Blackwater USA Funding PA Green Party (Daily News)

http://www.attytood.com/...

From an online columnist of the Phila Daily News.  Unfortunately, this may not have made the print edition:

"Iraq mercenaries supporting political mercenaries: More on the appalling sell-out of the Pennsylvania Green Party

"...Blackwater USA is 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 ...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."

Quote continued:

"... 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....In the three-month quarterly period that ended on Oct. 15 , 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.)...

... 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...Compared to the Green Party, you do have to give Blackwater USA some credit. At least they admit that they're mercenaries."

•  Green Party

  What has happened to these folks?

  Taking money from Daniel Ledeen?  You've got to be kidding me.

  by bink on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:44:41 AM PDT

•  The Greens are GOP whores

  Bought and paid for.

  by richter on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:47:28 AM PDT

•  Greens

  They are acting like Ralph Nader. Period. They said, he was just their candidate, he didn't represent the party. Bullshit.

  The Greens don't hate Republicans, they hate democrats. They will take any Republican help they can to destroy democrats. Let's just all be aware of that. If you think it's a good thing fine, but everybody should know what they are about now.

  by trifecta on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:47:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm a Green and

    I do hate Democrats, you're right. Democrats have the blood of innocent people on their hands, stretching all the way back to participating and leading genocide on Native Americans in the 1800s, up into killing in Central and South America and the Middle East on behalf of the major corporations that buy Democrats. So yes, I do hate them.

    But I hate Republicans even more, so you're dead wrong there. Any Republicans (the ultimate party of corporate whores) that slip money to the Green Party are playing a dangerous game, and forgetting the lesson of the UK where Labour over-ran the Liberal Party. The Green Party platform is much more distant from the Republican Party platform, so they are taking a gamble when they do this stuff. Yes, it has been working from their perspective for a while now, but more money means more advertising, which means a possibility of growth, of getting the message out.

    The parties who have candidates that are openly bribed (aka corporate campaign contributions) should indeed be worried, and that does very much include Democrats. If you think no Democrat has ever killed a human being on behalf of a corporation's profit you're fooling yourself. One need only look at the famous examples set by Woodrow Wilson. To me, that's serious taint, the loss of human life exceeds (though doesn't excuse) any other taint.

    All this being said, if I see much more of this stuff, and if it really checks out, I will be leaving the Green Party in the next few months. Taking bad money is one of the reasons I despise the Democratic and Republican parties, and I apply that standard universally. This is how the Greens can (and it looks like will) lose me.

    by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:55:02 AM PDT

    •  That would be. . .

      The parties who have candidates that are openly bribed (aka corporate campaign contributions) should indeed be worried,

      you, oh holier-than-thou Green buddy.  The Green Party -- a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republicans, now with minority ownership by Blackwater.  Blood on their hands?  How about the blood on their money?

      And you "hate Democrats".  Feh.

      by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

      •  Subsidiary of the Republicans?

        I still don't get it. In all the discussions and meetings I've had with Green Party members in Virginia, not one has ever seemed anything like a Republican. In fact, it would be difficult get more distant. How many Republicans do you know that are socialist, pacifist, for universal healthcare and education, guarantee of shelter and food, reduction of the powers of corporations, and so on??  These things are diametrically opposed to the Republican Party.

        by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:01:46 AM PDT

        •  Oh please.

          It should be clear by now that in many, many states the Greens are funded entirely by the Republicans in order to dupe voters like you who, in absence of the Greens, would reluctantly pull the lever for the Democrats.

          The Green party is a tool of the Right to pull off a sometimes-critical three to five percent of the Democratic vote.  Using this strategy, with the witless complicity of people such as yourself and Saint Ralph ("we have to destroy the country to save the country") the Greens elected George W. Bush to the office of President, started the Iraq war, raped the environment, passed No Child Left Behind, turned the government over to an oligarchy of corporations, cut funding for the poor, and ruined America's reputation in the world.

          You, the Greens, did all that.

          The only difference between the Greens recent behavior and that in Pennsylvania is that they, and their Republican sponsors, no longer take pains to hide the relationship.  They rely on the blind loyalty of dupes like yourself who seem insensible to the damage you're doing to the country.

          by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:10:06 AM PDT

          •  I'm amazed

            that this isn't obvious from the inside of the Green Party, and especially surprised it's not obvious from the topic of this diary.

