Does The Green Party Need To Grow Up?

I've long been a moral supporter of the green party. I defended Nader's run in 2000, arguing that: the number of votes Nader took from Gore was negligible, there's no evidence the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore , and the decision to drop out and throw your support behind an opponent is a personal decision each candidate should be allowed to make for him or herself.

Also, I think voters should be educated enough to understand everything they are voting for when they vote for a particular candidate. In a two party system that means that if they vote for a third party candidate they should understand the risk that their wasted vote might help get someone elected who they really don't want elected. If they understand that and choose to cast their vote anyway, well they can take the heat for their decision.

But reading this post by John Aravosis at Americablog, I have to agree that the Green Party candidate in Pennsylvania is either a Republican plant or a complete and utter tool. I mean, can anybody really be so self-centered as to not realize it's a very bad sign when your political opponents are financing your campaign and providing your volunteers?

Unlike John, however, I don't think this is that big a deal. I believe the fact that Romanelli wouldn't have a campaign without Republican money and Republican volunteers says a lot about the level of support he has, even among greens. I don't think he has a chance in hell of pulling enough votes from Casey to make a difference in the race.

The main task for the Democrats is to keep their focus on the goal. Things like this could do more damage as distractions than as practical methods to manipulate votes.