If Greens think their ideology is superior, then why nominate a non-Green?

[trumad]

This is the one thing that I don't get about the Greens. Democrats nominate a Democrat, Republicans nominate a Republican, Greens nominate whoever can get them the most name recognition.

[I thought so.]

1. I might be wrong here.

As I understand it Nader has offered the VP to Comejo. Has he accepted?. The Green party has not endorsed either. Can you offer anything other than this? Standing by.

[NMDemDist2]

2. is David Cobb not a Green?

looks like he has the most delegates

http://www.gp.org/convention/index.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. It's called pragmatism. Gotta pick whoever will do the most good

for the party, I guess.

Personally, I like the Nader/Camejo ticket, but this just isn't the year. :(

[comsymp]

4. Ya mean like the recent calls here for a Kerry-McCain ticket?

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Nope. What good is it to garner votes with that ticket and wind up

with McCain's agenda in place, or absolutely nothing getting accomplished because they fight all the time? There was a reason why we stopped having mixed party president and Veep way back when.

[comsymp]

7. Couldn't agree more-

and was stunned that ANYONE would have considered that ticket- was referring to your use of the word "pragmatism" in the context of the party purity espoused in the initial post... just found the juxtaposition of the 2 points ironic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. It would have been different if folks had suggested Kerry

go outside the party and pick up a Green, Socialist, left-leaning independent. That's one thing. But it's quite another to hook oneself to a partner who does not share your ideals and vision.

[comsymp]

11. Agreed again-

which is what I found particularly amusing... again... in the context of this thread. McCain, an anti-choice, anti-lots of things, capital C Conservative~

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. The only thing I can really get behind McCain on

is Public Funding of elections. We have voluntary "clean elections" here in Maine, and I really think they have been a boon to our state. Just wish we could make them mandatory, but it'll require a long debate over constitutional law to do that.

[comsymp]

15. And we're 3 for 3

I've long supported 100% public funding for campaigns, which includes requiring TV and Radio broadcasters to contribute airtime, since they make their fortunes off the public's airwaves/bandwidth.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. :^) Have you thought about running for office?

[comsymp]

32. LOL- Too many skeletons

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. They can't be worse than *'s! *lol*

[StClone]

6. Calls?

It was talked about as out of curiosity (oddity) and possible motivation of why it was news (Rove?).

[comsymp]

10. Methinks you missed some threads, then

It was highly touted by many here, primarily because of its potential to pull in R voters.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. LOL, Greens can be pragmatic but if Democrats are they are "sell outs"

Typical :7

[Peregrine]

42. If pragmatism was the point

The Greens would be trying to build a party. You don't do this by throwing someone out there to run for president. You do it at the grassroots level. How much time do the Greens spend on school board, city, or county electons? Counties generally elect everything from registrar of wills to judges. How many Greens fill these positions.

If they had been concentrating on grassroots for the past decade, this year they would be ready for statewide elections or even the House.

But no. They have made sure that the majority of americans here the Green moniker only every four years.

The Greens should do what the Scientologists did to Clearwater, FL and what the fundies in their Exodus program want to do to SC.

[AP]

8. Because they're not ideologically-bound? They acknowledge that a good

idea's a good idea regardless of the label you stick to it or the party registrationg of the person who has the idea?

Perhaps?

[sangh0]

18. "a good idea's a good idea reagrdles of the label"???

Wouldn't that be "unless the label says Democrat"?

And speaking of "pragmatism", didn't Nader say we shouldn't worry about Ashcroft because "the bureaucracy" would tie his hands? Turns out, Nader doesn't really understand the consequences of a Repuke win, and understanding the consequences of one's action is the foundation of pragmatic action.

[AP]

26. I don't know. Camejo in the governor debates made a point a few times

to acknowledge when the Democrats were right.

There were a few times when he didn't, and he could have, but he did do it a few times.

[sangh0]

36. Good for Camejo

but Camejo isn't the Green Party. The Green Party has a habit of declaring that there's little difference between the D's and the R's.

[comsymp]

38. Not being snarky, but link?

I've honestly not seen that as part of the GP platform, etc., and the only public political figure I *recall* having said that is Nader who, as this thread points out, isn't a Green.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

14. Great Way To Reel In That Leftist Base, Thanks! -n/t

[trumad]

17. What all 3 of them?

Fuck those who need to be er realed in! Idiots

[porphyrian]

45. Fuck 'em?

While I agree that it's stupid not to vote for Kerry in this election, my post was based on my understanding that Nader wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the Democratic party hadn't alienated its base in the first place. Now that it has, and seems content to continue to do so, a more prudent tactic would be to focus on getting votes rather than further alienating lefties who won't wear your brand name.

[sangh0]

19. What did you expect?

A blowjob?

[porphyrian]

46. Why, yes, sangh0, thanks for offering. When are you available? -n/t

[info being]

21. Using terms like "Reel in" isn't any better.

[porphyrian]

47. Maybe

At least it's honest.

[I thought so.]

23. What Base?

Leftists are not voters. People that vote have a voice. Leftists wallow and whine. Its never good enough for them. They cannot be counted on. For them its always better to be "pure" than make a difference. After all if they might win somewhere they might have to be accountable. Could they really change anything, not on your life. It would ruin the ego trip.

