The Dem/Green dilemma. Neverending? You bet!!!!!!!!!!!

[livin_indirt]

After having read hundreds of threads here in DU concerning the Dem/Green deal I strongly suspect there will never be a "meeting of the minds". It's a sad thing but not an unrecoverable thing. One thing is for sure, compromise can bring us together. Who is willing to compromise?

[library_max]

1. If the Greens want to come back into the fold, great.

If they want to get on the bus for ABB, super! :loveya:

If they want to look at the candidates and decide what they like and what they don't, okay. Even with the most DLC-esque candidate, I wish they'd honestly ask themselves if Bush isn't 100 times worse, but I don't ask for miracles.

But if they're just here to slam Democrats, claim that Democrats are just as bad or worse than Republicans, and try to proselytize other DUers to their point of view, then they need to be refuted, early, harshly, and often!

[ulysses]

2. I love the smell of compromise

in the morning...

[library_max]

3. Well then, how about this?

Y'all just admit you were wrong in 2000 and promise you won't do it again, and we'll say no more about it.

Or does your idea of "compromise" have to end with, "Ya want fries with that?"

[chadm]

8. I was wrong in 2000

I voted for Gore. I should have voted for Nader. Gore pissed away my vote by not standing up for himself.

[noiretextatique]

27. i feel the same way

:thumbsup: if i knew i was "throwing my vote away" i would have thrown it nader's way.

[gully]

62. Another perspective.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/04/29_Stolen_Election.html

Look at the other side of the story. Just because the mass media didn't report the fight, does not mean it did not occur.

edited for spelling...

[library_max]

105. Gore fought all the way to the Supreme Court

What would have satisfied you in the category of "standing up for himself"?

[ulysses]

20. gee, let me think. no.

How about this? The Dems work as hard to address the concerns of the base as they do to woo the center, and then we'll talk.

[quaker bill]

72. Nothing to worry about

Greens should not worry, after all the science of restoration ecology and environmental remediation has come a long way forward in the last 20 years.

My experience is that with alot of money and fair amount of time we can mostly put things back together.

Yes I know, to you purists, restored environments are never quite the same. Interestingly, you are right. We can get maybe 70 and on a really good day perhaps 80 percent of the biodiversity back. (given of course that the species haven't been locally extirpated)

But all that being as it may, there surely is no need to vote for a candidate who might actually get elected and slow the habitat destruction process down. Right?

Would any of the democrat candidates stop the process, no. Would any potential Green elected president put a stop to it (pipe dream, but nonetheless), no.

Would the right democrat, who might have a better chance of working with democrat congressmen be more effective? Likely so.

Are any of the candidates running the perfect choice on all relevant issues? no.

Would all of them do better by our causes than GWB? You bet!

[ulysses]

75. *sigh*

And again with the "purist" crap.

I suppose that the only way to not be considered a "purist" would be to don the sackcloth and ashes and brand a big "N" on my forehead. Sorry, but no.

Hell, maybe I really am in the wrong party.

[library_max]

89. Give me an example of some of your concerns

that wouldn't alienate the middle.

[ulysses]

107. single-payer health care

and a radical overhaul, or even scrapping, of NAFTA and GATT. Please note that I'm assuming that these would be supported by an aggresive PR campaign to counter the inevitable GOP/corporate slimefest. Absent that campaign, we wouldn't be able to sell a cracker to a starving man in our current atmosphere.

[library_max]

108. Great ideas for after we're in office.

But the Kiss of Death on the campaign trail.

[JVS]

23. Does your idea of compromise always have to end with "Yes, massa"?

I voted for Gore via absentee ballot. If I had been here, and found out that my vote was taken for granted to the degree that comments like yours suggest, I'd have voted green just to spite such an arrogant attitude toward my politcal views.

[livin_indirt]

24. Good lord, why the condescention?

Yassa, massa,,,,,er,,a,,,I be goin' on my way, massa. A common and not too brilliant argument amongst DUers.

[ulysses]

25. *you're* being condescended to?

Allow me to quote you.

Y'all just admit you were wrong in 2000 and promise you won't do it again, and we'll say no more about it.

