Is it time to quit kidding ourselves about the Greens?

[Padraig18]

My own personal belief is that we are being urged to pretend like we have amnesia regarding the Green track record as regards *Democratic* party candidates. We are asked to forget that the Greens ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone---- PAUL WELLSTONE!--- in 2002 while at the same time we are asked to believe that the Greens can in some manner be persuaded to align with us to defeat * in 2004.

We are asked to forget that the Greens ran a gubernatorial candidate for the Massachusetts' governorship in 2002, effectively eliminating any chance we had of recapturing that seat after a 12 year-long Republican stranglehold.

We are asked to play "let's pretend" math and forget about the very real fact that the Green vote in FL was 97K, while *'s margin of 'victory' was 537 votes.

Are we so deeply in denial that we will allow ourselves to be blackmailed into allowing an opposition party to dictate to us who is or is not an 'acceptable' candidate, and what will or will not be an 'acceptable' platform?

As for me, it's just not worth it.

[wryter2000]

1. You nailed it.

Are we so deeply in denial that we will allow ourselves to be blackmailed into allowing an opposition party to dictate to us who is or is not an 'acceptable' candidate, and what will or will not be an 'acceptable' platform?

Thank you! I've never thought of it that way. Next time I hear some one tell me Nader's the only guy, I'm going to scream.

[Q]

2. I don't see anyone 'dictating' anything...

- It looks more like a type of obsession on your part.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. sorry Q, but you are wrong

When people say they will only vote democrat if X is nominated, they are trying to dictate the candidate. The same goes for policy. As much as I would love to have more liberal candidates I am not the only one who gets to decide. Bottom line is you either vote democrat or you don't. If you don't that is fine but don't pretend that leaving the party is going to pull the party left, just the opposite. You leave and the centrists get to be in charge because of simple math.

But that is not my main issue. My main issue is the 24/7 bitch fest some Green posters participate in. These Democrat/Green flame wars are almost always started by posters who have never once supported anything the democratic party has done since the board started. Even this thread was started in response to Cascadian's thread.

I could name those people and so could you if you were honest about it. Obviously those people have a different aggenda than getting Bush out of office.

[Padraig18]

42. VERY perceptive on several counts!

:thumbsup:

[Terwilliger]

64. I want Bush out, that's why I'm trying to find someone to support

:shrug:

[Code_Name_D]

106. Is this a Democracy or not?

When people say they will only vote democrat if X is nominated, they are trying to dictate the candidate. The same goes for policy. As much as I would love to have more liberal candidates I am not the only one who gets to decide.

Question. Why ARN'T you the one who gets to decide? Isn't that the whole point of a primary? Of representative Democracy? That you have a say in who our leaders are going to be? This time of mandatory Democratic party loyalty is exactly what disgusts me about the Republican party. If I can't stand the Republican party, what makes you think I will join the Democratic party do doing the same thing?

The Dem/Green relationship is so stupid that it's infuriating. The dems seem to WANT to be in a position of weakness. Redistricting in Texas? No problem. Rigging the vote through Diebold? Sign me up! Lose California to a meat-head actor? And it's "evidence that our centrist position is the right call." I have seen Ditto heads with more common senses than this. Such incompetence has made the Democratic party so weak that one good push from a third party could well dethrone it from its second party status.

So why don't the Greens push the Dems over and take their place? The only explanation I can come up with is that the Greens don't want the post. For one thing, Greens seem to only run against Democrats. Not against Republicans. The Dems have already advocated power in many states, opening up the second party states who whom ever shows up to file the papers. The only way to supplant the dems is not the attack the dems, but to attack the Repugs and be an alternative to the Dem's centrist position. But they aren't interested in doing this. Perhaps all of that Republican money flowing into Green party coffers. The green party is thus just another safety for the Repugs.

The fact is that I am not chousing X candidate, or X issue. I am looking for a candidate who fights the GOP. And I have ten criteria by what I mean by fight. The closets out the is Dennis K, with Dean in second place. But where are the Green candidates? Aren't they going to hold a primary too? I would like to take a look at them as well. But apparently, all of the possible Green presidential hopefuls are waiting for Nader to decide if he wants to run or not.