            Stop hating everybody, Smyslov - it gets you nowhere but down.

            by cakestick on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:14:15 AM PDT

            •  None so blind. . .

              as those who will not see.

              by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:15:19 AM PDT

            •  And I'm amazed

              that Democrats don't see that their elected officials take money from corporations and return these bribes by assisting those corporations in profitting around the world, up to and including the loss of human life. Yes, I do hate that, and I will always hate that, from now until the day I die I will never stop hating that, no matter who does it.

              by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:22:59 AM PDT

              •  Except. . .

                I will never stop hating that, no matter who does it.

                of course, when you do it.  Or perhaps you think "Blackwater" is a kind of rafting trip?

                by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:24:30 AM PDT

                •  Good One! n/t

                  x

                  by Five Thirty on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:25:39 AM PDT

                •  And except you're not reading

                  I'm not voting for any Greens this election, and I sent back a Green candidates' petition saying I wouldn't help this election. I already said I will probably be leaving it OVER JUST THESE VERY ISSUES.

                  I have my standards. Where are yours?

                  by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:25:59 AM PDT

                  •  Settle down

                    The policies of America are what need changing, and what have caused all the trouble the country has gotten itself into. After 6 years of the same nonsense, I will gladly vote Democrat and give a group that has a chance to make a change.

                    The whole system is bought and paid for, this is one thing you don't have to teach us.

                    by cakestick on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:31:45 AM PDT

                  •  Here are my standards --

                    When I see an opportunity to improve the government of the United States, I try to take it.  Even if the opportunity will produce a government less than perfect.  Because, in fact, such a government has never existed on the face of the Earth.  While it's true that there are some governments that have been more to my taste than that of the United States over time, most governments have been considerably worse.

                    I contrast that with your standard, which I take to be to always avoid the opportunity for incremental improvement in favor of an unattainable ideal.

                    Using both standards, bad stuff happens.  With my standards, less bad stuff happens.

                    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:34:36 AM PDT

                    •  I understand this view

                      And don't think it hasn't tempted me, even when I picked up the form to fill out for voter registration. I hate George Allen so much, I was honestly tempted for several minutes in the post office, to vote for Webb. Not because I like Webb very much, and not at all because I like his political party, but because I hate Allen just that much.

                      The only reason I keep rejecting this is not necessarily unrealistic ideology, but more the thought "this is what got the country into this mess from Day 1, and I don't need to feed it".

                      I just can't vote for ANY bad stuff, even if it's less, even though I fully understand those who do (and why). I doubt you and I are really all that different on our basic beliefs of what constitutes right and wrong, it's just that you perceive "creating less evil" where I simply  perceive "creating evil".

                      by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:39:31 AM PDT

                      •  See. . .

                        Here you have a guy who was against the Iraq War from day one and who, in office, may actually have been an effective force against it.

                        But you can't bring yourself to vote for him because you hate the idea of Democrats more than you actually hate war.

                        by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:47:24 AM PDT

                        •  But Democrats also start wars

                          The Democratic Party seems to have nothing in its stated platform or guidelines that establishes opposition to planning and waging aggressive war. It seems to be an institutional part of the Democratic Party that it can and will wage aggressive war.

                          I hate the idea of any group that has no qualms about killing innocent people if the price is right. Why can't the Democrats incorporate into their party platform a forbiddance of planning and waging aggressive war? This would include outlawing for its members such things as, say, bombing a pharmecudical plant in Sudan, or bombing Iraq, or voting to give the President a blank cheque to invade a country.

                          by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:51:10 AM PDT

          •  I say again, Democrats kill innocent people

            They have all through their history. Yet you vote for them? Try to defend that, if you can. Republicans defend it when they vote for a party that kills, I imagine you can too, and I imagine it will look virtually identical. I've seen it all.

            " voters like you who, in absence of the Greens, would reluctantly pull the lever for the Democrats"

            I just stated, explicitly, that I will not vote for any organisation that has the blood of innocent people on its hands. You're apparently not even reading what I'm saying.

            I have not registered to vote this election, and the next election I will probably end up voting for one of the two national Socialist parties, not that it's any of your business. Nobody has dupted me into anything, I vote for who I perceive as the best available candidate in any given election, period. That's my civic duty, and I carry it out, heavily researching all candidates I can find. In 2004 I conducted lengthy investigations into no fewer than 16 Presidential tickets (beyond simple web browsing); yes, this did include Democrats and Republicans.