:nopity:

WHOOPS. That was library_max, not you. Sorry.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

31. see my edit

That was from library_max who, in my defense, does seem to share your view.

Ad hominem noted.

[library_max]

90. Well, what's your idea of a compromise?

You want to take and not give. You guys complain that we won't let Florida 2000 go, won't get off the anger. Okay, fair enough, anybody can make a mistake. But the trouble is, Greens won't admit that they made a mistake and put Bush in the White House. They want to alibi, and they want to pretend that they did something noble and courageous. They seem to like being able to say that if we don't do everything their way this time, they'll take their ball and go home again, and then we'll be sorry.

There's no compromising with that game, especially when it involves proselytizing more idealistic DUers to join them and be "real Democrats" by voting against the Democratic nominee. If you want to keep attacking us and have us keep throwing Bush in your face, that's not a compromise, that's a continuation of hostilities. Don't set yourself up as our enemy and then expect to be treated like a friend. You don't talk smack about Jews in a Synagogue. If the presence of partisan Democrats offends you, maybe you're at the wrong website.

[ulysses]

96. equal give and take

The compromise I want is between party leftists and centrists, not between Nader voters and Nader haters, which is a fairly meaningless distinction in the real world by now. Fairly simple.

If I ever feel that my vote was a mistake, I'll let you know. Until then, sorry. If your need for an apology and a promise never to do anything like exercise my vote in the way I see fit again is a deal breaker for you, don't hold your breath.

That's fairly simple too.

and on edit:

If the presence of partisan Democrats offends you

Not at all. And as long as admin doesn't mind having a partisan liberal (and lifelong Dem) around, I think I'll stay. :)

[library_max]

101. Equal give and take?

I think I know what you're prepared to take: a few truckloads of concessions from mainstream Democrats, as well as several inches off the hide of anyone in office who doesn't do everything you want him to.

What are you willing to give? That's the question.

[ulysses]

106. I'm willing to give

my vote and support to candidates with whom I don't entirely agree.

To a point. What is that point? Can't tell you, because I'm not entirely sure. Clinton crossed it with the welfare reform act. I will tell you this - with the exception of the 96 and 2000 presidential votes, I've spent my entire life since I turned 18 voting for imperfect Democrats. It doesn't bother me to do so. Contrary to the invincible meme, I don't expect *any* candidate to do everything I want him do.

What I'm willing to give is all I'm asking of party conservatives for the time being, although I dare say that in an age of a hard right wing GOP, while centrist campaigning may be appealing, centrist *governing* won't do much to win back what's been lost.

[library_max]

109. Okay

Fair enough. This post (yours) makes a whole lot of sense. I don't know where I got the idea that you hang around DU just to slam the DLC and Democratic "traitors" and "collaborators" who aren't left enough to suit you.

But forget all that. Let's start again on the basis of this post (yours). I'm particularly interested in the distinction you draw between campaigning and governing. It's an important point. A lot of what we want to do won't sell on the campaign trail, but we can get to it if we can get into office (including majorities in Congress) and get some momentum going.

After all, Bush didn't run on a platform of invading Iraq, killing affirmative action, and drilling in the the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You can do more for your activists when in power than you can promise them on the campaign trail.

But "when in power" doesn't mean clinging by your toenails to an office in a divided government. When you have to work with the enemy, you have to be practical and accept a whole lot of things you don't like. That doesn't make Congressional Democrats traitors. They're working for the best deal they can get, with the exception of maybe one or two obsolescent Dixiecrats.

All this means that we have to be patient with what the candidates and the campaigns can and can't afford to promise us ("address our concerns"). And I mean "we." I am probably just as left as you are, and if we compared notes we would probably find that we agree on about 90% of policy issues. But I've seen too many elections to believe any more that we can get what we want just by wanting it enough. We have to take what we can get and be grateful. The alternative is more Bush.

(Sorry this took so long - my server went down just as I was finishing my message).

[ulysses]

114. heh!

I don't know where I got the idea that you hang around DU just to slam the DLC and Democratic "traitors" and "collaborators" who aren't left enough to suit you.