[liberalhistorian]

116. Yes, I understand what you're saying about Kucinich,

as a Northeastern Ohio resident who's more than familiar with him and who has always had tremendous respect and admiration for him, especially now, I would very much like to be a full-fledged supporter. HOWEVER, we MUST be realistic as well as idealistic, and that means recognizing that Kucinich doesn't stand a chance in the mainstream political arena, Americans just aren't ready for his brand of progressive liberalism. It's unfortunate, but true.

The main, the ONLY, concern should be getting Shrub the hell out of the WH he overtook in his coup, and I'm afraid that Kucinich just does not have a chance. I wish he did, but we have to be realistic.

[Code_Name_D]

119. And why dose Dennis K not have a chance in the Genral election?

Care to explane that one to me?

[liberalhistorian]

133. Because he's far more liberal than

the mainstream, and the media has already grossly distorted who he is and his positions and principles. Most people, unfortunately, dismiss him as a tax-and-spend socialist which is, as we know, totally untrue and unfair, but that's the image people have of him. And since he has almost no nationwide name recognition, even among a lot of Dems, it makes his task all that much more difficult. He doesn't even have a lot of support for his presidential bid in his own area of Northeast Ohio, and our local paper enjoys constantly skewering him no matter how often we complain about it.

[Code_Name_D]

158. But Clark is the front runner, right?

Even though he has been attacked for fare more agreguse sins, such as admiring the Bush administration, and even rasing campain donations for the Repugs. But he is a "moderate" or "by-partisen."

Mean while, you would peg K as a libiral, even before the people know what he is about.

And how do you even know what the maine streem is about. The main streem dosn't vote. And why should WE care what the meidea says about a canadate? The media's credability is sorly lacking, so all K has to do is get out and tell it like it is.

And I am sick of all of this "left wing/right wing" pigon holing. What ever happend to the truth? What ever happend to the record? Is a libiral any less credabule attacking Bush on the war than a "centrist?" To claim so is a claim made from a vary racist positon, only instead of drawing lines by color, we draw lines by political affilation.

To say that K can't win becase he is a libiral, is exactly like saying Jessey Jacken can't win becase he is black. Regardles, you take it upon yourself to denie K even the right to try and fail. Thus baring him from ever suceading.

But mean while, the rest of us are brow beaten with the line "If Clark wins, you have to vote for him." But this is a two edge sword. If K wins, will you vote for him? Or you more intrested in voting Republican light?

[liberalhistorian]

168. I would most definitely vote for

Dennis if he were the nominee, and work my tail off to get others to do the same. And I have no patience or tolerance at all for repuke lites like Holy Joe Lieberman and his ilk. And I agree with your statements concerning Clark.

What I meant when I said he was too liberal was that that was how he was being portrayed in the media and we all know that, right or wrong, how you're portrayed in the media is the way most people will tend to view you, especially if they don't know the candidate.

So, unfortunately, it DOES matter what you're labeled as and how the media portrays you and the general public sees you and NOT what you really are. I wish it didn't, but that's the reality we have to face. If the stakes weren't so high this time in that it is absolutely beyond critical that we get rid of Shrub and his entire circle, I think things might be different.

[MuseRider]

184. So we are

screaming (not you I have not read enough to know if you were doing this) at the Greens and bashing the Progressives because they are trying to pick our candidate but we are not going to work like hell to keep the media from doing the same? We need to pick the right battles to fight and fighting with people who tend to agree with you is not productive or wise.

[Code_Name_D]

210. But where is the equality?

Dennis if he were the nominee, and work my tail off to get others to do the same. And I have no patience or tolerance at all for repuke lites like Holy Joe Lieberman and his ilk. And I agree with your statements concerning Clark.

But never the less, we still hobble K, because he is a liberal, and hand Clark the scepter, because he is a "centrist." Which by your own admission are definitions placed on them by the media.

What I meant when I said he was too liberal was that that was how he was being portrayed in the media and we all know that, right or wrong, how you're portrayed in the media is the way most people will tend to view you, especially if they don't know the candidate.

