Questions for the Nader-obsessed...

[ulysses]

1. Do the Democrats need the leftist votes that might ever (not just in 2004) go third-party given an ever-more-centrist-leaning Democratic Party?

IF YOU ANSWERED "NO"

2. Do you complain about another Green Party presidential candidacy, and if so, why? If you don't need the votes, why stroke out if they go away?

IF YOU ANSWERED "YES"

2. What's your plan for making sure they stay Democratic, even after the "necessity vote" many will make in 2004? (This question assumes that the "the beatings will continue until morale improves" tactic of the last 2.5 years will not suddenly become more persuasive than it has to date...)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Democrats need all the votes they can get

And leftists need to realize that a slice of pie is better than NO PIE at all given how stacked the electorate is otherwise.

I think that those of us who do care about labor and the environment need to continue to pressure outcomes locally as much as possible in order to clean up our parties.

[ulysses]

3. heh! Hey, Teena.

:)

...given how stacked the electorate is otherwise

I wonder if those in the upper reaches of power know (or care very much) that an ongoing effort to fight back and *unstack* the electorate would do worlds of good to bridge the chasm...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I don't think they do...I DO think that it would be wiser to aid defection

from the Republican party first, given their national advantage.

[ulysses]

6. perhaps so, but is it wiser to do that

by wrenching the whole party centerward - from which position it no longer has any leverage to truly even out or stop the worst of the GOP agenda - or by going to war with the Repukes and actually *convincing* people for once that the GOP is not on their side?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. No..you know I am NOT in the camp of those who want to split the radical

middle vote. I think they are responible for an ever shrinking electorate. I just don't think the change we want happens quickly. I think it takes time to re-educate brainwashed people. I think that playing a bit more center-left is smart because it can appeal to both and then legislatively moving more leftward makes the best sense only in the sense that radical changes to public policy are destabilizing...as we can see with the radical right's agenda.
BTW, this is not a new position for me..I have always been an advocate of slow cumbersome government.

[ulysses]

31. "I just don't think the change we want happens quickly." Agreed.

No one is asking that we build Rome in a day, just that we do a little more than politely ask the barbarians to sack a little more slowly.

He said, stretching the metaphor a little far...

My point here was more about getting people to confront the "fuck them, they don't matter/the cost Gore the 2000 election" paradox we see here so often regarding Greens and other Nader voters, not so much about justifying a third-party vote.

[sangh0]

58. What paradox?

It's really very simple. Some people think Nader screwed Gore, while others disagree and thing Nader and the Greens "don't matter".

There's no paradox; It's just people disagreeing.

[Terwilliger]

9. some "centrists" need to realize that...

If you compromise just to get a small slice of the pie, THATS ALL YOULL EVER GET! THEY WONT GIVE YOU ANYTHING ELSE! Why is THAT hard to understand?

Labor and the environment will NEVER be served by corporate intests, because with all the money concentrated at the top, "businessmen" don't have to care about labor and the environment. The Democrats will only help to perpetuate that...they won't fight to stop it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Some leftists need to understand that the entire pie is unattainable

and that if they did attain it, they would do ne better than the far right with it.

I like checks and balances for everyone.

[Gman]

2. What is so hard to understand about the need to beat Bush?

1) Yes they do. And there is nothing wrong with a centrist leaning Democratic Party. You say that as if that's a bad thing. I don't know of any proposition from Nader or the Greens that would even come close to creating the 25 million+ jobs that Clinton and the Democrats did in the 90's. On the other hand, Nader and the Greens would likely lose many million more jobs than the 3 million that Bush has lost.

2) Yes I do because the only way we'll keep Bush from being (re)elected is to be united. What is so hard to understand about the extremely dire need to beat Bush?

3) I don't know what you mean by "making sure they stay Democratic". The Democratic Party I know is for creating jobs, providing health care, protecting Social Security and many other issues important to working people. I have heard absolutely nothing from any third party that even addresses these issues. All I've ever heard is whining and complaing.

