Green Party folk: This is probably worth reading

[WilliamPitt]

Received via email from Medea Benjamin:

===

How can the Green Party help get rid of Bush and strengthen the party?
Support David Cobb

By Medea Benjamin

I spent a sleepless night last night thinking about the Nader/Camejo ticket and the Green Party¹s dilemma as we move to nominate a presidential candidate at our upcoming National Convention. I love and admire both Nader and Camejo, and have had a close working relationship with both of them for many years. I totally support their anti-war, anti-corporate, pro-democracy message. But I don¹t think their campaign will bring us any closer to the world we want to build.

The Nader/Camejo ticket can¹t win, will create tremendous division within the progressive movement and might well help elect George Bush. This would be disastrous for our party, our country and our planet.

In my many trips post 9/11 to Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine, I have seen firsthand how Bush¹s policies have led to the deaths of countless innocent victims (yes, countless, because the Pentagon refuses to count them). I have seen too many women in anguish over the deaths, the maiming, or the illegal detainment of their husbands, sons and daughters. And here at home, I have spent many nights crying with the fathers, mothers and wives of US servicepeople who have been cut down in their prime thanks to Bush¹s wars.

George Bush has made our nation the most hated nation on the planet, seriously endangering our safety here at home and overseas. His twin policies of massive tax breaks for the rich and unnecessary wars are making it impossible for us, the richest nation in history, to provide decent public education for our children, decent health care for our elderly, decent public transportation for our cities. And for us Greens desperate to see our nation break out of the fossil fuel economy into to the age of clean energy, Bush¹s intimate ties to the oiligarchy will keep us on disastrous path of oil wars and global warming.

Let¹s be clear. This election is a referendum on the Bush administration. The world is watching and waiting with bated breath to see if the US people will reject the Bush agenda. When I was last in Iraq, Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar, an Iraqi engineer, said, ³Saddam Hussein was a bastard, but this was not a democracy and we didn¹t elect him. So his evil deeds were not done in our name. Can you say the same thing for George Bush?² We owe it to ourselves and to the global community to make sure that Bush is no longer allowed to speak in our name.

We all know that Kerry and the Democrats don¹t represent our values and aspirations; otherwise we wouldn¹t have joined the Greens. Kerry¹s support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq is particularly infuriating in light of his courageous stance against the war in Vietnam. I do feel that it is our responsibility during this presidential campaign to protest Kerry¹s stand on issues from the war to the Patriot Act to ³free trade² agreements. But John Kerry is not George Bush.

So how can we be part of rejecting Bush AND building a progressive party? We can do that by supporting David Cobb. David will spend his time strengthening local Green parties and local candidates, as he has been doing so successfully the past several years. David will focus on states that are not swing states. His ³safe state² strategy will allow us to make common cause with our progressive allies, both Democrats and Independents, who feel strongly about the need to remove Bush. His commitment to having a woman vice president will make the Greens attractive to people who have become weary of all-male tickets. And unlike a Nader/Camejo campaign that will alienate so many of our natural allies, David¹s campaign will put the Greens
in a much stronger position for growing post-November.

Let¹s be part of a growing, exciting coalition of unions, students, communities of color women¹s groups, environmentalists, peace organizations, religious folks and millions of outraged individuals who are determined get George Bush out of the White House. Let¹s show them that the Greens understand this historic moment. Let¹s support David Cobb so we can help defeat Bush and grow the Greens!

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of the human rights group Global Exchange and the women¹s peace group Code Pink, ran for US Senate in California on the Green Party ticket in 2000.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Good, but not good enough.

He does not say that you should vote for Kerry and is thus risking blowing what I think will be a close election.

[WilliamPitt]

2. She

[LoZoccolo]

3. I was talking about Cobb, not the author.

Though I admit I was confused.

:)

[welshTerrier2]

4. perhaps if he endorsed Kerry ...

he would fail to win the Green party's nomination and a Green candidate who would campaign in swing states would win ...

Cobb has made a very attractive proposal ... let's support our progressive Green friends instead of criticizing their eminently reasonable proposal ...

[Frances]

7. Nader vs. Cobb

is the issue here

The Greens are about to have their convention and this letter writer is saying that Greens should select Cobb as their candidate, not Nader.

This is a HUGE choice because if the Greens back Nader, then Nader will automatically be on the ballot in swing states.

If the Greens do not back Nader, then Nader will probably not be able to get on the ballots in all the swing states. That could mean the difference between a Kerry victory and a Bush victory.