Don't misunderstand me - I loathe the DLC and want to see it gone, and when Dems like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman collaborate with the GOP, yes, a slam or nine is more than deserved. :)

A lot of what we want to do won't sell on the campaign trail, but we can get to it if we can get into office (including majorities in Congress) and get some momentum going.

I think you're missing my point, but even if you're not, do you really think that, once Democrats are in power to that level, there won't be the "voices of reason" saying that things like national health care *still* can't be brought up because we have to protect the majority now that we've got it?

After all, Bush didn't run on a platform of invading Iraq, killing affirmative action, and drilling in the the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You can do more for your activists when in power than you can promise them on the campaign trail.

I don't remember if it was you to whom I posted the "dingdingding" reply the other night, but this is my point. The wingnuts can trust the GOP to deliver once they're in office. Based on Clinton's record, my ability to trust the Democrats to deliver for their activists is pretty damaged.

Does that make sense? I'm pretty much flat out here.

[livin_indirt]

4. But what do you enjoy in the evening, uly?

I never liked someone taking my chips and dip, drinking my beer, smiling in my face and promising to sabotage my political efforts all at the same time. Now, I'm not accusing anyone but don't you agree that compromise is necessary for progressive legislation objectives?

[StandWatie]

6. sometimes..

sometimes not..

It really depends on the issue (and that's going to vary for everyone) but WTO broke me away because it's the end of labor and evironmental politics in America. It doesn't matter who you elect or what laws they made they could be vetoed by international corporations through the WTO and repealed.

At that point who really cares what laws get written at all.

[livin_indirt]

12. You can give up, SW, I will not.

So there you have it.

[ulysses]

21. of course

Now, I'm not accusing anyone but don't you agree that compromise is necessary for progressive legislation objectives?

As to your first sentence, that sounds remarkably how I felt about the Gore campaign (and Clinton in '96). :shrug:

If we're after compromise, then let's not pretend that "shut up and do it my way" is compromise.

[livin_indirt]

26. Who, other than YOU, said that?

X

[ulysses]

28. said what?

I don't claim to speak for anyone besides myself.

[livin_indirt]

33. "Shut up and do it my way" is your statement, not mine or anyone elses, ul

x

[ulysses]

35. tell me, how else am I to take

the not-uncommon stance that, as a progressive (liberal, whatever you want to call it), I have no other choice but to unquestioningly back the nominee put forward by people who, evidently, want no part of a center/left coalition?

[JVS]

36. One party, one candidate, one way to vote

[livin_indirt]

39. Back whomever you choose to back, uly. I ain't claiming your rights

I'm claiming an unenlightened segment of our populace is just plain crazy or ignorant. But that's my right as well. As a self-professed progressive liberal Democrat, wouldn't YOU support my right to make that statement?

[ulysses]

40. sure.

It's just that it's an...interesting...take on this debate to suggest that compromise will work with someone you consider to be crazy or ignorant. Hey, you be you, though.

[livin_indirt]

41. Hey, hey, Uly, don't get so uptight

I haven't met anyone yet that wasn't a little "nuts" on one scale or another and I've never met a single soul that wasn't ignorant of certain facts. So far, I've been able to negotiate most of that. I suppose by your arguments that you've not yet been able to deal with all that?

[Terwilliger]

48. With your arguments

nobody would realize that you're losing all your points

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

70. ok!

:freak:

[library_max]

91. You're really working at mischaracterizing other people's position.

Question whatever you want. Push whatever issues you want. But at the end of the day comes a vote. At that point, your only choice is to help get the most progressive candidate who can win elected, or not. That's not my fault or anybody else's - that's the political system of this country (winner take all). Now, if you want the country to move left, if you want the environment protected, international law respected, etc., the way to do it is to vote for the more progressive candidate, even if he isn't progressive enough for you.

"Put forward by people" . . . What people? You're a people, aren't you? Why not try to work within the system? But again, that doesn't mean the whole system is going to jump when you say frog. A lot of people with more experience in politics than you and I know what can sell and what can't, what can get you elected and what sends you down in flames.

[ulysses]

97. oh, good!

A lot of people with more experience in politics than you and I know what can sell and what can't, what can get you elected and what sends you down in flames.