[ulysses]

5. I understand the need to beat Bush.

But after he's gone, the problems that resulted in the Green campaigns in 1996 and 2000 campaigns will remain unless they're addressed.

And there is nothing wrong with a centrist leaning Democratic Party. You say that as if that's a bad thing.

In a world where the counterbalance is a very rightward-leaning Republican Party, yes, it is a bad thing.

[Clete]

7. I think we Demcrats need to break away from those

Dinos and redefine what the Democratic Party stands for.

[Gman]

11. Just curious...

"In a world where the counterbalance is a very rightward-leaning Republican Party, yes, it is a bad thing."

Why do you think this. IMHO, a push back to the center or even something somewhat left of center is what's needed for the left to regain and then keep control. Pushing people as far to the left (if that's what you're proposing) as the GOP has taken the country to the right will only force another counter push back toward the right and probably just as hard.

America is comfortable with the center. It always has been and always will be.

[ulysses]

28. pretty much common sense if you ask me

Government is about compromise, at least if you're not a neocon. Think of a number line - if I start at -3 and my opponent starts at +10, and we then achieve a 50/50 compromise in governance, on whose side of center zero do we wind up?

Pushing people as far to the left (if that's what you're proposing) as the GOP has taken the country to the right will only force another counter push back toward the right and probably just as hard.

And not pushing back to the left means that we stay roughly where we are. That's unacceptable.

[library_max]

42. But you're assuming

that you can just have whatever you want because you want it so much. You can fly out as far on the left as you like, but you won't take the electorate with you. They'll stay where they are. Only the party in power has a chance to move the electorate to the right or left, and right now that party ain't us.

[ulysses]

48. no.

I'm "assuming" that people - no matter how stupid they can seem at times - actually have brains and aren't born conservatives. I believe that the electorate *can*, in fact, be changed. I've seen the GOP do it most of my life.

[Rich Hunt]

8. "creating jobs"

Not the "creating jobs" statistic again. That's not the same thing as improving the real wages.

If you've "heard nothing" from third parties, you simply haven't been listening. Throughout our history, third parties have been the initiators of policies that were later adopted by the Dems.

[Gman]

14. I do know that during the 90's, around here

whereas the minimum wage was around $5.50 an hour, the demand for bodies to work was creating wages of from $7.50 - $9.00 an hour. Such was the job boom that Clinton created.

And BTW, those wages were getting closer to a living wage, and blows any arguments against the minimum wage out of the water.

[Ardee]

50. Defeating Bush is not about any one person

It is about defeating what Bush stands for, defeating those who he fronts for, defeating the ideologies he represents....we cannot succeed by merely replacing the man, we need to replace all the rest of it!

The Democrats think that they can win by being only a little bit less than Bush-like, they think that to oppose they will alienate those who control the cash flow, they have already lost.......at least they have lost their way.

[library_max]

13. Leftist voters need to get a brain

We can't give them one, and we can't force one into their heads. You can't win in politics by insisting on your agenda without compromise. It is not possible to win in politics without wooing the middle. It has never been done successfully in a presidential election - that is a matter of fact. The only way to get what you want is to get your party into power and keep it in power. When your party has control of the White House, both houses of Congress and the judiciary, then you can start calling in your chits.

The right wing has figured this out, and now they're getting their agenda. Not all of it, of course - you don't get all of your agenda if you can legitimately be called a "wing" - but more than they'd have got if they'd have stamped their feet and demanded that Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dole had to be a lot more conservative before they'd support them or vote for them.

When is the no-compromise left going to get as smart as the right? And yes, I know that's a harsh thing to say, but it happens to be both true and self-evident.

[StandWatie]

15. the middle doesn't exist

Americans in general make absolutely no sense for the most part in what they oppose, what they support, and whether the person they are voting for gives a damn about those things.