The writer is saying that Bush has done too much damage for the Greens to do anything that could help Bush win. (The writer has personally witnessed much of this damage in the Middle East.)

I agree with the letter writer.

[Sporadicus]

5. I Believe it is in the Greens' Best Interest Strategically

to endorse John Kerry this time around. It's more important to remove * from office than to stand on principle made hollow by contributing to the possibility of * getting reelected.

As an aside, I *may* consider voting for a Green candidate at some point. But not this time.

[x_y_no]

6. I don't understand how the Greens can pick Nader

He used them in 2000, then he hasn't done a thing for them since.

And the important point which this letter ignores is the fact that Nader wants the Democrats to lose. All part of his "there's no real difference" BS philosophy.

[porphyrian]

8. Please don't turn a civil appeal to the Left the DNC has abandoned into...

...yet another boring Nader-bash. It isn't necessary.

[Frances]

9. I agree

DUers have posted the quote from Nader's nephew (who was a campaign advisor) about the 2000 election many times. This is the quote where the nephew says that the goal of Nader's campaign is to hurt the Dems.

In another thread Nader advises Kerry to pick Edwards. I agree with Nader's advice, but I think Nader is giving it because Nader has such a huge ego that he wants to be seen as having power over the Dems.

Nader reminds me of the Republicans because he puts Nader's welfare above the welfare of the country just as the Republicans put their own welfare above that of the country.

[Beloved Citizen]

10. Obviously Medea hasn't heard

As I am sure several of the Nader people posting here will be glad to inform her:

- People voting for Nader is Kerry's fault because he's not fun enough.

- She should quit attacking Greens because it is likely to make more people turn against Kerry.

- A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. Many of the people voting for Nader wouldn't vote if he wasn't on the ballot.

- She must be part of the antidemocratic one-party corporate system that is trying to deny people a real choice.

- Many of the beings voting for Nader this year rode into this celestial space behind the comet Hale-Bopp. If she keeps annoying them with her specious claims they will zap her with their laser beans.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Props.

:yourock:

[IrateCitizen]

16. Props for what? A divisive post?

The last thing that post deserved was props. If anything, it deserved some kind of "ignore" function.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Props for calling people out on their message board antics.

Come on, we all know the standard third-party lines are getting tired. Especially the "I'm so high-maintenance you better not criticize Nader/whoever" one, the one completely based on emotion (or emotional problems). What we're all saying is they just don't make sense.

[Beloved Citizen]

22. Wild, ain't it?

The Greenish ones can bash the living hell out of Kerry and that's OK because he's "abandoned the left" or "is in the pocket of the corporations" or whatever blithering nonsense they drudge up to justify their sophistries. But bring up the topic of Saint Ralph dividing the anti-Bush vote therefore possibly enabling America's first genuine neo-fascist govt in its quest to maintain power (while all the while accepting campaign cash from said neo-fascist regime's corporate patrons), and let the wailing begin.

Earth to Naderites: I am a Democrat and your candidate is running against mine. In my mind he is as much a dirtbag as Bush.

The real diviseness began when Nader attacked the Democratic Party and became a de facto tool of the Bush regime. 800 American GIs now lying dead would still be alive if Nader hadn't run in 2000. A fact most of his supporters are not emotionally equipped to deal with.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Funny, I thought this thread was to DISCOURAGE voting for Nader...

Obviously a mild case of projection going on here.

Nothing to see, move along, just DU at its most typical.... :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

26. There's one of those lines.

Right there.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Whatever, dude...

Personally, I have no patience for Nader. He's proven himself to be an egotist more interested in his own twisted celebrity than anything else.

I also have no patience for those who attempt to degenerate honest and open discussion into flamefests through the introduction of inflammatory rhetoric.

If the "classic Naderite lines" aren't introduced into the discussion, nor a kind word even said about Nader, and a Nader-hater starts ranting about "Naderites" and the like out of the blue, would you not then call that "projection"?

I have no problem when someone points out the legitimate shortcomings of Ralph Nader when someone else tries to present him as a wise political choice. However, I don't have the inclination to take seriously those who feel the need to equate "Green" with the label "Naderite", because their demagoguery is clearly evident from the get-go, and there is no sense in trying to take them seriously because they have no cognitive argument to make.