Well, let's just hand the whole damned thing over to them! Then we can go back to talking about pee in the lounge and everything will be hunky-dory.

:eyes:

[library_max]

102. No no.

Talk to them, by all means. But for cryin' out loud, LISTEN to them once in a while also, would you?

On edit: I don't suppose there's any chance you read any part of my previous post other than the last sentence, is there?

[ulysses]

104. "LISTEN to them once in a while also, would you?"

I do. Haven't been terribly impressed so far.

I don't suppose there's any chance you read any part of my previous post other than the last sentence, is there?

I did. I'm logging off soon, but if you'd like me to respond to a particular point, let me know and I'll try to get to it before too much longer.

[no name no slogan]

10. You are assuming that Greens WERE originally Dems...

Respectfully, this is a faulty assumption. Most of the active-in-their-party Greens I know (elected officials) have NEVER been active Democracts, other than just darkening a circle on a ballot. Most of them are active in other social justice causes (environmental, anti-death penalty, GM food, anti-war) and have avoided party politics altogether, until recently.

If the Greens find that they're able to support the Democratic nominee, I say all the more power to them. However, if the Greens don't feel comfortable with voting for a Democratic nominee that doesn't support their platform, it is their right as a political party to run/support whomever they choose.

No amount of bellyaching by Democrats that the Greens are "traitors" will help us out. We need to convince them that our guy/gal is the best chance we have of getting rid of the BFEE.

FYI, Kucinich is reaching out to many Green voters and supporters, and his message has connected with them. That means that, if Kucinich is the nominee, he may be able to pick up that 5-10% of the Nader vote in 2000. An interesting thought...

[library_max]

92. Did you read my message at all?

I said nothing about "traitors." I have made the point in practically every message that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will be not only the best, but the ONLY chance of getting rid of the BFEE.

And another interesting thought . . . we don't win by picking up 5-10% of the Nader vote and losing 10-15% of the center vote to Bush. I'm not saying that is the effect Kucinich would have, I'm just saying that in principle shifting to the left is not without its costs.

[gully]

60. YOU said it!!!

:toast:

[_NorCal_D_]

5. Compromise? No.

Finding common ground? Yes.

That common is of course our contempt of Bush and the willingness to drive him out of office in 2004.
:bounce:

[livin_indirt]

9. Therein lies the confusion, NCD

Compromise v Finding Common Ground. Wuz the diff?

[chadm]

7. I think it starts with campaign finance reform

Fix that problem and the party may slowly begin to serve the people. When that happens, the Greens will have no gripe.

We can't compromise on a party that doesn't serve the people.

[library_max]

93. Then what, exactly, are you accomplishing? n/t

[ErasureAcer]

11. Only Kucinich can mend the rift.

How bout we nominate him to be the Dem Nominee?

www.kucinich.us

[livin_indirt]

13. How about you support your fav, I support mine, we both support the

eventual nominee? Deal?

[ErasureAcer]

63. I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates.

To do anything less is unpatriotic.

So odds are I won't be supporting the Dem nominee because most of them are wacknuts.

Kucinich has the vision...the rest simply don't.

[w4rma]

88. I vote for candidates in the primary.

I then usually vote for the candidate my candidate endorses. That candidate is usually the winner of the primary my chosen candidate ran in. I rarely ever vote in primaries outside of the Democratic primary so the candidate I support in the primary is nearly always going to be a Democrat.

I think your labeling everyone who works within the current two-party system "unpatriotic" is unpatriotic.

[w4rma]

15. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats are for democracy.

And we have a primary in which the Democratic voters decide who they want to win the nomination. How about you convince folks to vote for your guy and lead by showing unity by supporting, ahead of time, the Democratic nominee. If your guy wins, you'll need the folks of the other 9 candidates to have that same attitude of supporting the Democraic nominee even if their candidate loses.

[Ardee]

14. It is a messy world, is it not.....

There are, when all is said and resaid and reresaid, only a very few who castigate Nader and the Green Party. Of course they do it over and over and over and....well you get it.

Nader cost us the 2000 election, its all his fault,yeah thats the ticket...but what did Nader have to do with the 2002 debacle? I suppose it was lingering side effects.