Best candidate the left could ever offer would be an empty-headed, charasmatic movie star backed by a cabal of cutthroat hard-left economists and policy advisors. Something like a left-wing Reagan.

[library_max]

17. Someone like Clinton?

[StandWatie]

20. no, the opposite of Clinton

Yeah, he had charisma, but instead of having a crew of cutthroat leftists, he had a gang of cutthroat politician/fundraisers who lacked any sort of coherent ideology other than doing what the friendly business sectors liked and playing at being "centrist" and "third-way".

[library_max]

32. Oh, then you mean someone like Nader

Someone who can wrap up 3% of the national popular vote and 0% of the electoral vote.

[Rich Hunt]

19. polls show

Actually, the polls show that a majority of Americans take "progressive" stances on many issues - education, health care, the environment.

[StandWatie]

21. yeah, and then they turn around and vote the other way

That's why I'm saying that it's not issues killing democrats or forcing them to the "middle", it's campaign financing that forces them to take the stances they do.

[library_max]

23. Say, for the sake of argument, that that's true.

So what? In our present system, money does more than talk - money decides. Trying to win a national election without money is like making bricks without straw. The age of miracles is past. Or, to quote Rocky the Flying Squirrel, "But that trick never works!"

[StandWatie]

52. it doesn't have to be like that

I don't believe that for a heartbeat and if I did I would not only quit voting, I'd spit at everyone who bothered at all. If that's what you believe and you aren't doing everything you can to clean up politics I'd have to wonder why unless you were getting some piece of the action.

[library_max]

54. You don't have enough spit, my friend

And I am doing what I can to clean up politics. What I can do (what we can do) to clean up politics is to get the people who feel the way we feel into office, even if it means dirtying our hands with corporate money to do it. Spitting gets us nowhere.

[MadHound]

16. Tell you what, this 30+ year Dem wil go back to the Dems if. . .

They guarantee me they will not take any corporate money. The damage that corporate money has done to this country is enourmous and getting larger, thanks to measures that Clinton took. I feel that this is THE most important issue of our times, and if Dems are too addicted to that corporate dollar, well my vote goes elsewhere.

Anything else I'm more than willing to compromise on, always have been. But not until the Dems turn off the corporate money spigot.

[library_max]

18. Your one vote

will not be enough to help the guy who, unarmed, goes up against a guy in body armor with a chainsaw. If you don't like the rules (and I suspect you don't - I sure as hell don't) you have to be in a position to change the rules. That means you have to win. You don't get to make ANYTHING better unless you win.

[MadHound]

27. You have a limited view into how politics work

Not only are the Greens building a party without corporate money, but there are now four states that have public campaign financing(AZ, VT, NC, Maine), with more and more people becoming aware of this issue and working to make it happen. I suppose you have heard of Granny D? She's just one working hard to get corporations out of government.

You say I am just one vote. You're correct, but that kind of "smart" thinking is what has lost the Dems aprox. ten million loyal voters over the past ten years. Can you really afford that kind of bloodletting? I don't think so, but apparently you, the DNC, the DLC and the current crop of candidates think otherwise. Tell me how well this thinking works when the Dems lose next fall.

Yes, ours is a small movement, but all movements start out small. Keep an attitude like yours and soon the Green party will make the Dems irrelevant.

[library_max]

30. What national elections have you won?

You don't understand how politics works. You understand how political wreckage and political suicide work, and your Greens are doing a bang-up job of both.

Clinton won, twice, doing all the things you decry. Gore also won. A Green has never won any national election. They did cost us our victory by making the margin stealably close in Florida. That's what Greens are good at - spoiling and handing elections to Republicans.

So I guess the question is, is that what you WANT to accomplish? If it is, my apologies - you're a political genius. But if you want to further the progressive/liberal agenda in this country, I return to my original point of getting a brain.

[Rich Hunt]

22. the right

...the right didn't come into power by "wooing the middle".