[LoZoccolo]

31. I'm not equating Greens with Naderites.

Though they were the same for 2000, and I did think the parody of the Nader lines was funny. I explain this in post #27.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Please point out where those "lines" appeared on this thread

As soon as you can do that, then you're completely entitled to call people on it.

Until those lines DO rear their head, however, by making such "pre-emptive" arguments, you're just being divisive.

[LoZoccolo]

27. They didn't; that's part of the point.

A Green can make a similiar argument to a Democrat and not get those lines tossed at her. That's interesting, to say the least.

[IrateCitizen]

30. OK, I'll agree with you there...

But it ties in with an article I read a while back about Republicans who have turned against the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Where it often isn't productive for a Democrat to go into a Republican politician's office to try and convince him/her to adopt a policy stance, a Republican lobbyist might have better luck because they "speak the same language".

Maybe, just maybe, Medea's ideas carry a bit more traction with Greens because they're "speaking the same language", where many Democrats on this site clearly don't speak the same language as Greens....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Good post.

Until recently, I was determined to vote Green for President. However, I came to much the same conclusion that Medea did. Bush is just too much of an evil to ignore. Though I live in a "safe" state, the gap is just too small (5%) between Kerry and Bush.

So, I will, once again, hold my nose and vote for a weak Democrat candidate.

Hopefully, Kerry will be elected and rediscover his ethics and courage that he once had in the '70s.

Given his recent track record, I ain't holding my breath.

[mzmolly]

20. bandera THANKYOU! You know what this Democrat is doing.

Holding the ol' nose. But, I have decided to contribute to the Cobb Campaign, and even work to build the Green Party should they nominate him.

:hi:

Progressives can be pragmatic and progressive.

BTW, it's not as though a Nader vote wouldnt require a plugged nose either ;)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Nader is a fathead, but the anti-nader posts are self-defeating.

I do hope the Greens nominate Cobb, I'll support his efforts too. I've always been a registered Democrat but after this nose-holding session of voting for the lesser of two evils, I'll probably be switiching to Green.

[mzmolly]

28. I don't consider examining Nader as we have everyone else "anti-Nader"

really? I have a hard time ignoring him and/or not stating my opinion on the matter. :shrug:

Peace :hi:

[TexasSissy]

13. Nader/Camejo can't win? Like David Cobb (who is that?) can?

"The Nader/Camejo ticket can¹t win, will create tremendous division within the progressive movement and might well help elect George Bush. This would be disastrous for our party, our country and our planet. "

I don't see any argument in that piece describing how Cobb can win, when Nader/Camejo can't, and why that wouldn't "help elect George Bush."

[mzmolly]

14. The key is that Cobb won't use and destroy the party he is trying to build

This is watcha call a win/win for progressives.

Nader is dividing the Green Party.

If Cobb gets the nomination he will remain respectful of the Green Party Platfrom which totes "Global Responsibility." Helping Bush get elected again is not "globally responsible."

Nader could give a shit about the Greens. He's using them because he has to. He said he wouldn't run on their ticket, but is finding out he needs their organization.

Cobb is a solid member of the Green Party, Nader is not. Cobb is really dedicated to building his party and removing Bush, Nader is not.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Cobb's candidacy is about helping to build a party...

which is different from Nader's candidacy, which is more about satisfying his ego.

The reason that Cobb isn't looking to campaign in competitive states is that he recognizes that a George W. Bush victory is also a loss for the Greens. His candidacy, therefore, is one based on bringing some visibility to the Greens through a national campaign, thereby helping to build the local party apparatus.

I don't see what your complaint could possibly be, because this all seems like a win-win for progressives, liberals, and the center-left. The only people that should be afraid of this are those in the corporatist center-right who feel that they are entitled to the votes of the left while they disparage them.

[Cheswick2.0]

18. oooops you missed the point

The point is that Cobb will not campaign in swing states where if Nader got the endorsement, that would put him on the ballot in the swing states and will camgaign in those states just as he did in 2000 (even though he said he would not). Nader can not be trusted to keep his word. Perhaps Cobb can be trusted.

[proud patriot]

15. Never prouder of my VOTE for her in 2000 for Senator

Medea is an angel sent from Heaven .

After watching her on T.V. go head to head with Rummy
and others , I got a chance to meet her .

I got to shake her hand and thank her .

She's an amazingly brave person .

Thanks for the post Will

[mzmolly]

21. Another letter worth a read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=555299&mesg_id=555299&page=

[WilliamPitt]

32. .