Dear Beloved DU,

[Andy_Stephenson]

We are on edge. The tension in this place is palpable. If we are a microcosim of the greater Democratic party, then we are in a world of hurt. The funky place on the net here is incredibly powerful! It brings us together is a manner that has up until now never really been possible.

The Kerry and Dean camps are passionate in their support of "their Man". I have even fallen in the trap...but my reasons have never changed. But that is neither here nor there. I think we should all keep our eye on the prize...the prize? Our liberties, our country and quite possibly our lives. The White House is small potatoes compared to what we may loose forever if we are not careful. Our divisive tone and rhetoric is giving the :puke:s exactly what they want...a divided, infighting party that because of all the division most likely will not win. I really don't think that is what we want...do we?

Instead of jaicinto taunting and pushing Greens away he should be trying to understand their position. I say balderdash to someone who says a populist cannot win...Dean wether or not you like him is a populist. He is talking a populist message and we all see the results. Hell if Kerry were addressing my concerns...I would probably vote for him.

I love DU...I have learned and gained so much form this place and would miss it if it were gone. The Democratic party might not survive if we do not UNITE! If we cannot show a united front...we cannot win. Your all intelligent and more than one of you has made me laugh, at times I did not feel like laughing. We for the most part remain civil in most discourse. So for our party's sake...our country's sake...lets stop bickering and focus our anger where it should be focused...At the usurper and pretender to the throne.

Gbnc

(carlos, I am not picking on you...you irritate me sometimes but I wish you no harm)

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Amen, brother!

Amen!

[mantis]

2. Well....what

fun is that? Just kidding.

[nolabels]

3. Relax, it's primary time, take it with a grain of salt maybe

If it really upsets you stay out them threads, frankly a lot it seems like a waste of time to me, what are you gaining in them threads anyway. I am sticking on issues and such, they are so much more concrete.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. It is not only the Dean Kerry threads

Gay vs straight, south vs north, etc etc etc. The tone and quality definately have suffered here as of late.

[efhmc]

7. What you say is good advise but when someone writes about an

unsettling issue, why is telling him/her to chill, relax, get over it, etc. an accepted way to deal with the problem. Obviously, they are driven to vent, pontificate, rant etc, or they would not have taken the time to write about it. (Please, this is not a personal attack on your response, I see this reaction here all the time.)

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. I agree...but perhaps

the side issues should be just that side issues. At leas untill we get back to the point we were at Before Bush*.

[efhmc]

4. Beautifully said.

Now I wish people would read it and heed your advise.

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. Prolly not.

But I can try...I realize I am guilty of a lot...look forward to a new improved Gbnc.

[blm]

101. with a cherry on top?

(smooch)
;))))))))))))

[salin]

102. ya know what gives me hope?

Round one of really, really ugly candidate flamewars = target Kerry.

No offense GBnC - you were HOT in those.

When you and blm, and you and WillPitt found some peace - and civility on a broad range of other things - because ya'll got past the vitriol... could even find humour at times around the previous spats... gave me hope.

Your little interchange reminds me of this as I pull my hair out over last night.

To you both :loveya:

This can happen across the board... maybe? Or at least in some cases... right? :D

[blm]

124. I accepted his earnestness

and he accepted mine. From there it was easy for me to admire the man's heart. There was no artifice to Gbnc's posts, even when they ran completely counter to my views. That's the difference.

I am also not surprised that he now backs Dennis Kucinich. ;)))))

[jiacinto]

9. I understand the Green Position

They want Republicans to win and don't want to compromise. What else is there to say?

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. See Carlos...

I knew I could count on you...You have proven the point of my whole post.

It is not that the greens want "Republicans to win and don't want to compromise" Have you personally tried to find common ground? I highly doubt it, with statements like that above. I have seen you operate...you repeat the same caustic thing over and over. I am not slamming you carlos...your well informed...and intelligent. But in order to compromise...you have to compromise as well.

[jiacinto]

25. I tried a long time ago

But it seems very hard, if not impossible.

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. It is not impossible carlos

nothing is. Can't never did anything.

[efhmc]

14. Do you really believe that or are you just angry at them?

eom

[ErasureAcer]

32. The greens want justice!

Like closing of the school of americas and the end to capital punishment and the cutting of pentagon waste...if the dems don't want to support those issues...i wont support them...simple as that. Many Dems, and that includes those running for pres, are republicans on many of the most important issues...

they do not deserve my support. They shot themself in the foot, not the greens.

Have another 4 years of Bush if you aren't willing to move to the left. The Dems need the greens more than the greens need the Dems. Because the Greens don't get anything from many of the Dems in office...why should you support someone you get nothing from?

YOU SHOULDN'T! And I won't.

Kucinich 04
www.kucinich.us

[liberalhistorian]

35. Then you can definitely look forward to four more

years of Bushit if you want to throw your vote away, which is exactly what voting for ANY third-party presidential candidate is doing, particularly in a close election. I'm sorry, but we must be realistic here. I am tired of pandering to the Greens and worrying about their reactions to posts and being told to find common ground with them and understand them and unite, etc., etc., ad nauseaum, when most of them make NO effort at all to do the same with us.