But the media is controlled by the Right wing. Faux news is practically the official GOP mouthpiece on TV. If we let them define our candidates as "liberal" and "centrist," are we not in truth letting Bush define these candidates for us? And if THAT is so, than the Democratic party is be definition, subordinate to the Republican party, and can only challenge the Repugs if they will it.

Which goes a long way to explain DLC behaviors. Attacking the Repugs on certain issues that they should know that they can't win on, while letting potentially runniest scandals go by with little more than a shrug. Like how Gray Davis was willing to hack Arnold about his groping but not about the Enron love letters.

It has been my argument for some time that the Dems must find away around the network controlled media, and be more aggressive in defining, and defending their ideological grounds. Such means did not exist for Gore in 2000, but they exist now (You are looking at one of them right now.) And is also part of my ten points of fight by which I judge the candidates ability to win.

By MY recognizing, Clark has the least likely chance to beat Bush because he will depend on the right wing media to carry his message. And that means it gets tagged with the right wing spin first. And if Clark is the leading Democratic candidate because he is a centrist, and he is a centrist because the media says he is. Than what is a centrist? What is Clark? How can Clark define himself, if some one else defined the term "centrist" for him, who was in fact working for the interests of the right wing.

This reminds me of a Luna Inverse episode (anima) where Luna, a powerful wizard, destruction spell known as the "Ra Tilt" that can level mountains. The spell was based on calling upon the powers of an evil demon known as Ra. That is until Luna had to go up against Ra himself as an evil wizard released it onto the world. On Ra, the Ra Tilt wouldn't work. As Luna explained, "Its like saying, hay you, can I use your power against you? Be prepared for NO as an answer."

Clark may be able to call upon the powers of the "liberal biased" media to beat Dean and K. But how can he do the same against Bush, when the media protects Bush?

And this is why the Dems has been losing? The Centrist position is largely the positions remaining after self censorship to make the message more palatable to the media. And what they don't censer, the media will screen and spin for them.

And its a two way effect. How many protests have you seen on the TV lately? They are out there however? The media screens our own perceptions, making us thinking we are more right wing than we truly are.

[Mairead]

141. People were ready 70 years ago!

What makes you think they aren't today? The propaganda?

[Mairead]

139. "are waiting for Nader to decide"

It doesn't look that way to me. There's a big debate going on about whether to endorse Dennis because he's nearly Green, endorse Dean because he seems the least evil, wait and see whether Dennis gets the nom, or simply put forward a candidate and let the chips fall.

I'm arguing the 'endorse Dennis' position, with 'wait and see' as the fallback.

[Code_Name_D]

172. Yay well that isn't helping their cause with me.

They are debating weather to endorse Dennis? :wtf: From my prespective, this is the cowerdly way out. The Greens are not, nor should they be the servents of the Democratic party.

If this is truly the sentement of the green party, than why dosn't the green party put forward a Green equivlent to K in their own primary?

If K should win the Dem primary, than it would the right for the Green-Ks' nomeny to drop out of the race, and throw his support, and the parties, to the Dennus camp, to avoid the spoler effect.

If Dennus dosn't win, then they have the option of running against the Dem as a viable canadate, one their own platform.

The greens are only spoilers, if they lose.

[Mairead]

195. "why dosn't the green party put forward a Green equivlent to K"

I expect because it takes quite a lot of time, money, and energy to put forward a candidate...and who with those sorts of qualifications would be willing to step down if we real-centrists get DK the Dem nom?

[Code_Name_D]

212. My point, is that they arn't even trying.

So one should not be suprised when the Greens fail.

[liberalhistorian]

110. I've put a lot of those people on ignore,

because I'm sick to death of the Greens.

[Terwilliger]

138. and you're proof of their correct attitude towards you

:hi:

[liberalhistorian]

149. Whatever.

I really don't care what their attitude is towards me, anymore, probably, than they care what my attitude is towards them.

[Tinoire]

205. The main difference is that you still care about their vote!

And the only reason you care about their vote is because you are finally scared.

