Green Drops Out, Endorses Democrat

The Greens have formed an alliance with Connecticut Democrats to help defeat Republican Representative Christopher Shays.

From the Hartford Courant...

With polls showing a tight matchup in this year’s 4th Congressional District race, the Green Party is withdrawing its candidate and throwing support to Democrat Diane Farrell.

“We decided to have a strategic alliance with the Democratic Party because we believed this was the quickest way to achieve peace in the Middle East,” said John Sieh, treasurer for Richard Duffee, the Green Party’s 4th District candidate.

Farrell, who hopes to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays in the southwestern Connecticut district, has called on President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. She has also urged Congress to set benchmarks for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Shays has supported the war. But in August, he said the U.S. should consider setting a timeline for troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The race is a rematch of the 2004 contest, which Shays won with 52 percent of the vote to Farrell’s 48 percent. Shays won by about 14,000 votes.

The Green Party believes it can deliver about 1,300 votes from the 4th District. Statewide, there are approximately 2,000 registered Green Party members and about 1,000 mostly unaffiliated voters who support Green Party candidates in elections.

A news conference announcing the endorsement was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. in Norwalk.

Sieh said Farrell’s campaign approached the Greens about three weeks ago. Both sides have been negotiating ever since. On Saturday, 4th District Green Party members held a convention and decided to notify the Secretary of the State to black out Duffee’s name on the Nov. 7 ballot. The deadline for such a request is Tuesday.

Aside from the war in Iraq, Sieh said the Greens like Farrell’s position on the environment, including her support for biodiesel fuel and mass transit. In return for Greens’ support, Farrell has agreed to post the Green Party’s issues on her campaign web site and to support the party’s participation in future debates.

Duffee, 57, is a poet and writer who also has worked as an environmental lawyer and a high school science teacher. He has participated in two of 11 debates.

Sieh called the alliance with the Democrats “an historical event” and said it will ultimately empower the Greens and improve voters’ perceptions of the minor party.

“We are not spoilers. We want to let the press and the country know that we are modern 21st century politicians,” he said. “We’re way beyond egos. We’re about issues and getting them done.”

22 Responses to “Green Drops Out, Endorses Democrat”

  1. George Phillies Says:

    The Greens are sometimes a bit hesitant about trying to become a major political party. You will not find Libertarians sharing the same hesitancy.

    George Phillies http://phillies2008.org

  2. undercover_anarchist Says:

    That’s one thing I can agree to.

    The national LP is about 10 times the organization that the Greens are.

    Look at all of the third-party candidates that are making huge waves this year. NOT ONE GREEN.

  3. Eric Dondero Says:

    There is precedent for this. A few years ago, the Libertarian Party candidate in South Dakota held a press conference 3 days before the election to announce that he was dropping out and backing Republican John Thune for US Senate.

    In such a tight election year, the Libertarian Party could garner HUGE national media coverage if they were to do this in a couple key races.

    If the Republicans were smart, they would do exactly the same in Texas CD-22 for Libertarian Bob Smither. There have been some rumors to this effect, but nothing has materialized yet.

  4. Nigel Watt Says:

    The Libertarian candidate, Phil Maymin, is by far the best in this race. Check him out at 2006phil.com.

  5. Robert Milnes Says:

    From my Open Letter to Green Party dated October 26, 2006: This is in response to Austin Cassidy’s post dated October 25 on his blog Third Party Watch. He reports that the Greens have formed an alliance with the democrats in Connecticut, quoting the Hartford Courant. THIS IS THE WRONG ALLIANCE! There is nothing “Historical” about this; it’s the same old thing of leftists opting to work within the democratic party. Over the years this has proved to be unsatisfactory and is probably a factor in the overall soft support for the democratic party by the American voters. The negotiations mentioned should have been between the Green Party and the LIBERTARIAN party. THAT would be “historical”! No, what is needed is an alliance between the greens and libertarians that results in EITHER a green or libertarian on EVERY ballot. That would draw the progressive vote from BOTH the democratic and republican parties creating a truely viable THIRD alternative. If Farrell and Shays are so progressive maybe THEY would abandon their respective parties and join the progressive movement! No, the greens and libertarians are both losers separately. Try coordinating your vote instead of throwing it to an unreliable, erstwhile ally. RWM. see: www.robertmilnes.net.

