Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Club Lagoon | Quality Coverage »

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Looks Like I Won’t Have Rick Santorum to Kick Around for Much Longer

posted by on September 26 at 12:44 PM

Santorum At the Bat.jpg

Bob Casey has doubled his lead over Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.

Even better, the money the Rs in PA spent trying to get a motherfuckinglyingpieceofshit Green Party candidate on the ballot was apparently wasted.

On Monday, a state judge said Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli would be removed from the ballot because the party did not have enough valid signatures in its nominating petitions—a move pundits said would help Casey.

MSNBC is to polite to mention the fact that Romanelli’s campaign and his signature gathering efforts were entirely funded by supporters of Rick Santorum. The Green Party in PA was allowing itself to be used in an effort to make sure Rick Santorum returned to the Senate next year, and to keep the Senate in Republican hands. Remember that the next time some asshole tries to talk you into voting for a Green Party candidate.

The Green Party—its voters, its candidates—are tools and fools for the right.

RSS icon Comments


So how come the left doesn't do the same? You know, pick some wingnut idiot that the Christian extremists practically worship next to Jesus, run him, and then laugh as the Republicans split themselves into squabbling?

Oh, wait: that's already happened. Except the squabbling part. If only politics were as easy & simple as FOX News acts like it is!

Posted by Queequeg | September 26, 2006 1:07 PM

I agree. I voted for nader in 2000. What a fucking waste. Not sure I would have done it if WA was a competitive state. Don't waste your votes on Green. Thomas H....I'm talking to YOU.

Posted by billy barty | September 26, 2006 1:09 PM

Don't worry Dan, even if Mr. Man-on-dog loses (which he almost certainly will), he will find another way to exert his christian will on everyone else.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen the last of Frothy Mix.

Posted by Mike in MO | September 26, 2006 1:09 PM


Posted by Cupie | September 26, 2006 1:12 PM

Don't worry, you've still got two more years of failure in the Red House to deal with ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 26, 2006 1:12 PM

The green party is really fucked up, no doubt. They are plagued by factions who want to run on safe-state principles (vote for a green if a democrat is not in danger) and they do sometimes have problems with republicans donating money to their campaigns.

HOWEVER, there is currently a green party candidate, which the slog has been incredibly negligent in covering (AARON DIXON, SENATE) who represents the true values of the green party, and even more importantly, he represents a true alternative, for those not afraid to vote for what they actually believe in, instead of what they are afraid of.

So, as one of the assholes considering voting for Dixon, I challenge the stranger to act like real independent media and actually report on this.

Posted by erin | September 26, 2006 1:13 PM

tell me about it, billy barty. i live and vote in florida. voting for nader was definitely stupid, but i was 18, and idealistic.

Posted by konstantconsumer | September 26, 2006 1:22 PM

A little reporting on Aaron Dixon:

If Dixon "represents the true values of the green party," then it's even more fucked up than I thought.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 26, 2006 1:40 PM

Dan, why don't you quit relying on the corporate party media and start figuring things out for yourself. Give Aaron Dixon a call, find out what's ACTUALLY going on in the campaign. It's local, it's anti-war, it's NEWS.

oh, and here's an example of actual, INDEPENDENT media continuing their coverage of Dixon and other peace candidates.

Posted by erin | September 26, 2006 1:52 PM

Yeah, that David Goldstein—and Eat the State. And NWProgressive—damn corporate media!

Posted by Dan Savage | September 26, 2006 1:53 PM

Dan Savage has been the only real voice for disgruntled liberals in Seattle. Dan Savage has the courage to print the real news. Just because The Stranger is funded by Big Tobacco, doesn't compromise it's politics. Dan Savage is my hero.

Posted by Dan Fan | September 26, 2006 2:06 PM

Yeah. Their "live blog coverage" on July 31st of Clinton's visit to fundraise for Cantwell had ZERO coverage of over 50 people protesting her continuing support of the war. NPR even covered that one.

Because these blogs seem to unfailingly support the Democratic Party, I cannot see them as unbiased.

So I repeat: Let's see some actual reporting, some actual news gathering by a local paper, on one of the candidates running for office. He was just at Indian Island this past weekend, protesting the war. I wonder what Cantwell was doing (maybe getting more money from boeing)

Posted by erin | September 26, 2006 2:08 PM

I would love to vote for a third party, but the Republicans are just too dangerous. The only way this situation will ever get better is if we have publicly financed elections. Until then, it's Democracy for sale.

Posted by Andrew | September 26, 2006 2:16 PM

Oh No! NOT "Big Tobacco!!!!" How awful!!!

Posted by What a dip... | September 26, 2006 2:17 PM

It can't even imagine Pernice Brothers would have the money to fund a weekly newspaper, but Big Tobacco? They only put out one album, and it was years ago. I'm sorry, I just don't buy this weird indie-pop conspiracy of yours.

Posted by Levislade | September 26, 2006 2:28 PM

You want more reporting on Aaron Dixon? How about the time he appeared on stage with Ward Churchill -- you know, the guy who called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmans" -- and said he supports his ideas?