Most who castigate poor old Ralphie misquote the bejesus out of him, misrepresent the meaning and intent of his statements, and are simply unwilling or unable to see that their beloved party (once called the Democratic Party but now rather undemocratic,imo) is in desperate need of new leadership and a change of direction. By the way Ralph saw it years ago.....

I wish them luck, really and sincerely I do, but I will not buy into this anyone but Bush nonesense because I really and truly believe that Bush is too dumb to knot his tie without an awful lot of assistance, much of which came, oddly enough, from an awful lot of democrats.

I hope Howard Dean is not the corporate lackey that I believe him to be, I hope that Dennis Kucinich can energise and raise the consciousness of the democrats, really I do. I hope that Clark is not another Jimmy Carter in the making, an outsider with no ability to work the system and effect an agenda.I hope that the DLC doesnt sabotage the nominating process in the backrooms of the convention, honest I do.......

I hope that we dont replace Bush with someone who will leave the current ills of our government in place and perpetuate our downhill slide, but ,with this silly ABB mantra thingie I doubt it.......

[StandWatie]

16. totally agreed..

I don't get it, doesn't chanting "Anyone but Bush" almost invite the powers that be to find someone ever more corrupt than Bush to run?

[JVS]

19. Yes

It is akin to hanging a sign around your neck that says "Pay no attention to any issue that I care about"

[livin_indirt]

17. Nader and the Greens are but one of the failings of American electoral

process. I no more fault N & G than I do the voting machines, the counting methods, the very conservative judicial branch and a hundred or so other factors that enter into this numerical observation. I can't help it if you or anyone else ain't reading off the same sheet.

[Ardee]

85. Ill ignore your smarmy sounding reply

this once, but if you are sincere in your desire to debate then I suggest you watch the syntax and try harder not to let your ego overwhelm your post.

Nader and the Greens are but one of the successes of American electoral process, unless of course you seek a nation in which our basic freedoms, including the freedom to run for office, start a political party and speak out against perceived ills are banned.

Let me ask you if you consider Wesley Clark a tool of the DLC, pushed to run in order to blunt Deans rather torrential campaign successes? Would you then wish to force Clark out of the race? If you dislike Liebermans policy or personality would you restrict his right to participate in the process as well? Or do you just perceive that there should be restrictions upon those outside of the two major political parties? How many and how far reaching are these restrictive concepts of yours?

The sheet that we are not together on is, apparently, the constitution of these United States........

[library_max]

94. Apparently you think that Bush cannot possibly be (re)elected.

Oh would that it were so. But your argument leads naturally to the conclusion of Bush being replaced with Bush. And where does that get you?

[Ardee]

112. exactly right (wing)

Certainly Bush can be defeated just not by someone who tries so hard to be Bush like........and that, in a nutshell is the DLC strategy...walk a fine line so as not to annoy our corporate masters and cut off the flow of all that nice money.

Honestly, for my money, Id as sooner see Bush reelected as see some phoney DINO assume the WH. Look at all the consciousness raising and poltiical awareness going on with all the animosity Bush is creating.If some corporate panderer like Dean, Kerry, Liebermann et al gets elected then all those folks will simply say,"OK we got a dem in the WH now I can go back to sleep........"

[JVS]

18. I don't think it's going to work out.

It seems that compromising is always thought of as what the other person should do. It's kind of like the time Carl and Lenny got won a race to find a cabin and one said "That was some good teamwork" and the other said "Yeah, my teamwork." In this case it is more like "We need to compromise." and the answer is "No, YOU need to compromise". Hopefully when there is finally a Democratic nominee, he/she will be able to approach the matter in a more intelligent and diplomatic fashion than it is approached here.

[livin_indirt]

22. I think you're wrong. What is approached "here" is rather nonsensical

and non objective banter. Results count for something and I don't find anything related to "results" here,,,,,,,,I mean "here" as in DU.

[ulysses]

29. so, livin...

Are *you* willing to compromise?

[livin_indirt]

32. No, but maybe, what you got on your mind?

X

[ulysses]

34. just wondering

since you brought up the idea. Thought maybe you might have something more to add.