            I am under no Constitutional obligation to vote for Democrats or Republicans, even though people from both of these organisations seem to think that I am. The truth is, the corporations don't really care, they still get their way. I don't seem to recall Bill Clinton saying no to NAFTA, which gutted my area of jobs and sent my county into a 24% unemployment rate for a while. And for which the local Democratic representative voted. Thanks.

            by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:19:20 AM PDT

            •  May the Green Party shit rainbows

              and wave magical wands, while my country buries itself in failure. Idealism is only useful for action movies and bad dates.

              by cakestick on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

              •  And still it remains

                The Democratic Party has killed innocent people, on behalf of major corporations and other reasons. You can say such things all you want, but you still can't stop what it has done, can you? Real, live human beings.

                by Smyslov on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

•  Who knew

  Mercenaries could care so much about the environment?

  by Steven D on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:50:32 AM PDT

•  Green Candidates Were Funded by Republicans

  here in a WA election several years ago. Actually as I recall the candidates themselves may have been Republicans.

  by Gooserock on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:55:53 AM PDT

•  this is the party

  that was on the ballot, but now no longer is, in the PA Senate race, right?

  Ok. So then I guess the fact that they were supported by the same people who financed the petitions drive should lead us to ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  by the OTHER rasmussen on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:56:41 AM PDT

  •  correct.

    They're off the ballot, and Casey's got a comfortable 10-12 point lead.

    by Adam B on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:57:54 AM PDT

•  Fat DoD and FEMA no-bid contracts

  with zero accountability go to Blackwater for it's Iraqi and Katrina operations, and who knows where else -- NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami...name a big city.

  And then this company's leadership turns around and uses political funding to disrupt and sabbatoge the Democratic Party by creating a false flag party operation to split the voters, giving RNC a better shot at winning. (not this year!)

  I don't think it very ethical for a company receiving income primarily via taxpayer funding should be taking partisan sides.  But when the Supreme Court said money equals free speech, they weakened the individual citizen with that ruling, and greatly magnified the corporate 'person'.  We have a long ways to go to get this sort of thing under control.

  Hopefully, after Democratic Party control of Congress is regained, this whole side of the government's business relationships and vendor political participation can come under tighter scrutiny.  Federal Election rules should be written to address this problem.

  Here's an odd thought.  Do we need to fund and create a DNC-friendly mercenary corporation to compete?  Or create defense industries and media corporations?  I know this will upset folks who view the Peace Corps as 'ours'.  But we need to see the military industrial complex for what it is, and retake it.  Making it non-partisan might be best.  If we can't to that, we don't want it to be used against us, so we really need to make sure it's under control.

  by antirove on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:58:58 AM PDT

  •  Great points but I lean towards

    destroying the military industrial complex not joining it although your argument has merit because it is probably naive to think it can be destroyed.  It is such a powerful monster at this point.  Eisenhower sure knew what he was talking about didn't he?

    by Southside on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:11:58 AM PDT

    •  Nationalizing the industries

      would probably be greeted with great amounts of hysterical objections about destroying capitalism as well.  But I'd start there if we could get all houses.  Then shut down what's not needed and divert resources to solving hunger, education, housing, fair trade, etc.

      by antirove on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

•  Then we should fund the Libertarian party

  Look at TX-22, DeLay's old district. The Repubs are running some Sekula-Gibbs lady as a write-in candidate but lots of Repubs know it is doomed to failure. Other Repubs such as RedState.com are recommending voting for the Libertarian candidate to keep the Congressional seat away from Ned Lamont.

  by bobinson on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:13:45 AM PDT

•  Do you think Amy Goodman

  will be covering this on Democracy Now?

  by Five Thirty on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:24:37 AM PDT

•  Greens Should Stress Non-Competitive Races

  The Greens certainly have an important message to get out.  However, they should concentrate their energy on races where a progressive Democrat does not have a good chance to win.

  That was one of the many faults in Nader in 2000.  He could have told his supporters in battleground states to vote Democratic.  He could have endorsed the vote trade system that was set up on the internet in the month before the election, which allowed Dems in non-competitive states to agree to vote for Nader, in return for Nader supporters in battleground states to vote for Gore.  Instead, Nader condemned the idea, and ran hard in the battleground states in the last month before the election.

  by JPZenger on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 10:25:29 AM PDT