[porphyrian]

48. Sorry, you're wrong. Thanks for playing.

I'm a "leftist" and I vote. While I do my share of wallowing and whining, it is in no way a leftist-exclusive trait. Neither is responsibility or idealism. As for ego trips, I think your last few sentences speak volumes.

[info being]

22. The only thing these douchbags have in common is...

they are truth-tellers. I think your reaction is nothing more than an ego-defense mechanism. In other words, sometimes truth hurts.

[LoZoccolo]

25. They can't even make a practical decision...

...and they wanna try to run the economy and all that? No thanks.

They whine about how they get nothing from the Democrats (which is not true anyways), but then they consistently undermine their own credibility - well no wonder not many people listen to them!

[Loonman]

20. They have no integrity or coherent message?

My guess.

[depakid]

24. Talk about projection n/t

[frylock]

27. same group of misinformed morans who think nader cost gore the election

[LoZoccolo]

29. Well...

...he campaigned on a lie that there was no difference between the two parties.

[Loonman]

31. He also lied about not campaigning in battleground states

Ralph "where are the cameras? Where is the media ?" has no shame, or integrity.

[LoZoccolo]

28. We hear a lot of complaining about Kerry...

...but we don't hear that much in the way of practical solutions. If the further-left contingent could spread their ideas widely across the Democratic party voters, the Democratic party candidates couldn't ignore them. But as long as they spend their time screwing over the people who work hard to get some stuff done against the Republicans, they'll continue to have no truck with most everybody.

[depakid]

30. You must not be looking at the policies

Like much of the Democratic leadership-

Enabling Republicans through support of their agenda- voting for their legislation- not using the Parliamentary means as a way to stop egregious laws or halt the packing of the judiciary may seem to some "pragmatic," but it's proven to be an UTTER FAILURE.

It's pragmatic to play how the Republicans would play- give them no quarter and actually promote a progressive agenda that matters to ordinary people- as opposed to one that won't offend their corporate donors. Progressive issues are winning issues- but unforunately, it requires courage, integrity and the ability to articulate them (like say- Paul Wellstone did) before they can carry the day.

Instead, what we get is, at best vacillation.

I can probably name off the top of my head at least 20 pieces of profoundly stupid legislation that many Democrats sold out and supported- and I can name equally as many pieces of profoundly sensible legislation that many Democrats opposed. Therein lies the problem- and that's the root of the current schism.

Why they do this- why they keep pandering to the right even though it's proven to be a losing strategy OVER AND OVER for so many years is beyond me.

[Cleita]

33. My thoughts exactly.

If Greens were serious about becoming a major party, they would work at the local level first, getting candidates elected in these venues. It would not only supply Green candidates with some experience in governance for higher offices in the future, but it would give them a chance to get some visibility and gain converts. I don't understand why they want to shoot themselves in the foot all the time.

[comsymp]

35. Except for the fact that the Greens aren't nominating Nader...

But why let those pesky facts stand in the way of a good, Greenbashing orgy, huh?

:eyes:

Updated 06.20.04
notes:
Ralph Nader has withdrawn his name from consideration as the Green Party nominee. However, Mr. Nader has indicated that he would welcome the endorsement of the Green Party of the United States.
http://www.gp.org/convention/index.html
(link courtesy AZDem, post #2)

[trumad]

39. The National Green Party convention is this weekend

and it is my understanding that the Greens are 50/50 regarding the nomination of Ralph Nader as the their Presidential Candidate. Am I wrong about that and are you telling me that Nader will not be the nominee?

On edit: This is what I just found on-line:
<snip>
WASHINGTON -- Presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Monday tapped longtime Green Party activist Peter Camejo to be his running mate, a move certain to boost the independent's chances of winning the Green Party's endorsement this week and its access to ballot lines in nearly two dozen states.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-nader22.html

OK..so I ask...What did the above paragraph mean when it says that Ralph has a good chance of winning the Green Party's endorsement?

[comsymp]

40. Ummm... that an endorsement isn't the same thing as a nomination?

Which would dovetail neatly with the quote in my post, above (which said "... but would welcome the endorsement of..."

Third party candidates have a history of endorsing candidates from outside parties, especially in states where their own candidates aren't on the ballot...

As for your understanding of 50-50, if you'll refer to the link I (and another poster far upthread) posted, the current delegate count is posted- and of 746 delegates, Ralph has commitments from 64.5, far from a 50/50 proposition.

[trumad]

43. I'm confused...

They'll endorse Nader but nominate someone else? Learn somethin new every day...

[comsymp]

44. I've known you here for a while, and I know you're smarter than that

Please reread my post above- specifically the part that states *in states where their own candidates aren't on the ballot*

If you're honestly confused about the difference between nominations and endorsements, or why it's acceptable/not unusual to endorse another candidate in a race in which your party isn't running one, PM me and we'll go thru it in more detail.

In fact, you could help me out in return (as you're much, MUCH more interested in the whole Green/Nader thing than I am, and probably have the info at your fingertips): "another poster" upthread stated that the Green Party argues that there's no difference between D's and R's- I've heard that from Nader (who, as you know, is not a Green), but am not familiar with that position having been taken by the GP as an entity. The poster who made the assertion hasn't responded to my request for info- can you help?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.