Well guess what, many of us have been scared for years and people like were either too young, too uninvolved or would not listen. Some of us have already gone Green- others like me are desperately clutching the hull as the ship keeps sinking.

It hurts like hell doesn't it to wake up terrified at the last minute? The sad thing is you don't even realize that the people you think are our enemies are actually our best friends.

Keep it up, keep chasing away more voters with these false accusatory analyses colored by juvenile pettiness.

[Mairead]

128. No, Q is not wrong

For goodness sake, what do you imagine VOTING is, if not an attempt to 'dictate the candidate'?

When I say that I'm going to vote only for Dennis, I'm saying, in effect, that nobody is going to extort my vote; that if the Dem party wants my help in electing their candidate, then their candidate better be a Democrat, not a Dixiecrat, not a closet Rockefeller Republican, not a Libertarian, not a Trotskyite, an FDR/RFK/LBJ-type D E M O C R A T. Nothing less will do. My vote and I are worth more than that.

[Tinoire]

178. Well said!

This thread is the over-the-top thread that is right now pushing me OUT of the Democratic Party and TO the Green Party.

The combination of all the hateful, centrist, and conservative posts we recently started seeing at DU make me realize that Centrists may just not be the people I want to be involved with!

People who would DENY the right to a FREE VOTE to others are not the kind I want to continue associating with.

I'm really beginning to wonder how many people here are posing as supporters of x,y,z candidate while working for the Republican Party precisely to destroy the Democratic Party!

Posts like yours are simply infuriating to some of us but I guess you'll just wave us off as "closet Greens" or something.

As you blithely piss off and wave progressives off, please spare the audience the hpocritical tears.

These posts do more damage than there already is and chase even more people away. Thanks a million.

[MuseRider]

190. Me too

It is sad for me to see this. I guess we have learned from the successful Republican party that we all must go along and supress our individual thoughts because winning is everything and cohesiveness is above individuality. I have no illusions about this election. Bush* must go and if I have to swallow what I believe in to see that I do my part I will but after Bush* this will not be my choice. So, I am sticking with the Democrats for now but will sadly, and I mean that, sadly make a change once things are not so precarious.

[Mairead]

200. The problem, though, is that it's always going to be so precarious

The nutters aren't going to give up and walk away. The only way to defeat them is to totally change the basis for society. That's, of course, what the Peace Department is all about (or at least I hope so). But til we do change it, the centrists are always going to tell us that the fate of the world hangs in the balance and so we must sacrifice ourselves and elect another lizard so that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.

[MuseRider]

208. Well, I really did not

want to hear that but of course you are right. I will, however, be able to stand a nutter from the left, no matter how far to the right they go, far better than Bush*. So for me this is it. No more giving up to vote for the least bad. But I do feel that this time I am stuck. If DK has an honest to goodness chance I might, after all of these threads, be convinced to write him in. That is of course what I would really like to do. But I know I and the rest of the world really need to be rid of Bush* so for now I am stuck in that mess.

[Mairead]

192. "I'm really beginning to wonder..."

I'm really beginning to wonder how many people here are posing as supporters of x,y,z candidate while working for the Republican Party precisely to destroy the Democratic Party!

I've been strongly wondering that same thing, Tinoire, especially in recent weeks. Too many of these posters just don't feel right to me. The one who last week or so put forward the GOP talking points about how Coup2K was really 'a statistical tie' and that 'Bush and Gore both won' was perhaps the worst (and I'm hedgehogged if I can understand why the admins didn't care about that).

[Tinoire]

211. We are not the only ones wondering

I assure you of that. What is worse though is to see some people innocently get sucked into that cess-pool as they agree with relatively new flame-throwing posters.

[liberalhistorian]

199. No one is "denying" a free vote to anyone,

what we are saying is that along with voting comes responsiblity and you need to be responsible enough to see exactly what your vote will cause and where it will lead.

[Mairead]

213. No, but some would if they could

And if we have to think about consequences, so do you.

We are at the edge of The Pit now. The 'patriot' act, the invasions, the corporate crimes --all should be clear proof of that to anyone with a functioning mind.