Is this what he means by saying he represents the values of the Green Party? I sure as hell hope not.

Posted by Goldy | September 26, 2006 3:55 PM

Aaron Dixon hasn't even bothered to vote for many, many elections. I can't stand Maria Cantwell. I think she's a polished person with no authenticity, and given the huge lead she's got over McGavick, I won't be voting for her, but I won't be voting for Dixon. I'll leave that blank.

Posted by Gitai | September 26, 2006 4:20 PM

I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, many times. I can't see voting for a candidate who shows no evidence of basic organizational competence for ANYTHING. Why would I entrust the Green Party, which apparently has the organizational skills of roadkill, to run the country?

Yes, I like their platform, but it's easy to talk pretty. Until a Green Party candidate - ANY Green Party candidate - can show me that they have an organization behind them capable of basic grassroots organizational structure, I cannot justify voting for them.

What do I mean by basic grassroots organizational structure? In this state, that would be precinct and legislative district organizing. Precinct committee officers. A legislative district organization which works to elect candidates to school boards, city councils, county councils, and state legislative offices. That is where the rubber meets the road. Until you have PCOs walking the neighborhoods, and candidates getting elected at the lower level offices, running for higher office is simply masturbation. And as with any masturbation, I'd as soon most people did it in private and didn't bother me with it.

When there's an actual Party behind the Green - PCOs, LD officers, a county organization, and a state Green Party that does more than put together a platform and then bitch about not being invited to the soiree - when I see Greens being elected as fire commissioners and state legislators, then and only then will I consider the Green Party something more than vaporware.

Posted by Geni | September 26, 2006 4:37 PM

I've voted for Greens in the past, but it was always a futile gesture, and now it's actively dangerous.

Geni is right; real organization means on-the-ground, door-to-door organizing at the precinct level, and no third party is serious enough to do that anywhere.

Part of the problem is our ballot access laws and voting systems. There's little point in doing hard work at the precinct level if it's just self-defeating at the polls. Real change means changing ballot access laws and voting systems. That can only happen from within the current system. But if people could effect that change, they could as easily change the direction of the major parties. And if they could do that, why change the system once they are the system?

Still, this is why I recently became a Democratic PCO, and I still support single-transferable-vote and other means to open up the two-party system.

Posted by Cascadian | September 26, 2006 5:40 PM

Remember H. Ross Perot? That popular man helped Clinton get the huge edge he needed in 92 and 96 by siphoning off many, many votes from the right.

As for the Greens, wow. Like many, I had no idea the whole outfit had become (always was?) a giant rightwing scam.

Posted by Gomez | September 26, 2006 7:51 PM

you are spot on with Perot. I should send him a nice fruit basket. We need someone else like him to split the right. I'm still having PTSS from being in Florida for the 2000 election (moved their 4 weeks prior) and remembering some idealistic 20 year old yell out at a meeting "vote for Ralph Nader". Ugh. Guess we got the anti-Nader instead. Vote with your head, not your heart.
What kind of guy can we come up with to split the right again? Can we get Steve Forbes interested again?

Posted by glasspusher | September 27, 2006 7:00 PM

I'm a PA girl who couldn't be more thrilled that the tool won't be on the ticket. I'm not a fan of Casey - pissed our local machine fucked over way more qualified and more progressive candidates b/c of the Daddy's boy. But I hate Santorum worse, and I think Romanelli was an asshat for taking all that support.

The imagined appeal of the Green Party is they are the idealistic outsiders. But you can't play the idealistic outsider card when you have Asshat Santorum funding your campaign. If we want people who'll say one thing and do another, who'll fund their campaigns with money so divorced from their core values, why would we even need to look at a third party candidate? The current 2 parties do plenty of that on their own.

Posted by Ellen | September 28, 2006 3:08 PM


Do you really think a Green Party candidate is going to be influenced by Santorum's dollars? Would you expect them to sponsor some anti-gay rights legislation if they were in office?

Contrast this with Cantwell's corporate donors - why did she vote for NAFTA? And what good has it done?

The reason the Green Party exists is to combat what they see as essentially a single-party system, one dominated by corporate interests. Interests I honestly don't see them falling prey to.

Posted by Rockmaster | September 29, 2006 5:03 PM

If you are for gay rights, civil liberties, economic justice, and against war and torture, it doesn't make sense to support people who take the opposite position on most or all of these issues just because they have a (D) after their names.

As long as people accept the idea that the Democrats are the best we can hope for, we'll be stuck in a little box where we can't hope for any of the radical changes we need to make if the world is to survive.

I support Aaron Dixon and encourage others to get involved in his campaign, the most exciting and vibrant political activity going on in Seattle. Come to the visibility action in Ballard on Sunday 10/1, in front of Archie McPhee's on Market Street from 1-3, and dance to live music by Jim Page while waving signs, passing out leaflets and talking to people.

Or come to the volunteer meeting/work party every Tuesday night at 6:30 at the Campaign office, 2111 E. Union.

"The people have the power to redeem the work of fools!"
(-- Patti Smith)

Posted by Rana Felon | September 30, 2006 12:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).