All we ever hear from them is how the Dems are the evil devils that are the cause of all that is going wrong and that if you're a Dem you must be a part of the problem. They never point to the real enemy, the repukes and the Bushistas. No, it's all the Dems fault. And I don't see THEM trying to find common ground with us and understand us, etc., etc. THEY are always right and they're the ones that push away any overtures!

[ErasureAcer]

42. It is a fucking sad day when I have a republican governor....

recognize the injustice of the death penalty...while the democratic front runners just twiddle their thumbs and ignore the problem as if it isn't there.

George Ryan is more democratic than the leading jackasses running for president.

The Democrats(besides Kucinich) are just ignoring the real problems of America.

Please, tell me why the hell they're doing this? they are destroying america just as much as bush.

[ErasureAcer]

84. my post #42 deserves a response...what the fuck is wrong with the dems?

These guys leading the polls are jokes.

Kucinich 04
www.kucinich.us

[Generic Other]

38. Spit on the olive branch why don't you?

Jeez, carlos, sometimes you are your own worst enemy.

[liberalhistorian]

44. Yeah, but unfortunately, he's right.

The Greens expect US to do ALL of the compromising and understanding and common-ground-finding and refuse to listen to anything anyone else says if it doesn't exactly fit with what they want.

[Andy_Stephenson]

48. He's not though...

The Greens and Dems have many issues they could come together on.

Health Care. for one.

[John_H]

98. I admire the sentiment but...hello?

Greens want to defeat whomever the Dems run. Did you read the posts by eraserhead or whatever his name is? Like they want us to lose, Scoob.

If they don't, then they're crappy Greens and deserve even less respect.

Note the similarities: Republicans want Dems to lose. Greens want Dems to lose. See? When it comes to elections they are indistinguishable from one another. Why? Because they want us to lose.

Those who want us to compromise might ask themselves a rhetorical question: "In all of my conversations with Greens and/or in all of the Greens' posts here at DU, can I recall a Green offering to move "right" on any specific issue, or do I recall mostly bitching, whining, and demanding that Dems move their way?"

Didn't have to think too long on that one, didn't you?

Now try a little Green Math. Solve the following equation:

V is the number of votes the Dems will pick up by doing what the Greens demand which (as you'll recall from answering the question aboveis is to adopt major elements of their platform such as nationalizing the Fortune 500, a 100 percent top tax bracket, etc.

V=----. Now don't forget we start at 2.7 percent. Does V come out as a poitive number for you? Really?

Because we dems are a bunch of sweethearts, we should go to Ralph the day he declares and say, "Oh most powerful Ralph, what can we do to spare the smite of thy microrod?" "Make me God," Ralph will say.

Being unable to make Ralph God, we will have to run against the Greens (who want us to lose). The best thing for Dems to do is to spend our time regisering dems, working our asses off for dems, etc. instead of wasting our time chasing the negative V.

Then, Ralph's "death struggle" decided, when our person is President of the United States (dispite the Greens wanting us to lose), the Greens or their surrogates will come to him or her and say, we really think you should name so and so to your cabinet. To which him or her should say, "Why don't you go ask Ralph Nader to put so and so on his cabinet?"

Of course, we'll still have to read Greens bitch, whine, and demand around here for for more years. But we can do it with a big ol' smile.

[sangh0]

104. The Greens spit on the olive branch

and if you don't believe that, then name ONE ISSUE where the Greens are willing to compromise and move to the center?

[Generic Other]

50. I heard Michael Moore say he was voting for a Democrat in 2004

He may not be the only Green to feel this way. Do you want to drive these individuals out? Have you ever heard of a concept called a coalition? Consensus? Why not find common ground instead of pushing people off a cliff?

[jiacinto]

54. Moore isn't a Green

Per Stupid White Men he says that he isn't a Green on pg 254 (or was it 245)

[Andy_Stephenson]

58. You have way too much time...

on your hands!

[jiacinto]

53. I take Nader at his words

Look, I am willing to work the Greens somewhat. But from what I've seen here at DU they want to dictate the entire terms of the Dem Party or make demands and give nothing back. That seems pretty onesided.

[Andy_Stephenson]

62. No Carlos...they want what we all want

Our Country back. Now do we remain divided...or do we find common ground and kick some bush?

[jiacinto]

67. Maybe if the Greens hadn't started the threats three years ago

we wouldn't be in this position. They openly wanted Gore to lose. And frankly I won't get on my knees and kiss their asses begging for them to change their mind.

[Andy_Stephenson]

72. Then get ready for 4 more years of *

We need the Greens Carlos...wether or not you accept that.

[jiacinto]

74. But it creates a probblem

Even with Nader's 2.74% Gore was able to outpoll Bush. I agree that we should reach the Greens, but not if it comes at the expense of those voters in the center we need who aren't supportive of the extremist policies they bring forth.