We must elect someone who has committed to turn us around and move AWAY from The Pit. The only two candidates who have made that commitment are Dennis Kucinich and Albert Sharpton. All others are committed to preserving the status quo, and they hide that committment by holding a rhetorical magnifying glass in front of the tweaks they're offering, in hope that we'll accept those rhetorically-magnified tweaks as real change. Well, tweaking will not do! Rhetoric will not be enough.

[Tinoire]

215. In other words- the same question that was asked of

Centrists and Moderates for years? And that is still being asked today in today's Primaries as scared Centrists try to shove yet another non-Progressive down people's throats?

All these late-awakenings by people fanning these flames and starting these threads are astounding!

[hippywife]

241. Only bitch fests I see started

around here are by centrist Dems trying to heavy-hand everyone else. Cascadian's earlier thread was a call to come together and work together until some of our more hard line Dem centrists around here decided to come in and turn it into a huge pissing match.

I was raised a Dem and have never voted anything but Dem, but I was registered Independent because I didn't like the path the Dem party was taking with Clinton. I came back to vote Dem against Bush and thankfully found a candidate I can really believe in but again the centrists want to piss all over that, too. Last I checked, I can vote for whoever I want in the primary. I will vote for DK because he embodies what the Dem Party used to stand for.

I will vote Dem to oust Bush, even if it isn't DK but after that I will work just as hard to see a third party that embraces what the Dems used to proudly embrace has a chance at winning.

Thanx for helping me make up my mind to do that guys! You've become the same kind of thugs you accuse the Republicans of being.

[Tinoire]

324. The entire short-sighted tactic

is to brow-beat people like you and other progressives into shutting up now, voting Dem this time and then to either shut-up again or take a hike.

It is despicable and almost exclusively coming from the New Dems here.

[ablbodyed]

3. Well said....

If anyone is more self-rightous than a Green, I'm all ears. Oh wait, any fundamentalist christian twit.

[billbuckhead]

9. Nadir told the biggest lie of the 2000 selection when he said there...

was no difference between Bush and Gore. This was almost the only thing the pro-corporate media would show him saying on TV. Bush lied about being a "mainstream" Republican, but Nadir slapped his seal of approval on this conceit and enthusiastically helped mislead the American people about Al Gore.

[imhotep]

4. Why not

just formally announce that liberals will not be allowed in the democratic party? After all, look how well gop-lite has done the last several elections.....

[Padraig18]

6. The Greens are not *in* the Democratic party; they are in their OWN party

[Padraig18]

8. And...

... if the issue the Greens have with Democrats is 'liberals', why did they run a candidate against Paul Wellstone?

[liberalhistorian]

108. EXACTLY!

The damn Greens totally lost it for me after they put up a candidate against Wellstone, of all people, who was more Green than the Greens themselves! And the candidate they ran against him was far more conservative than Wellstone, which I'm still trying to figure out! The Greens only talk to themselves, and have a grossly overinflated view of the importance of their party, not to mention an overdeveloped sense of naivety as far as believing any candidate of theirs has any chance at all, especially in statewide and national races.

Shrub is in office largely thanks to the Greens and Nader's bullshit about there being "no difference between the parties", well, we're now seeing just what a major difference there is and suffering the consequences.

[charlie]

132. Who, McGaa?

They dumped him in their primary and went with the liberal Tricomo.

[JVS]

10. Party membership means little in the USA, because it is open

That is how we had an independent running for the Democratic nomination for several weeks and then he registered Democratic.
Anyone can game such an open system. For all you know I could be donating heavily to the Reform party and still be registered as a Democrat for the PA primaries, which happen to be closed. IIRC some states even allow people to vote in a party's primary regardless of registration. Don't think that being registered as something means a deep commitment to that party.

[Tinoire]

226. But people who were not even registered Democrats or who are

Reagan Democrats are? And we should bend over back-wards, sacrificing our true but slightly estranged political friends, for them and their not so very progressive candidate from a similar back-ground?

The DLC shall not win this battle! This battle is for the soul of the Democratic Party. Keep driving away more people and pretty soon you will have nothing but a carcass in your hands.

