be falling all over themselves explaining how the pollsters got it wrong, before they cast suspicions on the Bush White House or their supporters for rigging the election. Anyway, even if a few of them do- in the absence of evidence, what will it matter? It will be written off as partisan whining. Meanwhile, the Bushite pundits will be shouting about how the president must have drawn on a hidden reserve of "silent majority" appeal, and that despite earlier predictions, he really does have the confidence of the American electorate. The tangible power of the election results will work in favor of "socially constructing" a new "reality", no matter what any exit polling says, or what any news organization's commissioned statistical polls say. The right-wingers will simply begin talking about "pollsters" in the same monolithic sense as "the media", in the same derisory, condescending tone. Something needs to be understood about the philosophy of Power, as practiced by these people. One of their axioms is "What are you going to do about it- huh?" You know, I was listening to this guy the other night on C-SPAN radio, Charlie Cook. He's like "Mr. Inside Baseball" in terms of electoral analysis. He's the publisher of Cook's Political Report. He's a political handicapper, is what he is. Not too different from horse racing, or sports betting. <a href="http://www.cookpolitical.com/">www.cookpolitical.com/</a> Cook was addressing a gaggle of Democrats and liberals at Georgetown U. the other night. <a href="http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=194915-1">www.c-spanstore.org/shop/...d=194915-1</a> One of the students spoke of her trepidations about ballot fraud, and Diebold machines, etc. And Charlie Cook was all full of platitudes and smarmy reassurances, that electoral fraud had always been insignificant in the grand scheme of American elections, and that there was nothing to be worried about. Charlie Cook does not get it. Incidentally, Cook was expressing full confidence that the Democrats are presently poised to pick up more than 20 seats in the House this time around. In fact, by his calculations, he claimed that it's entirely likely that they'll get 35 to 40, or even more. He thinks that the Dems will win the House majority, and that they have a shot at winning the Senate. According to him, conditions like this only crop up about every 20 years- for a huge shift in the electorate. The Democratic Party hasn't benefited from such a shift since 1974. I'll tell you this right now. If the Republicans manage to maintain their majorities in both houses of Congress, Charlie Cook will be one of the people at the head of the line to explain that away as some sort of weird freak occurrence that the pollsters and pundits like himself didn't properly pick up on, before he'll ever consider the possibility that there was a conscious, blatantly illegal effort to rig the elections to ensure continued Bush Republican dominance. That's what inside-the-Beltway Crackpot Realism will do to people. By contrast- personally, I'm worried. I'll be very relieved if the predictions of Cook and the preponderance of the other handicappers and pollsters out there are borne out. But I won't feel stupid about my trepidations, because it's the same trepidation that I feel about leaving a room full of valuables in a public place, with the door unlocked and ajar. If the place doesn't get burglarized this time around, there's still no excuse for keeping the door unlocked. By contrast, Charlie Cook doesn't get it. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/20/06 11:46 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:06 am

The cynicism about how "the Democrats won't be much different" ignores the fact that they're different enought that if they win a majority in at least one house, they'll be able to take the wind out of the sails for the more grandiose ambitions of the Bush administration. Oh, how right you are. I remember door-knocking way back in the sixties, for a friend's father, some unimportant position. And one neighbor's response stuck in my mind all these years. He said that he thought the country was better off when Congress was of a different party than that of of the president. I think he was right. Also, I can't help but think that this administration is one mentally dysfunctional bunch of freaks. Just thinking of Kerick, one of Bush's attempts to institutionalize his buddy freaks. Not the only one, unfortunately. Ashcroft, Chertoff, Cheney, Rove, and his supporters Moon, Robertson, etc., etc. The list just goes on and on. This is WAY more than all political parties being equally corrupt. This is about freaks. Sorry, just mentally dysfunctional freaks.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:20 am

personally I think 2 party systems, or any parties stop democracy before its started, but if you have to have a 2 party system then this is right on the money. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>He said that he thought the country was better off when Congress was of a different party than that of of the president. I think he was right.<hr></blockquote> Its slightly different in Australia, but the 2 houses function better when the party in power in the house of reps doesn't hold power in the senate, which is a house of review. Originally the senate(upper house) was supposed to be made up of individual's who represented the states, in a proportion, and the house of reps, or lower house was made up of people from the individual representative areas, or electorates. originally the senate was supposed to represent the states interests in a federal parliament, but the evolution of the 2 party system led to the senate being divided along party lines, with individual senators from the same state working for their party interests against each other, instead of for the interests of the states they represented. Up until the last election neither party held a majority in the senate, so a balance of power was held by smaller parties or independant senators. It kind of worked, as far as is possible, because it forced the party in power in the legislature/reps (lower house) to compromise some of the more extreme idea's they pushed forward.

by **sunny** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The cynicism about how "the Democrats won't be much different" ignores the fact that they're different enought that if they win a majority in at least one house, they'll be able to take the wind out of the sails for the more grandiose ambitions of the Bush administration.<hr></blockquote> At least one very, very good thing will come from a Dem. House: John Conyers as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. No more hearings on election fraud held in the basement. And all that lovely subpoenae power. HE will use it. I predict a 49-51 Senate, with Joe Lieberman the deciding factor. He'll caucus with the R's out of spite for his primary loss, and the Dem leadership is beyond stupid if they think he won't.

Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Re: Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Re: Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Re: Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Re: Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Re: Blackwater, Rightwing backing/funding Penn Green Party

Prop 89

Re: Prop 89

Re: Prop 89

Re: Prop 89

Re:2 party system and conflict between pres and congress

Re: Re:2 party system and conflict between pres and congress

Who is online