[Andy_Stephenson]

76. The Greens aren't as extremist as you think..

and don't you think they deserve representation too?

[sangh0]

105. The Greens are even more extremist than you think

Name one issue the Greens are willing to compromise on?

[salin]

109. Party vs individual voters

I think you are talking across each other. One reading the promotion of a "coalition" with a party. The other talking about individual green or green sympathetic voters.

[sangh0]

111. Yep, we are talking across each other

because IMO, it's useless to distinguish between party and members when it's those very same members who not only continue to support the party despite the harm it's done, but also insist that there was no harm done at all.

Read through the thread, salin. There's plenty of bitching about how it's the Dems fault. "They are just like the Repukes", they say.

Where have I heard that before?

[salin]

115. friend

I also require people questioning dem strategy before 02 related to the war getting slapped down as being "naive"... and "antidem"... BECAUSE the DEMS had a Brilliant Strategy they would stop the nonsense... and besides bush wasn't going to take us to war.

In fact I remember repeated arguments to that point. But you know what? Those being critical... were correct. There was no plan.

Now you can go through the same song and dance about the successes (which were minimal - and which could have been much more effective without three prominent dem defections playing a Rove orchestrated event at the Rose Garden - which ended all negotations to put strings on that resolution.)

Point is - find who can be engaged and who can't. Individuals. here and elsewhere. There are plenty of greens on this board working with /for dems. Plenty of them.

Combative tone to strike at allies (and the top example was all within the party - all DEMS - getting beat up by other DEMS for voicing real questions about strategy) and potential allies in a kneejerk way - gets us nowhere except disenfranchising the first group (if we continue attacking them, which some in leadership of the party continue to do), and to cut off potential allies - seems like a similarly poor strategy.

I was right the first time around. The strategy sucked. We lost elections AND we went to war. And we are in the process of seeing a realingment of world powers.

I think that a little adjustment of strategy is needed here as well. I could be wrong - or - I could be right. Again.

[sangh0]

119. I really don't understand the point of this post

Aside from the "find who can be engaged and who can't" I don't see what the rest of this post has to do with this issue. I also think you are misportraying past debates.

[salin]

121. replaying what folks were told

a year ago by the "standard wisdom" - and that it was dismissive in the same way that your tone is here. The reminiscent attitude brought it about - although except in my head I am sure it does appear to be left field (i appologize).

Some of what is spouted as 'conventional wisdom' these days - is really poor strategy. I would suggest that your combative for combative sake - without seeking the grain of where it works towards common goals (which could have been found with a different tone) - falls into this category.

There is a big difference between party and individual. It is a fallacy to state all individuals follow the same trail when we have plenty of contrary evidence within our own on-line community.

It makes more sense to raise the pitfalls (re party posturing/fear of capitulation, etc.) and work through that and keep asking - where in here is a strategy that we as individuals, we as members of local parties (city/county level) can use - and does it get us closer to where we need to go (grow voters commited to getting the GOP out).

It is called constructive vs combative engagement.

[sangh0]

126. OK. Now I see

However, I do not see any advantage to pandering to those who are unwilling to compromise. You seem to be under the misimpression that I think all Greens are unwilling to compomise. That is untrue.

I live in NY, a state that was certain to go for Gore in 2000, so many voted Green. I know some of them. I have spoken to them about the Green Party in the same manner that I speak of Greens here. None of them are going to vote Green in 2004. Why?

Because they now realize that the Greens will not compromise for the good of the nation. Believe it or not, many people are persuaded when the consequences of their votes is made clear to them. And unlike the party itself, many Green individuals are willing to compromise.

[Mairead]

133. We're eager to help a Dem be nominated and elected: Dennis Kucinich

Now, are you willing to do that?

[oustemnow]

56. that's really pathetic of you

to go out of your way to inflame a thread that is calling for cool-headedness and unity.

Way to shit in GBnC's punchbowl. And I was looking forward to enjoying a taste of what he was serving.

[jiacinto]

60. Frankly it's out of frustration

And I am only human.

[Andy_Stephenson]

65. Carlos...I understand your frustration!

We are all frustrated...but if we do not find common ground then we all loose. You know that is true.

[jiacinto]

70. I know

But the Greens have made it clear that they will only support the candidates (Braun, Kuchinich, Sharpton) who have no chance of winning. And the only one is Dean. After that they don't seem to want to budge. So I really don't know what to do.

[Andy_Stephenson]

75. Carlos...

We need to raise the Greens Issues! Whoever the candidate is they must make overtures to the Greens. Like I said I agree with the greens on many issues as I am sure you do. I read your posts...some are quite enlightened and I agree with you often. But sometimes you can be a real intrangitent, bullheaded, butthead. But I still respect you evne when we disagree. You must give up some of you prejudice as well. and perhaps move a bit more to the left. I promise it won't hurt.