[my_2_cents]

13. Look how well a liberal Democrat just did in California

Your post is quite telling. Ignore facts and respond on automatic pilot.

[Tinoire]

227. What Liberal Democrat in California??!

You're pulling my Californian leg right?

[JackSwift]

80. We did manage to win the last three general elections

the greens have never one, and will never win one.

[Darranar]

5. And the 100000K who didn't vote?

If there were real liberals running, perhaps some of them would have.

[Kahuna]

30. For every "liberal" who doesn't vote, I could give you..

a "moderate" or "independent" who doesn't vote. So what's your point? I'd rather try to appeal to the mods and indies. They seem to be more rational.

[Darranar]

41. Those people who don't vote...

don't vote because no one's getting the message to them. Real opposition to radical right-wing ideas would get them out.

[Kahuna]

43. So what's the diff? According to you,

those 1,000,000 Greens don't vote either. Looks like a wash to me.

[Darranar]

I never said they were Greens...

I said that they were an untapped resource who would probably go Dem if they were tapped.

Those who didn't vote hurt Gore a lot more than the Greens did.

[Kahuna]

52. Whatever! There are lots of "untapped resources.." And,

neither you or I know whether they lean left or right. Or whether they give a damn at all. My guess. They don't really care one way or the other. So, what's the argument now? Make up your mind, will ya?

[Darranar]

69. Why do you think they're disinterested in politics?

Because they don't think it affects them. Prove to them that it does, and they'll follow you.

[Kahuna]

72. Face it. It's just the nature of millions of people to..

just go along in life. They don't want to be bothered with politics and you can't make them want to be interested. Then there are people who have a mistrust of ALL politicians and the system and don't see any reason to get involved.

[Darranar]

75. Of course...

there will be some of those. And there are also some who aren't like that.

Few nations in our world have as low turnout.

[Mairead]

156. Sorry, but Saul Alinsky proved that idea wrong

Read his books. He organised the Back Of The Yards neighborhood, whose residents were considered totally apathetic and apolitical. He proved that assessment to be a crock.

[liberalhistorian]

121. Anybody who doesn't think politics affects them

is a total dumbass with his or her head planted firmly up their ass, and I get tired of having to "prove" to such people how politics does, in fact, greatly impact almost every aspect of their lives.

[Code_Name_D]

114. We know they are neather Centrist or Right wing.

Otherwise, they would have voted. That eather makes them libiral, or lazy.

[Tinoire]

232. A wash? No. Because at the same time you are driving Progressives

AWAY. You can hate us all you want but you are driving us and our votes away.

So it is not a wash. It ends up as a negative for the Democratic Party because contrary to the DLC gamble, Republicans are not going to jump ship for Bush-lite.

People like me however will!

[library_max]

112. You're making a big assumption

that running left to pick up some of those liberal non-voters wouldn't cost us any swing voters from the middle. But of course it would. Running to the base in a presidential election gets the party that tries it killed every time it is tried! Why can't people get that?

And on what do you base your assumption that any large percentage of non-voters are disaffected liberals? Let me guess - "Well, me and all my friends think . . . "

[Code_Name_D]

127. Is that any less an asumption about the center?

if the Dem's centrist position has a foundation, than why arn't they winning elections? Why are so many registerd votors, NOT voting?

But its nature, centrisem means you are compeating with the right wing for their own votors. But time and time again we see them totaly loial to the Repugs. While attacking even the more conservitive Democrats. Remeber Garry Conduite?(sp)

[library_max]

235. We are winning elections

We won in 92, 96, and 2000. We did better in 98 than the party in the White House usually does in an off-year election.

[Code_Name_D]

240. What have you done for me lately?

Gore did NOT win the election. As prove, look at who is in the white house now. To still claim that Gore won is a futile argument in semantics.

But with Bush in the white house now, the political landscape has changed dramaticly. And Clintion's victories were not all that sound. But we still lost 2002, and California. BIG TIME!

Why?

You haven't ancwerd that.

[library_max]

254. This is really comical

You want to say that we didn't really win in 2000 and Clinton didn't really win in 92 or 96, so all those were losses and centrism doesn't work.