First of all, they didn't win the majority in 2000.

Secondly, the right mobilizes its own people and gets them to come to the polls. They don't "woo" - they mobilize.

Meanwhile, no one wants to mobilize those who are disenchanted with the whole process and don't vote at all.

[library_max]

29. Wrong

First, Bush didn't win but he DID woo the middle. What do you think all that "compassionate conservatism" garbage was about?

Second, they do both. We need to do likewise.

People who are disenchanted with the whole process and don't vote at all need to understand that they are part of the problem. They're going to have to either accept that when we tell them or figure it out on their own. We can't give them everything their little hearts desire on a silver platter, because you can't give anybody anything unless and until you WIN!

[Brian Sweat]

24. Democrats do not need green voters.

I see no reason why the Green party should not run a candidate for president.

Nader did not cost Gore the election.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. I was going to answer this thread

and then I realized I couldn't, I'm not Nader obsessed.

[Cocoa]

26. dems have to respect Kucinich and Sharpton

no trying to bar them or prevent them from a fair shot at the nomination. No keeping them out of debates or silencing them in any way.

Because they are representing people that are the Democratic party's base. Let them represent!

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I think it's the sacrifice we make...

For not appealing to groups that we don't support. I have a hard time believing that all Republicans support fundi Christains out of belief only. I think they do that so that they won't go to a third party.

[ulysses]

34. it's pretty simple from there

For all the ranting from some quarters about how leftists need to get a brain, electoral politics is a quid pro quo - if you want people to vote for you then you address at least some of their issues instead of haranguing them about how they should know better than to not vote for you. That's stupid. (Not saying that that's your position at all, Hippo...)

[Cocoa]

35. how do Greens feel about Kucinich and Sharpton?

are they happy with the way the Dems are treating them in the primaries?

[Brian Sweat]

36. Who cares?

That's like asking if the Republicans are happy with the way we are treating Lieberman.

[ulysses]

40. no idea

since I'm not a Green. You might ask Iverson, although I don't know that he would, or could, speak for Greens as a whole either.

Personally? I like both of them a great deal and very much appreciate the issues they're bringing to the table. DK is all but my co-favorite. As for the primaries - well hell, they're the primaries. Take your lumps.

[Cocoa]

well, it could be said...

that the dems are reaching out to the Nader voters by not getting in the way of those two having their say on an equal footing with the rest.

Conversely, if the dems badmouthed them or excluded them from the debates or treated them as inferiors, then the Naderites might have a legitimate beef.

Kucinich was just brought up favorably on Buchanan and Press in the same light as Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe didn't make rude noises.

[ulysses]

45. ok...

Conversely, if the dems badmouthed them or excluded them from the debates or treated them as inferiors

You mean as happened in 2000?

Kucinich was just brought up favorably on Buchanan and Press in the same light as Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe didn't make rude noises.

Woohoo! Terry gets a cookie. Sorry, need more than that.

[Cocoa]

47. what exactly do you need?

is there anything unfair about the way Kucinich and Sharpton are being handled?

The reason for your dissatisfaction isn't clear to me. I'm hearing progressive views more than I ever have in any other national election.

[ulysses]

49. reread my original post

I'm not on about the primaries.

[library_max]

37. The reason that doesn't work

Is that you lose two middle votes for every left vote you gain.

The Republicans don't openly woo the extreme right. They don't talk trash about minorities or use the N word or the S word. They don't brag about undermining civil liberties. Without being wooed, the right understands that the Republicans are their party and they get in line, for the most part. And they are rewarded when the Republicans get into power.

But the extreme left, at least as represented on this board, refuses to do anything that has a chance of advancing their agenda in the real world. They give the Democratic Party two choices - embrace our agenda holus bolus and go down in flames, or woo the middle and we'll send you down in flames if we can!