[jiacinto]

77. Some of the Green issues

like the environment and health care would be winners. But some of the other ones--specifically on crime and the I/P conflict--wouldn't.

[Andy_Stephenson]

83. Well there you go...

two issues you can agree on...it is a basis for constructive discussion. Start there.

[jiacinto]

86. Okay

I think the environment is one area where we could make the most headway as most everyone hates the damage Bush has done. And we all know that the damage from the Bush administration may take years, if not decades, to repair itself.

[Andy_Stephenson]

87. A basis to talk...

the best way to communicate carlos is to talk about the things you have in common and not those that divide.

[sangh0]

106. Then talk about the "common" things

like how the Greens are going to help defeat Bush* in 2004, without making their assistance contingent on Dems subnitting tot heir demands.

[salin]

108. oh combativeness is SO much fun

you do know there are a whole lot of self-declared greens on this board who have pledged to work with dems.

you do know that when a green candidate continued on against Wellstone - most of the party in the state - and the national party abandoned that candidate. Indeed the morning before his death a joint press release was given from Wellstone and Nader - announcing joint efforts and values. They were working together.

In some cases common ground can be found - and working on policy issues of common agreement (not bending issues or pandering) will go a lot further to secure support for progressive dem candidates at all levels - than playing the petulant card.

I am talking about individual voters - which is where I believe - in the end - we HAVE to strike from nonvoters to swing voters to dem voters, to dissillusioned dem voters, to onetime green voters - in order to combat the all oppressive rightwing media and fundraising machine.

Combatting an effort to allow for dialogue on AGREED UPON issues (that is NOT pandering) - is just petty.

Methinks you are being contrarian for contrarians sake at the moment.

Score 0 for our side.

[sangh0]

110. I know all that

but I also know that the Green Party, as opposed to the individual voters you speak of, has not "pledged to work with dems"

Methinks you seek to dismiss dissenting opinions as "being contrarian for contrarians sake"

Score 0 for our side.

[salin]

112. Score 0 means

absolutely NO progress with any voters. No improved chances.

Yep - I am opposed to contrary combative posts that lead NO WHERE.

I think that constructive posts that lead to dialogue - even in their dissent are VALUABLE and lead somewhere.

So raise your issue in a less combative stance... and do so with the - how do we do x if we think that y will stab us in the back?

Or raise the difference between strategy of addressing individual potential voters vs coalition building of parties (which I agree on a national level is NOT possible, however I don't agree that on a race by race basis where on party may not have a candidate running, that it is impossible).

[sangh0]

116. Yes, I know

and the dismissal of other opinions is an attitude that will result in NO progress with any voters. It's also an attitude that the Green Party has seemed to adopted.

Yes, I am combative when it comes to the Greens, but that is only because the Greens have proven, time and time again, that they have no intention of compromising. Even in this thread, which calls for some compromising, GBnC has argued that the Dems need the Greens more than the Greens need the Dems.

Way to demonstrate a willingness to compromise, Greens!

[salin]

122. actually

as a dem, I think that is true. At this point the greens do not hold that many offices, I don't think they "need" dems in the same way, because they either have a local base (those that do hold offices) or they don't and aren't going to build a big enough one in the short term to effect change.

On the other hand - we dems - DO need votes, and in some races a handful of votes will change the outcomes.

What I read GBnC to say was not about pandering and changing/compromise as YOU see it; but about finding points of agreement and working on those points as points of engagement.

Locally we are going to have a tough city election. A really unpopular smoking ban just went into effect and the opposition is rallying. Last primary dem turnout was record lows. If we reach into the Greens and esp those on campus - and get them involved we might be able to retain our hold on city government. There are natural points of commonality here on issues of development.

Are you saying that reflexively we shouldn't reach out? They have no candidates running. They are likely to stay home. The repubs are motivated. I think reaching out makes sense - in this case.

[sangh0]

127. One problem

finding points of agreement and working on those points as points of engagement.

Unfortunately, the Green Party has no interest in doing that because compromising with the Dems means the Dems get stronger.

Are you saying that reflexively we shouldn't reach out?

No. I'm saying that any reaching out that you do should be based on demonstrating how their support is their own interests, and not in the interests of the Green Party. IMO, we should not be going after Green voters because they are Green. We should be promoting our issues, and explaining how our positions are in the interests of Greens.

Greens should vote for Dems because it is in their interests to do so, and not because the Dems are going to do anything for the Greens.

And on edit: I don't appreciate the repeated hints that I am being "reflexively" "contrarian for the sake of being contrarian"

[Andy_Stephenson]

129. sangh0

"GBnC has argued that the Dems need the Greens more than the Greens need the Dems."

I didn't quite say that but it is still true. The greens can bring a lot of votes to the table. We must be willing to listen to them...

[sangh0]

131. I respectfully disagree

The Dems don't "NEED" the Greens. The Dems have won elections, including the 2000 Elections, without help or support from the Greens.

