The Bipartisan Takedown Of The Green Party

I was watching this video when Jill Stein made the point that it was the Republicans who run the investigative committee, and that gets forgotten in the hype.

So I did a couple searches.

Newsweek Russian Environmentalists Brand U.S. Green Party Putin ‘Accomplices’

Washington Examiner WATCH: Jill Stein eludes straight answer when asked if she was an 'unwitting agent' for Russia

Daily Beast How Putin Played the Far Left

One of the things that is missing from the right-wing press is any objections to the McCarthyism of this whole thing. The GOP is complicit is this most anti-democratic objective.

Of course the Dems are leading the charge.

The top Democrat on the panel, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, would not confirm the investigation into Stein but noted on Tuesday that she was at what he called the "infamous dinner" with Putin. Michael Flynn, who later became Trump's national security adviser, also attended the 2015 dinner in Moscow. He is cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into the Russian meddling and has pleaded guilty to a count of making false statements to FBI agents.
Warner also said Stein had said complimentary things about Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who Warner said "clearly was being used by the Russians to take some of the hacked information and release into our political system."

The political takedown of the Greens this year can be duplicated in each and every election from now to eternity.
The Greens will never threaten the Dems again.

You have to wonder what sorts of dirty deals have been cut.

Does the GOP have designs on the Libertarians? Or are they more useful?
What did the Dems promise to give the Repubs?

up
25 users have voted.

Comments

Wink's picture

testimony should be interesting.

up
10 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

Meteor Man's picture

@Wink
The Week has 7 surprises. Number six is a death listed on p. 279:

Note: Levy is likely referring to the death of Oleg Erovinkin, a former KGB general who was found dead in Moscow under mysterious circumstances. "Erovinkin was a key aide to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime minister and now head of Rosneft, the state-owned oil company, who is repeatedly named in the dossier," The Telegraph writes. "Erovinkin has been described as a key liaison between Sechin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Steele writes in an intelligence report dated July 19, 2016, he has a source close to Sechin, who had disclosed alleged links between Mr. Trump's supporters and Moscow."

Where's Sherlock Holmes when you need him?

https://theweek.com/articles/747636/7-eyeopening-revelations-from-fusion...

up
12 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Meteor Man's picture

The damn media will never allow genuine analysis of how the biggest threat to fair American elections are the Democratic and Republican parties.

up
25 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

http://time.com/4562735/third-parties-election-results-gary-johnson-jill-stein-evan-mcmullin/

November 9, 2016
The once-lofty third party hopes for 2016 went out with a whimper Tuesday night, garnering just about 4% of the popular vote total and no electoral college votes in an election with one of the most shocking outcomes in recent political history.

“We have a lot to celebrate, a lot to celebrate. This is a celebration,” Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson told supporters Tuesday night.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein struck a more ominous tone early Wednesday morning before the final result had been called, telling Al Jazeera the U.S. political system is “toxic and predatory” and forecasting “trouble in the White House.”

D-Value unity: 4% of voters down the toilet, because plutocracy.

Nobody 2018
more flushing sounds

up
18 users have voted.

for a speech in Russia sponsored by a Kremlin connected bank.

up
23 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

k9disc's picture

"speech". @Fishtroller 02

up
16 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Does the GOP have designs on the Libertarians? Or are they more useful?

I have often wondered this one. I don't follow the Libertarians really, but do they still get in line with the Republicans at the end of the day? I've never heard them try to "Nader" a Lib for McCain or Romney losing. IIRC, they got behind those two and it didn't seem like Johnson cut into Trump's totals in any meaningful manner. Maybe they just stayed home?

On the other hand, maybe they think they have the Libs under control with Ron/Rand Paul on their side. I understand those two espouse a very Republican brand of Libertarian-ism, but maybe the sheepdogging works? So I guess I don't know the answer. I'm really tempted to believe the Pauls corral the Libs and that's why they are there.

What did the Dems promise to give the Repubs?

I'm not sure they needed to promise anything, though the Dems always are looking for unnecessary "Grand Bargains" and the Repubs are smart enough to stay quiet and let them. The Greens are obviously a more direct threat to the Dems, but a strong third party, no matter where they are coming from politically, has the potential to upset the good thing they got going. The Harlem Globetrotters only want to play the Washington Generals, not the Generals and the Boston Celtics too.

up
6 users have voted.