A few years ago, I didn't understand the Republican jibe that Democrats can't unite and can't govern, but I think I'm starting to see what they were talking about. I don't agree, but I see what (who) they were talking about.

[ulysses]

43. DINGDINGDINGDING!

And they are rewarded when the Republicans get into power.


That's it! That's what's missing!

[library_max]

44. I won't repeat again what's actually missing, but

when were the Democrats in power the way the Republicans are now in power? Wasn't it the Johnson Administration? Didn't the left move light-years forward then?

When the Democrats get the White House, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary, it'll be leftward ho! But divided government means very little movement in any direction.

And yet - geez - were not the Clinton eight years a helluva lot better for the left than the two plus years we've had of Bush Jr.? Or is not-everything always going to be the same as nothing to you folks?

[ulysses]

46. ...

when were the Democrats in power the way the Republicans are now in power?

The early nineties, if memory serves.

When the Democrats get the White House, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary, it'll be leftward ho!

Under the current leadership? You've got to be kidding.

And yet - geez - were not the Clinton eight years a helluva lot better for the left than the two plus years we've had of Bush Jr.?

For the record - yes, Clinton was better for the left than Dubya. That's not saying much (a toothache is better than stomach cancer), and in ways stretches things. If all you wanted was for someone to stop (sort of) right wing encroachment, then Clinton was nirvana. The idea that some of us actually expected something *positive* out of the first Democratic administration since Carter will undoubtedly bring out the "ideological purity" smear, but there it is.

[library_max]

56. Memory doesn't serve

Key Congressional Democrats in the early nineties were still Dixiecrats like Sam Nunn. And the judiciary was packed with Reagan and Bush political appointees.

I'm guessing you've never actually had stomach cancer, if you think it's not much worse than a toothache.

And regarding "something *positive*, I repeat the point that to you guys, not-everything is the same as nothing. That's not a smear, it's the self-evident truth.

[JPace]

38. I think some democrats are going to remain....

angry with Nader because of the 2000 election.
One way for Nader to make amends would be to
take on the paperless electronic voting machine
cause and bring it into the political process
in a big way. I believe he and Public Citizen
could serve the American people with this very
worthy cause.

[John_H]

39. uhh...you got us....not

NO

Simple math: Number of Green voters--minus the large numbers that won't repeat their 2000 mistake minus the numbers that will never vote dem under any circumstances minus the ones that live in state's we'll surely win minus the ones in states we'll surely lose minus the number of swing votes we'd lose trying to make the greens happy=negative number.


YES

Because I am in favor of giving Union Busting Ralph the "death struggle" he called for. A combination of pointing out Fidelity Ralph's cynicism and hypocrisy, making sure voters understand the GP's platform, and winning in 2004 without them will utterly rid America of the Green Party altogether.

Also, forcing Greens on DU to whine in their oh-so-reasonable way while simultaneously watching them compromise their cherished ideological purity to defend Fidelity Ralph is hugely entertaining.

And hey, helping your country while having fun is always a good thing.

[ulysses]

41. fair enough.

Because I am in favor of giving Union Busting Ralph the "death struggle" he called for. A combination of pointing out Fidelity Ralph's cynicism and hypocrisy, making sure voters understand the GP's platform, and winning in 2004 without them will utterly rid America of the Green Party altogether.

Did that come with the patented "sinister sneer" kit?

By the way, did you ever come up with the wit to prove that I'm not a Democrat?

[ulysses]

51. John?

You there, buddy? You wanna "give Ralph the death struggle" but you won't back yourself up on accusations that certain people aren't Democrats?

[Forkboy]

53. A kick for Uly

[John_H]

61. sorry just checked back. My definition of Democrat

is pretty loose, but it stops well before a)defending a party/candidate who's stated goal is the destruction of the Dem party and b) threaten to vote for another party's candidate if your guy doesn't win the primary.

Independent? Knock yourself out. Dem? by definition party loyalty is part of party politics. That's how the system works at present.