  6. citizens for a better veterans homes Says:

    More history! In 1892, a century before Perot 1992, the farmers, ranchers and Small towns folk and independent smaller businesses of the west and the south became the rural progressives rivaling Perot 1992 and out doing Anderson 1980 and Perot 1996!

    By 1892 the Grange Movement evolved into the nation wide Populist Party! What happened? World War I diverted attention from domestic issues. Teddy Roosevelt and California Direct Democracy Guru Governor Hiram W. Johnson rode Populist trust busting complaints into the 1912 Bull Moose Party effort. TR target President William Taft was not all that bad on trust busting, miles ahead of the Do Nothings of the 1880s and 1890s! AND THE 1892 POPULISTS ALLIED WITH THE #$@%$# DEMOCRATS —-and were never heard of after 1896!

  7. Chuck Says:

    Except… one thing Citizens for a better veterns homes,

    Almost every single thing the populist party pushed for has become reality thanks to the Democratic party.

  8. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home (founded 1998) Says:

    No, No, No. The Democratic Party of the Post Civil War (aka: the Aggrevation of Northern Agression), was anti Black, pro-Dixie, pro-States’ Rights, and pro- Business, even Corporate Trust. It was not until after the deaths of TR, President Wilson, President William McKin and the Supreme Court Justiceship of President Taft and the Presidency of Sillent Cal Coolidge that the Dems truly, via blatant Populist Bob (Wisconsin Governor) LaFoliet and muck raker Upton (The Jungle) Sinclair and his run for California Governor.

    After the Dems tricked the Populist Party into permanent affiliation [1896] instead of year by year or cycle by cycle temporary association, populist leaders were given ‘the back seat’ in the Mid west/ Dixie Crat political bus!

    It was the Pre Business – Corporate – Trust (Corporate Lawyer Coolidge, Engineer Hubert Hoover, Prosecutor Dewey) GOP, namely TR, Taft, and Direct Democracy Guru California Governor Hiram W. Johnson, whom were AS IMPERPECT HUMAN BEINGS .

  9. Mike Gillis Says:

    “That’s one thing I can agree to.

    The national LP is about 10 times the organization that the Greens are.

    Look at all of the third-party candidates that are making huge waves this year. NOT ONE GREEN.”

    Not true at all. While I think that this withdrawal was a stupid thing to do, there are Greens making an impact this year.

    Rich Whitney, running for Governor of Illinois is currently at 14% in the polls, according to SurveyUSA

  10. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home (founded 1998) Says:

    became the ‘people’s politicians’! Yes, their 19th Century Populism wears thin by modern standards, Teddy Bear as an Environmentalist? Not by modern yard sticks! But all these GOP figures were anti establishment by 1900 metrics.

    “All the Populists results were accomplished by the Democrats” AND THE BULL MOOSE ERA GOP progressives and the on going ‘Liberal Wing’ [Henry Cabot Lodge, Brock, VICE PRESIDENT Nelson Rockfeller and his family machine, Jay, Lenard] of the Republican Party [1855 to 1985]!

    And the influance of armed conflict! The Civil War derailed the Women’s Vote movement! WWI killed GOP progressive movement! WWII sidelined Democratic social progress! Truman (of all people!) bounced back and was then stalled by Korea,——-at least Ike was a moderate to progressive.

  11. Donald Raymond Lake Says:

    ACTION ITEM: LIMITED DEBATES, AGAIN!

    From Independence Party Chair Jim Moore:

    The Minnesota News Network (MNN)/Minnesota Farm Network (MFN) are excluding Independence Party US Senate Candidate Robert Fitzgerald from their sponsored debate Thursday, Nov. 2 in Rochester.

    Three weeks ago, they set an arbitrary 10% polling threshold as a requirement for inclusion and all of our appeals have failed. This is despite the following facts / conventional precedents:

    · On 9/1/06, Robert’s opponents Amy Klobuchar and Mark Kennedy conceded that Robert should be included in all debates.

    · The threshold for major party status is 5% of the vote in a statewide race.

    · Most other media outlets use either a 5% polling threshold or a major party status standard. Robert has met both of these (the only exceptions are Minnesota Public Radio which only uses major party status and Debate Minnesota which only uses a 5% polling threshold both included Robert).