@Dr. John Carpenter

This entry seems intended to be flattering to the Koch brothers, but does, I think, make it apparent that they support anything that supports their pathological greed for money and control - and their over-sized fortunes - to continue to expand. And 'pay hard' to strategically inculcate acceptance of their money and and support for their ideas from multiple causes, mention of some few being copied below. And yes, the 'right' Libertarian viewpoint is quite satisfactory to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

The political activities of the Koch brothers include the financial and political influence of Charles G. and David H. Koch on United States politics. This influence is seen both directly and indirectly via various political and public policy organizations supported by the Koch brothers.[1][2][3]

The Koch brothers are the sons of Fred C. Koch, who founded Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held company in the United States, of which they own 84%.[4] Having bought out two other brothers' interests, they remain in control of the family business, the fortune which they inherited from their father, and the Koch family foundations.

The brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and have donated primarily to Republican Party candidates running for office."[5] Their network of groups pledging to spend $889 million from 2009–2016 and its infrastructure has been said by Politico to rival "that of the Republican National Committee."[6] They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and in particular that lobby against efforts to expand government's role in health care and combating global warming.[7] By 2010, they had donated more than $100 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[7] ...

... David H. Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980.[13] He advocated for the abolition of Social Security, the FBI, the CIA, and public schools.[14][15] Koch put $500,000 of his own money into the race,[15] and he and Ed Clark, his presidential running mate, won 1.1% of the vote.[16] The experience of running for office caused David Koch to change course: "I had enough ... [W]e are not a nation that debates issues. We vote on candidates' personalities." By 1984, David had parted company with the Libertarian Party, because, he said, "they nominated a ticket I wasn't happy with" and "so many of the hard-core Libertarian ideas are unrealistic."[15] ...

... Charles Koch funds and supports libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute,[19] which he co-founded with Edward H. Crane and Murray Rothbard in 1977,[20] and is a board member at the Mercatus Center, a market-oriented research think tank at George Mason University. Charles Koch supported his brother's candidacy for Vice President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980.[7] After the bid, Charles told a reporter that conventional politics "tends to be a nasty, corrupting business ... I'm interested in advancing libertarian ideas".[7] In addition to funding think tanks, the brothers support libertarian academics;[21] since 1992, Charles has funded the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program through the Institute for Humane Studies, which mentors young, self-described libertarians.[22]

The brothers promote the ideal of economic freedom as essential to society's well-being.[23] ...

... Governor Scott Walker contributions

According to Mother Jones, Koch Industries' Political Action Committee (PAC) contributed the second largest donation to Scott Walker's 2010 campaign for governor of Wisconsin. It donated $43,000, second in size only to PAC donations of $43,125 from both the Wisconsin realtors and the Wisconsin home builders.[27][36] That contribution amounted to less than one half of one percent of Walker's campaign total[37] because of the limits placed on campaign contributions.[36] Most support for Walker was in the form of independent expenditures estimated at $3 million from Americans for Prosperity.[38] Due to Koch's contribution to Walker's campaign, David Koch became a symbolic target for the protests.[37]

According to the Palm Beach Post, David Koch has been active in Wisconsin politics. Americans for Prosperity reportedly spent $700,000 on ads supporting Governor Scott Walker's changes to collective bargaining.[39][40]
Mitt Romney presidential candidacy

In July 2012, David H. Koch hosted a $50,000-a-person ($75,000 a couple) fundraising dinner for 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, which was the subject of liberal and progressive protests.[18][41][42][43] Koch Industries cited the protests an example of what they see as liberal hypocrisy regarding fundraising as these same groups don't protest big money donations for Democratic fundraisers.[44] William Koch, the younger brother of Charles and David, gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, a super-PAC backing Romney.[18] During the 2008 presidential race, David Koch donated $2,300 to Romney.[18]
2016 elections

A group associated with the Kochs announced plans to raise $889 million leading up to the 2016 elections.[45][46][47] ...

... Impact

One 1997 study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy[50] identified twelve American foundations which have had a key influence on U.S. public policy since the 1960s via their support for the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute.[51] Three of these are Koch Family Foundations (the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation).[52] ...