[livin_indirt]

37. As a businessman, a Democrat and married, I am always ready to compromise

Uly. It's really just that simple. Now how about that quote you so erroneously attributied to me?

[ulysses]

38. I've addressed that twice.

See my edit to #25 and my post #31.

Again, you brought up the idea of compromise in this context in your initial post. I've tried to start conversations on this very topic in the recent past and haven't met with much luck. Toss a concrete idea out and see if it sticks.

[livin_indirt]

42. For the benefit of the audience, as well as myself, please quote (as you

are so good in doing) the addresses you claim and please do so in context as many of us are prone to only half reading,,,,,,,,,somewhat like yourself.

[ulysses]

53. got a reading comprehension problem?

I'm sorry to hear it.

[livin_indirt]

74. Not really. You said something about "twice" but I don't remember "once"

Sorry, but my search engine doesn't work here in DU.

[ulysses]

78. how about your browser?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=355876&mesg_id=356626&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=355876&mesg_id=356681&page=

I assume you're able to follow links. Let me know if I've overestimated you.

[Forkboy]

43. Give it up Uly

you'll get nowhere...this poster seems far more interested in taking you down a notch then any actual dialogue.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

57. Sounds more like Psychoblues to me

[ulysses]

59. I had in mind someone else

who's been gone for a while. Fancies himself a pundit...

[buddhamama]

61. i know i know

pick me teach pick me

does his first name begin with M?

[ulysses]

65. give her a gold star!

:D

[buddhamama]

86. thanks, teach

my first gold star of the year.

you're pretty stingy with these things,btw. :hi:

[ulysses]

98. heh

I was wrong, as it turned out...:dunce:

Pb, we hardly knew ye...

[Forkboy]

99. I was right I was right

neener neener neener :D

[ulysses]

100. LOL

:hi:

[gully]

71. Uhm, who's obsessed with whom?

:shrug:
I have yet to hear an original 'non Nader' thought from you T. And, I won't hold my breath on that hope...

Glad to know I'm at the top of your shit list though, I must be doing something right ;)

[Forkboy]

73. You're nowhere near the top of my shit list gully

[gully]

76. Thanks...

Clarification: I was referring to the deleted post and poster... ;)

[Forkboy]

80. ahhh...sorry

well not sorry I said you weren't near the top of my shit list but....ahhhh you know :)

[livin_indirt]

46. I suppose you have foundation for that weak assertion, Fb

That is a problem I see often in DU. Weak assertions from people with weak positions. But I'm sure you will clear all that up with your eloquent description of your foreclaiming observation. I'm waiting.

[Terwilliger]

47. you livin_indirt?

must be hell to get the computer hooked up to that

[livin_indirt]

50. Always a good grounding, T

I don't have to worry much about the lightning.

[Forkboy]

55. I'm not biting

[ulysses]

52. oh, I know

Just playing until the flavor runs out. :)

[buddhamama]

54. what's the flavor of dirt these days?

would help if we knew where s/he hailed from.
every region has its own unique dirt.

[ulysses]

58. mulch

Needs more composting. :)

[buddhamama]

44. compromise

speaking only for myself
i compromise everyday.
look around: there are citizens without a warm place to sleep, without food in their bellies, no health insurance, elderly working way past retirement age so they can -maybe- buy all their medication this month,hard working people being laid off left and right,civil liberties being destroyed, human rights violations around the world Ignored,War and More Nukes, Defense of Marriage Act,enviromental destruction,etc,etc, and WHY?

Power and Greed.

this isn't the country that is supposed to stand for Liberty and Justice, Democracy and the Will of the People.
this isn't the country i want to live in.
so i do compromise.
it is not going to change in a day, i understand that, but i'm going to keep working at it, that to me implys compromise. BUT once, just once, i'd like to hear,not ridicule or name calling, or the electoral college stuff, but a "yeah, i want that too, and we'll work together to make it happen."

[livin_indirt]

49. Can I count you in my camp, buddhamama?

x

[buddhamama]

51. Camp Dirt?

is that all you have to say to my post?
i'm not in the habit of camping with people i don't know.
and since you're not sharing..