And in the hopes that you are sincere about seeking compromise, I'd like you to consider the possibility that telling Dems what they "need" is not the most effective way to demonstrate a willingness to compromise. It has a faint hint of coercion.

[oustemnow]

66. So's GBnC

try treating him as such. We're trying to hold a civilization here.

[Andy_Stephenson]

88. Don't worry

there is always a fresh bowl in the kitchen...;)

[phishhead]

10. I agree wholeheartedly.

I have no problems with debate, but the debate(or lack of)is reaching terrible levels on DU. Yes, I've only been here for a few months, but even in that time it has almost become laughable reading certain threads/posts by people who spew the same close-minded shit everyday.

I guess Unity is really the only option we have as a party, but it appears as if some aren't willing to participate.

But, the only thing we can do is hope, and work for change.

[ErasureAcer]

11. You can't unite around piss poor candidates...

sorry but you can't.

Dennis Kucinich 04

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. I agree...

but isn't the prize worth the price?

[ErasureAcer]

21. the prize of what?

having a man with a "D" next to his name in office. Give me a break. The issues are what counts and fact of the matter is, the front leading dems in the polls have nothing for me to rally behind.

Give me Kucinich.
Give me Sharpton.
Give me Braun.

The rest I don't care for and will not rally behind for a second. I don't care about how evil Bush is...I see the front leading dems as evil as well. I will not support an evil candidate!

Kucinich 04
www.kucinich.us

[Andy_Stephenson]

26. Hey I agree with you

But the leverage you hold is great...use the power you have to compromise. Politics is give and take...Drag the centrists to the left kicking and screaming if need be. The power is skewed to the center no doubt. T

The far left is a powerful voice and must be heard. The centrists need to hear that voice, continue to falter.

[liberalhistorian]

40. "I don't care about how evil Bush is."

Well, folks, that about says it all right there, doesn't it? If you and the rest of the greens think for one minute that the Dem candidates would be as bad and evil as Bush, they you're really even more clueless than I originally thought! If you don't care about how evil Bush is and the fact that he's destroying this country like no other president ever has and ever will and he's totally trashing, with gleeful contempt, every single fucking one of the issues you care about, that we ALL care about, then you are condemning the rest of us to live with the results of your total cluelessness and stubborn obstinacy!

[Andy_Stephenson]

47. But liberal...

ask yourself, why do the greens feel so ostracized? I happen to agree with many of the issues the greens espouse. But if we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, don't we still get evil? Shouldn't we be voting for fairness, justice and liberty? My own hang up's are the Patriot Act, War and Homeland gestapo votes. I will find it very hard to vote for someone that voted for those.

[ErasureAcer]

52. My choice: Mussolini or Hitler? I'll take neither please

These are the 2 candidates you give me and you expect me to choose one? both are evil...this goes with the front leading dems and Bush. If you guys want to support evil candidates and make the world a better place...that's fine with me...don't expect me to follow in line though.

How bout you guys give america a choice in 2004 by nominating Kucinich to be Democratic nominee...he will actually offer a clear distinct choice between good and evil.

Why you or anyone else supports evil candidates I have no idea why...maybe you like the destruction of america and justice.

[Andy_Stephenson]

57. ErasureAcer

use the party machinery to your benefit. It can be made to work again. Grass roots is pretty powerful!

[oustemnow]

61. what a gift for hyperbole

care to enlighten us as to which Dem candidate is on a par with Mussolini? Hell, you're not really scoring any points with the Bush=Hitler thing, either.

Are you suggesting that, if I choose not to defer to you and yield to your choice of Kucinich, for whatever reason, I am somehow a Nazi or fascist?

[Andy_Stephenson]

69. I think Erasureacer was alluding to a statement I made...

Given the choice between Evil and the lesser of two evils evil still wins. But that is not what this thread is about...What is it that will UNITE us not who but what!

[ErasureAcer]

78. Yes, you're supporting an EMPIRE!

The fucking pentagon alone is a joke...400 billion dollars...more than the rest of the world combined on defense(offense)...this is a joke. 40 times more than "rogue" nations of syria, libya, NK, etc...combined. What fucking war are we fighting? There is no war! American spending is out of control...and it has resulted in many conflicts over the years where America has tried to play god, where america has led their own version of the Italy-Germany-Japan alliance of EMPIRE...all by themselves, for example:

the Iraq war, the Israel/Palestinian conflict, the war on terrorism, the war in the philipines, the war in colombia, the war in every damn place can all be tracked back to one fucking place.

AMERICA. And to a lesser extent the UK.

The people of america have single handedly destroyed the world by supporting and buying into this belief we have to control and dictate every damn situation...and by doing this they spend shit loads of money on weapons that really aren't needed because WE AREN'T FUCKING GOD!

I will not support a candidate who doesn't insist on cutting pentagon spending with a double digit percentage. Anything less...is just evil...the EMPIRE must END!

[Andy_Stephenson]

85. I agree with this! 100%

"The EMPIRE must END!"