... Educational grants

The Charles Koch Foundation (and in the case of Kansas schools, the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation) provides grants to nearly 270 U.S. colleges and universities for "projects that explore how the principles of free enterprise and classical liberalism promote a more peaceful and prosperous society".[96]

In 2011, the Charles G. Koch foundation made a grant of $1.5 million to Florida State University (FSU) in exchange for allowing the foundation, via an advisory committee,[97] to approve hiring decisions in the university's economics department for a program that promotes "political economy and free enterprise". The FSU student senate introduced a resolution protesting the Koch's "undue influence on academics as established by the current agreement between the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the FSU Economics department."[98] In response, John Hardin, who is a program officer with the Charles Koch Foundation, stated that, "when we support a school’s initiative, it is to expand opportunity and increase the diversity of ideas available on campus.”[99]

In 2014, the brothers made a $25 million grant to the United Negro College Fund.[100] After the fund's president also appeared at a summit held by the brothers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a major labor union, ended its support for the fund in protest.[101] ...

As is standard with this blogger's posts, this is best read in full at source, if at all possible.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/koch-brothers-now-supporting-hill...

Koch Brothers Now Supporting Hillary Clinton
Posted on July 21, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

Eric Zuesse

On July 20th, a Republican U.S. Senator lost his main financial backers for having urged Republicans to vote for Donald Trump instead of for Hillary Clinton.

The Koch brothers speak with their words, which can’t be trusted, but they also speak with their money, their investments, which are always honest expressions of their actual beliefs and desires. This time, the Kochs spoke with their money, just a day after that Senator spoke with his words. ...

... The Koch-led contingent of Republican billionaires and centi-millionaires is one of two Republican financial-backer contingents. The other is led by Karl Rove.

The Koch-led network of billionaires (who rely upon hiring academia and media for manipulating voters), and the Rove-led network of billionaires (who rely far more heavily upon garnering Wall Street money and Evangelical clergy for manipulating voters), have long been the two financial mainstays of the Republican Party. The Kochs have now made unmistakably clear that they want Hillary Clinton to become the next President (and, thus, academics and the media will overwhelmingly support Hillary). Previously, there was question as to whether the Kochs would go so far as to help a Democrat; but, now, there is no serious doubt about it: they already do (though as quietly as possible, and not in their own — often lying — mere words).

The Rove-led billionaires’ faction are also strongly inclined to prefer Hillary, but can’t afford to alienate the Republican electorate, and so they will continue to support other Republicans but not Trump. ...

... And then, of course, there’s Rupert Murdoch. On 17 May 2016, Gabriel Sherman headlined in New York magazine, “Why Rupert Murdoch Decided to Back Trump”, and he wrote: “According to one Fox News producer, the channel’s ratings dip whenever an anti-Trump segment airs. A Fox anchor told me that the message from Roger Ailes’s executives is they need to go easy on Trump. ‘It’s, ‘Make sure we don’t go after Trump,’ the anchor said. ‘We’ve thrown in the towel.’” However, Sherman also noted that Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was supporting Hillary. Murdoch has long been fond of her; and, in the pages of the WSJ, he still enjoys the freedom to shape the ‘news’ to favor her (something that would lose him audience if he were to do it at Fox). (He also supports both Obama and the Bushes. ...

... Even as early as October 2015, it was clear that the Republican Party’s mega-donors were already contributing more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign than to Donald Trump’s. ...

... Perhaps Trump is hoping to get lots more contributions from Democratic donors than previous Republican Presidential nominees have. But he certainly won’t be able to come even close to matching Hillary’s campaign warchest, which is widely expected to break all previous records — and for good reason. (In fact, Hillary as the State Department chief, was, behind-the-scenes, ferociously assisting the Koch brothers, regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline project and other government-policy matters. She’s a proven dynamo for the super-rich.)

The question regarding Trump as President would be: would he sell the government (perhaps at low prices to his friends and at high prices to his enemies) for various prices (as Clinton already has done — sold it to both her friends and her ‘enemies’ — but which sales she now only needs to deliver on); or would he, instead, refuse to sell it, and actually try to run the U.S. government for and on behalf of the American public? He has no actual record in public office; so, there’s no way of answering that question, unless and until he becomes President. But if Hillary Clinton becomes President, then the outcome would be much more certain, because she already has a lengthy record in ‘public’ service. It’s one that the Kochs probably appreciate very much. (And especially Hillary’s record as the U.S. Secretary of State is informative about the type of President she would make. Her real priorities are clear by her actions, though not at all by her words. By contrast, Trump’s priorities are, and might long remain, a mystery.)