[livin_indirt]

64. Dirt. It started and will stop there. I can't offer anything differently

You never answered either question. Who is willing to compromise and can I count you in my camp. I'm OK with any decision you make or state. You have your own dilemmas to deal with.

[buddhamama]

84. what exactly are you offering?

you keep mentioning compromise, on what?

"You have your own dilemmas to deal with." My dilemmas should be the dilemmas of all good liberals.

and why do you keep refering to it as Your Camp,

are You The Democractic Party?

[CWebster]

56. If the present DLC influence in the party continues to dominate

and set the agenda, the party will grow increasingly remote, disconnected from the people and become politically irrelevant. The DLC is more comfortable and willing to compromise with the Right than the Left.

If the Left splits it's primary choice between Dean and Kucinich, the chances for the DLC appointed candidate increase. With a DLC candidate there will be less enthusiasm from the Democratic base to engage further in any meaningful way. The cycle of division will repeat until the party responds or the base leaves.

[library_max]

95. You keep assuming that the base can elect a candidate

all by itself. It ain't so. Wishing it were so won't make it so. As Misther Dooley said, "Pollyticks ain't beanbag." So once again, the choice you want to give us is kill ourselves or be murdered by you. Great compromise, thanks so much.

[Iverson]

111. no

Nowhere in CWebster's posting do I see him or her asserting that a candidate can be elected with the base alone. Obviously, to "keep" assuming, one must make that assumption repeatedly. Can you support your accusation?

What I do see in CWebster's posting, as well as in others' who speak to this issue, is that alienating the base is a poor way to advance a candidate.

"So once again, the choice you want to give us is kill ourselves or be murdered by you."

Such a deliberate, over-the-top misunderstanding of that simple bit of wisdom shows a real lack of interest in the kind of dialogue that results in a compromise.

The whole notion that alienating the base might be a good idea is silly. Your serious point, that the base alone is unlikely to prevail, is also a good one. Therefore, a compromise of some sort should be sensible. This most emphatically does not begin with snarky misstatements of others' positions.

[John_H]

66. It'll be over the day after election day 2004.

You read it here first.

[ulysses]

67. nope

You read it here first.

Heard it before. Nice try, though. :D

[scottxyz]

68. It will be neverending until IRV is introduced

IRV = Instant Runoff Voting

Instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank them in order. If nobody gets a clear majority, you add in voters' second choice, third choice, until someone wins.

For example, in 2000 a Green could have voted:

My 1ST choice : Nader
My 2ND choice : Gore

When hell freezes over : Bush


This way, if Nader didn't get a majority, all his votes would go to Gore. This allows the voters to "express" their intentions more clearly. Rather than a vote for Nader automatically helping Bush, a vote for Nader would either have helped Nader get elected, or helped Gore.

Several other countries already have implemented IRV.

[Wonk]

77. Psychoblues, is that you trying out a new handle? nt

[Kathy in Cambridge]

79. LOL, Wonk

I was trying to figure out who it was...my thought exactly.

When did he earn his tombstone?

[Wonk]

81. I didn't realize he had been. I just did a search by author and found this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=3260

It's one of only two results that came up. The other was an odd "Topic started by on Dec 31st 1969 (0 replies)" without a link, which I haven't seen in a search results page before.

[livin_indirt]

82. Cool line on that thread

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'. Wonder what he meant by that?

[Booberdawg]

87. yep, sure is. And now "livin_indirt" has been tombstoned.

[Iverson]

83. meetings of minds

Between Greens and Democrats, meetings of minds occur regularly here. There are just not as spectacular as hysterical denunciations that lead to 200-count threads, but they do happen. There is a lot of common ground on issues such as the war and economic globalization.

However, among the movers and shakers there is little interest in anything but acrimony and sanctimony. Once again, the folks on the bottom must lead the way.

[Dob Bole]

103. Proportional Representation would solve it

then both parties would have seats in congress and could form coalitions

[Forkboy]

110. the only thing that's neverending

is this thread :)

[veracity]

113. Greens I know...

....have agreed that beating Bush is all. Of course, I don't know thousands....but, if you get on the Yahoo Green forums and others where they congregate, you can get your message across. I've found some pretty open minds. I do believe Nader learned a rough lesson....