[dudeness]

89. to an outsider it does seem rather strange

that a country such as the US needs to spent such enormous amounts of public money money on arms..is this to ensure security ?..that is debatable..but to draw a comparision ..i look to a country like New Zealand , a country whom you would say supports western values etc..they do not have an airforce..why? because they are not scared the rest of world is out to get them..I live in australia about 400 miles from NZ and people here are shit scared ..we are freaking out we do not spend enough on defence ..those baddies are coming to get us and take away our freedoms..seems like a well orchestrated propaganda campaign to me..so NZ must be too small for multinationals to care about and guess what ? they are not scared ..

[Andy_Stephenson]

91. Very insightful.

I personally think if we left others alone and minded our own business we would not need the bloated "Congressional Industrial Military Complex"

[dudeness]

94. GBnC

that is going to take a huge cultural shift in your country and does not seem achievable in the near future..most politicians from both sides understand the power of fear and also the power of the M/I complex..a candidate whom proposed cuts in defence in this present climate would suffer a rapid political death..this is a long term fight..one for our children to carry on..but the worldwide basis is in place..we need to keep up the energy..

[Andy_Stephenson]

96. It's a sad state of affairs

we find ourselves in. I agree with the greens on many many issues...I just believe in different methods of achieving victory. I am not blameless. I have been wrong on more than one occasion. I truly wish we could find a common issue that would unite us all to a goal.

[ErasureAcer]

97. the future is now

the decisions we make today will affect the world for years to come.

as a foreigner you can't support Kucinich in any way...but damn it...all you stupid ass americans out there...

support the man!

Dennis Kucinich '04
www.kucinich.us

[Andy_Stephenson]

99. You Will never win anyone over like that...

While I support Dennis...your approach is just a wee bit heavy handed.

[ErasureAcer]

95. Thank you...

for your perspective.

America needs to leave the rest of the world alone and stop playing god/dictator.

[Blue_Chill]

15. I hear you about uniting but

Greens are not Dems. In 2000 no one did shit about them and they bit us in the ass. There are real questions as to how we should handle that whole situation. If they decide to oppose dems why should they not be attacked? I don't think letting them kick us and not responding AGAIN is the best course of action. Winning is everything this time.

Also I see so many preaching unity but so few that have problems when assholes attack southerners, the religious, moderates, etc etc. These people are tolerated by most and they certainly don't promote unity.

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. And that is what this whole post is about unity....

what is the one thing we can ALL...Greens Dems all unite around?

[Blue_Chill]

19. The person who wins the democratic nomination

The people vote the people choose. If every group decided to pull out support for a candidate that didn't support exactly their position the RW would always win.

If we don't support the person the left collectively chooses then we loose, it's that simple.

As for the bigots they shouldn't be tolerated at all.

[VermontDem2004]

16. I am having fun

it's primary season and of course tension increases and personal attacks are common. But I don't agree with the Anti-South threads, is Gringo a Southern-bigot etc.

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. But being fractured and divided...

especially this year is not good! We need to show a united front!

[VermontDem2004]

24. How are we divided?

we are not the republican party, we are a party that looks at the issues and votes based on them. I think it is diversity of opinion, not diversion. Trust me on this one, once we get a candidate nominated they will back him/her to get Bush out of the Democrats House in '04

[Andy_Stephenson]

28. But see there is where you are wrong...

I cannot vote for someone that voted for war. It is totally against my ethics and morals. How do I vote for Kerry? Do I sell out my values?

[Blue_Chill]

37. So then it's Bush.

Because there is no option 3. It's the democratic guy we all get to choose together or Bush.

It's simple.

[Andy_Stephenson]

43. Is it?

Is it really that simple? How would it be possible for the greens to garner clout in the convention? That is a way to give them a voice. I think if Greens were given more of a voice in shaping the platform, perhaps we could win them back.

[Blue_Chill]

46. I agree but the white house isn't the way to get it

I may support a green for lower level political positions where they have a chance to win. But it's not time for greens to aim at the white house, they do't stand a chance and they cause more harm then good.

I know that most of them don't mean any harm, but let's face it another 4 years of this is not good.

[Andy_Stephenson]

51. Then find common ground

and help ger their position and voice heard within the party. I can see where the Greens are coming from. They have lost representation!

[Blue_Chill]

55. What do they want that isn't

blindly screaming about evil America. Give me something that I can sell to moderate (majority) America.

I am more then willing to help as I am a crazied enviromentalist and have radical ideas concerning a justice system (like inserting justice!).

[Andy_Stephenson]

59. Well first...honey catches more flies than vinegar...

It is all about dialog and hammering out a platform everyone feels comfortable standing on.

[Blue_Chill]

63. I'm all for that

You should start a thread with green points that may be able to mix with mainstream democrats. That would be a good way to start.

[jiacinto]

73. But the Greens have shown more vinegar than honey

nt

[Andy_Stephenson]

79. Carlos

You both have pissed in each others beer.