I often see you doing a although not so much b. So I just assumed you were a Green. If you're a registered dem," fine. Who am I to doubt your state's DMV.

I assume part of your post has to do with my doubting some of our other "democrats'" "democraticness"

It's like this: I'm a licenced teacher, but I havn't worked in a school, taught kids, or developed curriculum in twelve years. In the eyes of the government, I'm a teacher. I'm not.

That's how I see some "Dems" around here. They defend the enemy, even vote for him, continually bash almost all dems, call them names etc. In short, they make Karl Rove happy. They may be "registered" dems, but they ain't praciticing dems.

My point is that if, like Reagan, "the party has left you," fine. Follow your political bliss. But there's more to being a member of a party than checking a box at the DMV. Helping the other guys win is not part of the mix.

[ulysses]

62. thank you

I largely disagree, but thank you.

by definition party loyalty is part of party politics

Again, the electoral politics system is a quid pro quo. Why is it that the centrists are the only ones to whom my party caters these days while the left is expected to vote Dem out of loyalty?

I was raised a Democrat and have always been one. DU Naderhaters constantly whine about the "I'm a better leftist than you" attitude that a handful of left folks here have maybe taken once or twice, but how is your "I'm a better Democrat than you" attitude any different? Democracy demands thought at least as much as blind loyalty.

Follow your political bliss.

Nah. I'd rather "work for change within the party" - of course, the people who usually advise me to do that don't seem to understand that it means changing the party, but we'll get there. :)

[JVS]

55. Nader is our Goldstein. We love our big ABB candidate, whoever that.

may be. And the republicans are the power known as East Asia in 1984, which we alternately fight and ally ourselves with. Any questions?

[library_max]

57. Yeah, here's a question.

WTF are you talking about?

[sangh0]

59. Answers

1) A ridiculous question. How is anyone supposed to answer a question that's based on a prediction (how many might go third-party) that no one is qualified to make. Furthermore, you also assume the powers of prophecy yourself by predicting that the Democratic Party will be "ever-more-centrist", something I find hard to believe.

2) Yes, because needing the votes is not the only aspect I am concerned with. Single aspect thinking, like single-issue voting, is foolishly counter-productive.

Regardless of how many votes they get (or don't) the propoganda they spread (ex. "there's no difference") has an effect. A bad effect.

3) Another ridiculous question. What would you like? How about "We're going to kidnap their children and follow them into the voting booths"?

You also try to "frame the debate" by

a) misportraying the arguments of those who disagree with you as "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

Maybe the reason why it feels like a beating is because the arguments we use ("arguments" not "beatings") are effective, and are effective because they make sense.

b) Limiting the time frame to be examined to the last 2.5 years. Yeah, let's forget about Clinton's eight successful years, and the fact that Gore got more votes than any Democrat in history. Let's just look at the losses.

That's really fair and balanced!

IMO, your questions are another example of how Green supporters/sympathizers have a skewed sense of political reality and that they have little awareness of just how out of touch they are with the politics of an overwhelming majority of American voters. (Hint: Most Americans don't care about the Democratic Party's relations with the Green Party)

[chadm]

60. I don't understand your post...

all I know is that I will vote for someone who represents my party fairly, Kucinich or the Green candidate. That's what people do in a democracy, they vote for the person they believe in.

[Democat]

63. Greens need the Democrats as much as the Democrats need the Greens

The only people who make policy are winners. The Greens are not going to win. That is reality, like it or not.

If the Greens help Bush get elected in 2004, they are fucking themselves just as much as they are fucking Democrats.

Greens can help the party that agrees with a good percentage of their platform or they can help the party that agrees with 0% of their platform. They are going to help one or the other.

Those are the only two options.

Wait, there's one more option. They can pretend that running against Democrats isn't really helping Bush get elected.

Face reality or pretend and screw the country.

[gully]

64. What an interesting perspective.

How very true.