    · Robert has easily exceeded the 5% threshold in numerous polls reaching a high of 8% despite marginal media coverage.

    · The Independence Party has maintained major party status since 1994.

    If allowed to stand, this arbitrary standard could be used against all current and future candidates. There is nothing to prevent them from moving the standard up once again once our candidates reach this new threshold.

    MNN’s main contention is that they feel Robert’s inclusion will inhibit the ability of their debate to cover sufficient ground. This has not proven to be the case in all previous debates.

    We need you to call or e-mail MNN at:

    Phone: (612) 321-7200

    E-mail:

    dmirnmrn@aol.com

    skpaul@mfrn.com

    ttucker@mnnradio.com

    sturner@mnnradio.com

    trothman@mnnradio.com

    mostlund@mnnradio.com

    dleatherman@mnnradio.com

    pmeier@mnnradio.com

    Examples of talking points:

    · This is simply good democracy. Voters seek choices. Robert Fitzgerald and the Independence Party have exceeded conventional thresholds of merit to be included (see above).

    · Robert’s presence enhances the debate and moves the entrenched party candidates off of their sound bites.

    · Broadcasters have an implicit obligation to be of public service

    · When it comes to questions of democratic choice, respected organizations defer to leaving the voters an option. They do not suppress the debate.

    We need your help! Please contact them NOW!

    Sincerely,

    Jim Moore

    Chair, Independence Party of Minnesota

    MEDIA

    The Pioneer Press ran a profile piece about this campaign. You can read it here.

    The Associated Press ran a profile piece about this campaign. You can read it here.

    ECM Publishers ran a profile piece about this campaign. You can read it here.

    Minnesota Public Radio recognized this campaign for addressing issues directly: “Of the three major party U.S. Senate candidates, the Independence Party’s Robert Fitzgerald is offering the clearest plan about what should be done in Iraq.”

    Finally, Jack Uldrich had a fantastic commentary piece in the Star Tribune regarding the strength and future of the Independence Party. You can read it here.

    DEBATES

    Debate Minnesota held a great debate in Moorhead at Concordia College. It was an electric evening with 700 people attending. You can listen to the debate here.

    The League of Women Voters debate is Sunday, Oct. 29th at St. Thomas. It will be broadcast live on KSTP as well as KAAL in Austin, KSAX in Alexandria, WDIO in Duluth and WIRT in Hibbing. Governor’s debate is 6 p.m. followed by the Senate debate at 7 p.m.

    MPR’s debate at the Fitzgerald Theatre in St. Paul is on Sunday, Nov. 5th and will be broadcast live on MPR stations.

    CONTRIBUTE

    Now is the time that your contribution makes the most difference. We are touring the state and your contribution helps us bring our message to the far corners of the state. Please make the commitment to support this campaign and click here to contribute today. www.votefitzgerald.org/contribute.html

    THANK-YOU!

    As always, thank-you for taking the time to read this message and supporting this campaign. Thank-you for sharing this message with others. I’m asking for your vote. Thank-you.

    Sincerely,

    Robert Fitzgerald
    Candidate for the U.S. Senate
    Independence Party of Minnesota
    A New Voice, A Smart Choice!
    www.votefitzgerald.org
    www.votefitzgerald.org/blog

    Prepared and paid for by Robert Fitzgerald for Senate | PO Box 205, Rothsay, MN 56579 | John Fitzgerald, Treasurer

    To be removed from this list, please reply with “remove” in the subject header.

    Learn more about Trail Blazer Campaign Services. Inc.

    The HTML graphics in this message have been displayed. [Edit Preferences – What’s This?]

  12. Robert Milnes Says:

    Undercover_a, I like your comments very much; agreed. “The national LP is about 10 times the organization that the Greens are.” However, I submit that the Greens are about 10 times the SIZE of the national LP. Numbers, man. We need numbers. If ideally the greens could produce 26%, libs 8% in a 3 way race of 34%, 33%, 33%, who wins? George, agreed. But you should consider the fact that the greens represent the leftist movement. They have the awesome/aweful potential of at least trying to takeover. The libs do not. Eric, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the reps to do the right thing by Bob Smither. Nigel, right. Now the greens should announce they withdraw support for Farrell & support the lib, Maymin.