[jiacinto]

81. You have to understand

Swinging a presidential election to Bush, or at the very least contributing that outcome, is more like throwing up on one's brand new Ottoman Rug just bought from Turkey.

[ErasureAcer]

92. America is still a fucking EMPIRE if some serious changes aren't made...

MANY of the democrats simply refuse to change...they like the idea of EMPIRE.

I won't support American EMPIRE on the world.

I won't stand for it
I won't stand for it
I won't stand for it!!!!

If you like America dictating the world...vote for one of the current Dem front runners. If you want change where America is one voice out of many, I suggest you vote for Dennis Kucinich.

You wonder why people fly planes into buildings killing 3,000 people? I blame it on American Empire dictating the world.

[Andy_Stephenson]

93. Ottoman rug? Bought from Turkey?

Some times I wonder about you...:hi:

[jiacinto]

64. They aren't in the party

Why should they be allowed into the platform drafting committee if they aren't Democrats? Would Greens allow Democrats into their platform committee session? If they want their say they should rejoin the party.

[Blue_Chill]

68. Before someone jumps on Carlos

he makes a good point. Why would we let folks from other parties mold our platformwhen all signs say they will still jump ship and vote for Nader or some other green?

[Andy_Stephenson]

80. Then help bring em back...

I'm telling you! We are going to need thim in 04...you know I am right.

[jiacinto]

82. Well

If they want to have a say in the platform development they should rejoin the party and get involved.

[Cheswick2.0]

117. first they have to work with in the party and compromise

like the rest of us. Then they would be democrats wouldn't they?

[mandyky]

20. I think we need to bring back the temporary rules for DU

plus add a few for good measure, like all candidate talk goes to politics and campaigns, unless it is breaking news, a watch list of suspected disruptors (for mods), more mods or mod helpers.

Also, a good idea might be for a candidate thread which is like a clearinghouse for articles, so that we don't have 10 Dean threads, 20 Clark threads, 8 Kucinich threads, etc.

[Andy_Stephenson]

23. That would be a great start.

On both points. I was not so abject to the rules...they made me think about what I had read a bit more...Now for TV radio shows etc...no minimum on those.

[NewJerseyDem]

41. I agree

Some of this stuff between Clark and Dean tonight is really getting out of hand.

Did the temporary rules work? I was on vacation during that period.

[Yentatelaventa]

22. Unite behind whom?

Have anyone in mind?

[Andy_Stephenson]

29. I didn't say whom...

I said what can we unite behind?

Health care...bring the troops home? What one issue will bring us together as a powerful force to be reckoned with?

[devarsi]

90. I Know An AWESOME Issue That Will Unite Us ALL!

KICK GW BUSH OUT OF OUR WHITEHOUSE.

I know every Dem can get behind that issue. Will the Green Party join the Dems for this single issue?

The 2000 election tells us NO, but I hope that the last few years have changed some minds.

[dudeness]

30. the Democrats are their own worst enemies..

why go through a divisive candidate process?..publicily humiliating each other ..putting out different messages to potential voters..your party should establish a set of guiding principles and if you wish to be a candidate for that party you understand the founding principles for the party and the needs of those you wish to represent.
You have a parliamentary party in place (elected by the people) let them decide who is best to lead your party ..and provide real alternate policies to the incumbents..attack the opposition republicans not each other..

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. Perfect...

"your party should establish a set of guiding principles and if you wish to be a candidate for that party you understand the founding principles for the party and the needs of those you wish to represent."


I fear for too long now the Democratic party has moved right and left many behind. The base has not changed but the party has. No wonder 50% of all registerd voters don't vote.

[dudeness]

36. this is not only restricted to the democrats

here in australia..the australian labor party and no doubt the british labour party are undergoing reflective reformations..as the rank and file try to gain a foot hold in the democratic process of nomination of party candidates..however, this cannot be achieved unless we are united in a common goal..i agree with your statements that political parties of the left have lost the way ..it is only members of the party who can bring it back on line...good luck..

[ewagner]

31. Amen..and take the pledge

I have alluded to "the pledge" in earlier posts. It is similar to the Republicans 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of thine fellow Republican".

I try very hard not to criticize other candidates (although there is one who consistantly drives me to fall off the wagon so-to-speak) and I also try (somewhat more successfully) not to insert my candidate's positions into a discussion of a particular issue. I try to do this out of respect for my fellow DUers . That's part two of the pledge.

and finally, part three: Whoever, by whatever means, finally gets the nomination, I will support.

In the context of that pledge, support your candidate as you wish but alway remember it is Bush we are trying to defeat, not our fellow DUers.

[Andy_Stephenson]

33. Thank you for you addition...

this is an amazing idea!

"In the context of that pledge, support your candidate as you wish but alway remember it is Bush we are trying to defeat, not our fellow DUers."

That and injustice in the "system".

[mandyky]

39. The inmates are in charge

of the assylum tonight!
Good night Gbnc, and other reasonable DUers!

