The Greens have not completely disowned Nader because they are helping him sue the Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

Green Party leaders urged national attention and support for legal efforts by Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli to ensure fair elections in the face of patently unfair election rules and underhanded tactics by Democratic Party operatives to block Green, other third party, and independent candidates.

"The vicious tactics used by Democrats against Greens and independents in Pennsylvania and other states are comparable to the Republican manipulation of national elections that we witnessed in 2000 and 2004," said Liz Arnone, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "In all these cases, Democrats and Republicans alike have betrayed an exclusive sense of entitlement that led them to rig the vote."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1214-03.htm

First of all, Nader lost the lawsuit. Boo hoo for you, Green Party.

Second of all, there is no rigging of votes. The lawsuit is about getting on the ballot, which was attempted with invalid signatures. If people don't want to write in Green Party candidates, then don't blame us. Ditto with getting enough signatures on the ballot petition.

Third of all, an investigation revealed that Romanelli was completely funded by the Republicans save for a donation made by himself! Also, one of the donors was a lobbyist for Halliburton.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8105.html

There is no doubt about it: the Green Party is still giving Nader support, and cannot claim that they are distancing themselves from him. And they are also not disowning the idea of propping up a candidate along with the Republicans, a candidate who was running third-party in an election that sought to unseat Rick Santorum.

[frylock]

1. get a room..

[hayu_lol]

2. The Greens have no credibility at all...

Nader ran Green candidates using GOP money to do so. The Greens were never against the GOP, but were instead just simple spoilers for Dem candidates. This happened over and over again.

We also remember the debacle of election 2000. They still refuse to accept the reality of what the Green party did in Florida.

They tried to get a Green candidate on the ballot in PA to go against the Dem running against Rick Sanctamonious. Had they been successful, Rick would still be in office.

They ran a Green candidate against Wellstone who pretty much agreed with everything Wellstone stood for.

Nader wants attention. Craves attention. Well, he certainly got attention from many of us.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I did not know that they ran against Wellstone.

I am not surprised, though, because in 2006 they ran against Lamont too.

Thank you for your support! :hi:

[pnwmom]

4. A good reminder -- the Greens are not the Democrat's friends.

And they're not allies, they're opponents.

Nader wasn't cheated out of a "rigged" election. His campaign attempted to cheat, with petitions full of fake names, and was caught. That's the way it's supposed to work.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Yes, and people confuse it with "lending a voice to the debate".

There are many other ways of doing that without participating in the zero-sum game of an election where a vote for one candidate necessarily takes a vote from all others.

[Franc_Lee]

6. Can we expect Nader to announce his run for 2008?

[riqster]

7. He kindasortaalmost has

...and it got no attention to speak of.

This Primary, we have a few progressive candidates to support, so Nader and the Greens are even less relevant than usual.