  13. Prester John Says:

    And now it looks like Gail Parker (Independent Green) is going to drop from the Virginia U.S. Senate race. This morning’s news report says she is “negotiating” with both the Webb and Allen campaigns about getting her endorsement. She is at 2% in the polls.

  14. George Phillies Says:

    I believe Preser John’s report makes clear that the Greens do not represent, at least in that campaign, any interest in becoming a major party, while the Libertarians have such an interest.

  15. Joey Dauben Says:

    Texas Libertarian state Senate candidate Phil Smart arrested. Good friend of mine. Details TBA.

  16. David A Spitzley Says:

    Um, guys, individual campaigns are making these deals, not the Green Party. I can say with great certainty that most Greens are extremely pissed off about these capitulations. Hell, they aren’t even tactically justified; I mean, look at what the Green is getting out of this deal: “Farrell has agreed to post the Green Party’s issues on her campaign web site and to support the party’s participation in future debates” One is worthless after November 7, the other is unenforceable and likely to be forgotten by everybody except those who are unable to collect. If there had been promises to hire Greens as staff members or otherwise enhance Green political influence in a relatively brief timeframe, it might be defensible, but this is just sad.

  17. Mike Gillis Says:

    Libertarians have dropped out this year as well. I was very angry with a local Libertarian who qualified for the ballot but did not file, despite the major parties putting up pro-war nominees.

  18. Mike Gillis Says:

    And David is right. Most Greens ARE pissed at these sorts of developments.

    And we are running hard and getting results around the country where a vast majority of us AREN’T dropping out.

    Our gubernatorial candidate in Illinois is at 14% in the polls, and in Maine at 8%

    We’re polling at 5% in the California gubernatorial and Senate races.

    And it looks like we have a very real chance of capturing another State Rep seat in Maine and a new State Senate seat in Rhode Island.

    I think capitulating to the Democrats is the stupidest thing we can do, but the example from CT is the exception, not the rule.

  19. Eric Prindle Says:

    Gail Parker is not a Green. Her party is called the Independent Green Party and stresses that it is not affiliated with the Green Party of the United States. Parker has said she would prefer that the party drop “Green” from its name. It identifies as a conservative party, though it does not take firm positions on anything except support for rail.

  20. Donald Raymond Lake Says:

    FYI, NOT AN ENDORSEMENT

    (I mean really, the Dems as ‘Loyal Opposition’?, only when it suits their internal affiliation with the #%$@#$# GOP! Round here at Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] we respect the individuals whom question and criticize the back room deals and lame ‘go along’ platforms; the rest we call DEMOBUNNIES, smiling, soft, cute, AND POLITICAL ROAD KILL!)

    ************************
    NEW REFORM PARTY USA:

    VOTE REFORM IF YOU CAN,

    IF NOT, VOTE DEM,

    IF NOT, THEN ANY THING

    BUT GOP!

    ***********************************

    more reformist news:

    STORY TOOLS
    Email this story | Print

    October 27, 2006
    SO MUCH FOR HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE Both major party candidates in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District have seen their hometown papers endorse the Reform Party candidate, Eric Eidsness.

    The Fort Morgan Times endorsed Eidsness over Republican Marilyn Musgrave, who hails from there.

    The Coloradoan in Fort Collins endorsed Eidsness over Democrat Angie Paccione. Both Paccione and Eidsness are from Fort Collins, but usually third party candidates are ignored.

    THIRD PARTY SCORES

    “Eidsness will battle long, hard, intelligently and independently. ”

    – The Fort Morgan Times

    “I’m beginning to see both of my opponents in the rear-view mirror of my Harley Davidson.”

    – Eidsness, at a 4th Congressional District debate this week

  21. Owen R. Broadhurst Says:

    What I find more than a little annoying is the mistaken notion on the part of those CT Greens supporting Farrell that this would advance “peace in the Middle East”. For the record, Farrell’s stance on Iraq differs remarkably very little, in fact, from Shays: Both oppose immediate withdrawal.

    Furthermore, Farrell has PRAISED Israel’s illegal incursion into Lebanon.

  22. toscana Says:

    E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))

Leave a Reply