Lol, regarding that last sentence, not so much, considering what was already known of his character, among other things. By their funders, shall thee know them...

up
5 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North and you just posted Exhibit A. Pretty much answers my questions about the Republicans vs. Libertarians. And, of course the Koch Bros. loved them some Her, didn't they?

up
6 users have voted.

@Dr. John Carpenter

Psychopaths hang together, so that they can continually divide so as to hang the rest of us separately.

Ain't working as well as it did, though, and they're leaving nobody else anything at all to lose, the only form of freedom they allow,

up
2 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Next strategy anticipated: The Russians attempted to influence the elections by mentioning Black Lives Matter.

No patriotic American would imagine that Black Lives Matter because murdered/abused Black patriotic Americans are obviously perfectly OK with being abused and murdered for Breathing While Black as long as that's being committed by American police, so this routine and common citizen murder by the civil forces which they pay to protect them is just fine and only Russian sympathizers could possibly object.

Black Americans are therefore Russian patsies because BLM protests this and only the Russians care about their lives and deaths.

Rosa Parks was Black and made a Russian-protester-style stink on a bus.

So we know that Black Russian sympathizers ride the bus.

The Poors of every colour also ride the bus, when they can afford to, therefore the Poors are all Russian sympathizers.

All non-hundreds-millionaires and non-billionaires are relative Poors and therefore are all Russian sympathizers.

Therefore, 99% of Americans are Russian enemies-of-the-American-people!

Not so far a stretch from all non-warmongers fail to support The Mad Bomber - making them all Russian spies... this just covers more ground and retroactively justifies the American people being drained for multiple, mostly privately owned, groups of spies recording their every word and action, to keep them safe from themselves. Especially since they increasingly persist in voting wrong and the Clintons have patented persistence and had already had their paymasters buy that last election, just for them.

up
5 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Dhyerwolf's picture

The Democrats need to keep attacking the Green Party so that their partisan sheeple don't wake up and fall in love with a party that actually matches what they want. Republicans know that their sheeple will just fall in line, and likely don't fall the need to so after Libertarians too strongly for that reason.

up
6 users have voted.

@Dhyerwolf
gave up a legitimate opportunity to control the senate when the took Mike Castle and Richard Lugar to primaries. Each would, almost without doubt, have won in November. Democrats picked up 2 seats.

Republicans have been far more inclined to primary people who didn't meet standards of ideological purity even if it meant losing the seat temporarily to a Democrat.

Now that Democrats can be against choice in women's reproductive health, are there any issues at all that hold them together. As near as I can tell the only thing they have to have in common is an absolute willingness to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker or Chuck Schumer for Majority Leader.

up
0 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

because Libertarians infiltrated the Republicans and the Democrats in the 1980s and 90s via bribery, 'think' tanks and 'leadership councils'.

up
4 users have voted.
Hawkfish's picture

Be aware when engaging with the hillbots that Jill's vote totals in three states (WI, MI and PA) were large enough to flip the election. But it would have taken 90% of the Green voters in PA to push it over the edge.

Then again, if you give HRC 100% of both Stein and Other voters (and Other includes raving right wing loons like theocrat Darryl Castle...) it only takes 40% of the GOP "spoilers" Johnson and McMullin to overcome that flip. So for me the bottom line is that the third party results were in many ways a mirror of the duopoly results and any attempts to play with counterfactuals is just mental masturbation.

It's also worth pointing out to the trolls that there were a staggering 7 faithless electors (4 from my own state of WA alone). The last time it was that bad was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt messed things up with the Bull Moose party. In other words, Clinton was so despised that she couldn't even get her own party officials to vote for her. (Not to mention the other two who had their votes for Bernie invalidated...)

Incidentally, Colin Powell came in third, and if no one got a majority, the House might well have picked Powell. Try that counterfactual out to see if their tiny little heads explode!

up
4 users have voted.

We may find that we’re all alone
In the dream of the proud.
- Pink Floyd, On the Turning Away