[VermontDem2004]

45. My favorite part of rules

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

[Andy_Stephenson]

49. But still we need to present a united front!

otherwise the republicans will use or division as a weapon against us. Just look in this thread for examples.

[w4rma]

71. It is my understanding that jiacinto *is* a Dean supporter (n/t)

[Iverson]

100. You are right, GBnC.

In fact, for the very reasons you cited, I think I need to take a couple of days off from DU. The lowbrow rhetoric has gotten worse than usual, and I've even had my professional credentials insulted on the basis of party affiliation lately.

I find that mentality grossly inappropriate to a site that supposedly welcomes a spectrum of progressive viewpoints. If Greens who post here do so only as objects for centrist hostility, then there had ought to be a warning on the login page.

If DU were to become a pale imitation of the McLaughlin Group or ndol.org, that would be a shame. Therefore, I hope that the community takes your caution to heart.

Peace, and see you in a bit.

[Cheswick2.0]

114. how about liberal hostility?

Do you really imagine that only centrists have a problem with the green party's actions?

[NashVegas]

103. No, Not Really

IMO, Democratic Underground has officially become a victim of its own success.

DU is but one segment of the liberal online population. There are others out there who don't get as much publicity, where things are relatively carefree.

[gully]

107. This was helpful to me...

Skinner replied to my questions about shared goals...

"The important clause is "who will work with us". I am of the opinion that if you are committed to defeating Democrats at the ballot box, then you are not really showing much interest in "working with us".

"SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION"

Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

For more information, please read "DU and the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary".

And this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/primary.html

"In the general election, Democratic Underground will strongly support whoever wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
We consider every single Democratic candidate to be highly qualified and fit to serve as president of the United States. Furthermore, we consider every single Democratic candidate to be a vast improvement over the current White House resident. The Democratic nominee will have our support. Please see our message board rules for more information."

[nolabels]

120. This would be predicated on them having a valid ballot box election

Wouldn't it? With so much evidence of vote tampering, stories from other countries of election fraud (many times initiated by the US government) how could one really be sure how that bread was sliced?
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/index.php

If you extrapolate that with the ownership of who owns the media
http://www.cjr.org/owners/

and what it means to the cleptocrats and corporate oilygarky and profiteers in their toolbox they use to achieve their goals, how can you really be sure there was a real choice in the first place. Not that I am disagreeing with the admins position, it's just the multitude and the complexity of real choice must always be considered

[Cheswick2.0]

113. The Green party is the opposition party

when a party runs candidates against your candidates they are the opposition. Why don't you see the foot stamping political/breath holding blackmail in the green party's actions?

Was it really nessesary to start this whole thread to complain once again about the poor misunderstood and put upon Green party?

[gully]

118. Darn right they are...

I'm not personally any more interested in courting Greens then I am courting Republican personally.

They need to inform themselves, or they are as misguided/closed-minded as the Republicans in my mind.

[salin]

125. Then again

when a party is running no local candidates, and there is a contentious election where the repubs are motivated while the dems had a record LOW turnout in the last election and the last primary...

and where some of the contentious issues are development/environment

where some greens exist

Reaching out on the common issues around development - if it motivates a couple hundred votes that would likely keep city government democratically controlled - then is it really a mistake to reach out?

[Andy_Stephenson]

134. cheswick, I never intended this thread to be about greens.

It is about unity and resolve.

[molly]

123. Good, then we can count on your vote when Kerry is the nominee

right?

[Andy_Stephenson]

135. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.

the primary season is not over and he ain't the nominee yet...We'll discuss it later.

[JackDragna]

128. This is an internet message board.

If you think you're going to get unity on an internet message board, then, no offense intended, you're a loonball. People here are nasty because there are no consequences. Insult someone to their face, maybe they punch you in the snoot. Insult someone here and all they can do is assault you with text.

We can be plenty unified in our political purposes and still complain like nagging old ladies here. It's the nature of the beast. Relax. Have a Yoo-hoo.

[nomatrix]

130. Passion's a good word...

"The nature of the human mind can not be sufficiently understood, without considering the affections and passions, or those modifications or actions of the mind consequent upon the apprehension of certain objects or events in which the mind generally conceives good or evil." --Hutcheson.

"When any feeling or emotion completely masters the mind, we call it a passion; as, a passion for music, dress, etc.; especially is anger (when thus extreme) called passion. The mind, in such cases, is considered as having lost its self-control, and become the passive instrument of the feeling in question."

From Hyperdictionary.com
passion

Sometimes it takes baiting to get people motivated, excited, angered, activated. You will not get people on the frontlines without a passion to change things.

(It was Bartcop's article (slam) on Bev BBV that got me posting here. I suspect everyone in here has a story)

one more....
And I'm not sorry, it's human nature. Madonna

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. Humans Can't Repeal The Laws Of Math

The laws of math and science are immutable.

We have a winner take all system at the congressional and presidential level. By splitting the left of center vote the Greens can not but help the Republicans.

If we had a parliamentary system with proportional reprsentation it would be different....

The rest is commentary.....