Every time we've run to the left in a presidential election (52, 72, and 84) we got KILLED. Every time! No "futile argument in semantics," we just got slaughtered. So did the Republicans when they tried it in 64.

But you don't like the facts so you try to explain them away piecemeal. Kindly give me an analysis that explains how the results in 72 and 84 were better than the results in 92 and 96. Because you're advocating the 72 and 84 strategies.

It isn't that centrism always wins. It's that anti-centrism ALWAYS LOSES!

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

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

[library_max]

306. Scream a little louder, please. I can't hear you.

[Code_Name_D]

313. Than go back and read it again.

Or do you have to depend on your computer to read every thing aloud for you. But hay, I am not suprised you declined to give me an answer.

[Tinoire]

328. Excellent post

though I think you should remove that last sentence. It's an Achilles heel and I'd HATE to see that post get removed.

[Code_Name_D]

337. How good are they doing you ask?

You want to say that we didn't really win in 2000 and Clinton didn't really win in 92 or 96, so all those were losses and centrism doesn't work.

Oh please. When others try to ascribe my own position, you have a clear sign that they are losing it. I said Clintons victories were not all that sound, not that he lost. But did Clinton win because he was a strong candidate? Or because the Republican positions were so weak that my pet rock could win?

Every time we've run to the left in a presidential election (52, 72, and 84) we got KILLED. Every time! No "futile argument in semantics," we just got slaughtered. So did the Republicans when they tried it in 64.

{font color="red"] I edited out any matial that could violate the rules. Which sumed up to about three sentenses.

And why is it that you are still stuck in the 60's? Perhaps you are under the impression that the Ghost of president Kennedy is looking over the Dem's shoulders right now? Did it never accrue to you that things might have changed sense then? Or are we still waiting for the south to rise again.

And again. Your victories in 92 are irrelevant compared to the losses in 02. Compared to the humiliating defeat in California. Oh sure, "Gore won in Florida" in 2000, didn't he. And the same exact party told us to "get over it." But even victory isn't what it cracked up to be, is it.

With Clinton beat Herbert Walker Bush in 92, but sun of a gun if his sun isn't in the White House right now, carrying foreword with the original plan as if the past 8 years never happened. Every accomplishment Clinton made was wiped out, erased, over turned, and un-signed by the sun of the man he defeated. The Gulf war became the current Iraq war. Did Clinton really bomb an aspirin factory?

The problem is that Clinton did not clean house. Bush and Ragan were left to walk away without fear of prosecution. Because that is what centimes is. Make nice nice with the fascist. Don't make waves. Don't worry, be happy. The same thing happened when Jefferd's defection turned the Senate over to the dems. And what did they do with this power? Squat! Sqinto! Nada! Nothing! Diddly! They did not a DAMN THING!!!

Contrary to your assertions on the value of an empty platform of centristism. The dems are losing influence because centrist looks more and more like bowing and scraping the ground upon which Bush walks. Who was it in the Rose Garden, giving Bush the powers to wage war? Who signed the Patriot act again? Hell, we even have some Democratic signatures on the PNAC for Christ sakes.

The American population is becoming more and more polarized. Bush is increasingly becoming less and less popular. His poll numbers have dropped below 50% and the DLC STILL thinks the man is invincible.

But no. Three humiliating defeats, and you still think we are winning. Redistricting in Texas is going to lose us six to ten seats in the house right their! Where is the DLC on this? Hell, it was a Democrat that broke ranks, and went back to the Republicans to give them quorum. Diebold plans on handing the election to Bush in 2004, and The DLC sides with Diebold? They want to hold elections over the internet, and Clark & Dean thinks this is a good idea because it will get them more votes? Dude, no one is naturally this stupid. Where is the Enron investigations? Why aren't the dems pressing to get the energy papers releases? Why aren't they jumping on Delya for being a one man blocked to stop the overturning the Powers media deregulation?

Where are the Democrats!
Where are the Democrats!
Where are the Democrats!

And mean while, you sit over their, apologizing for them at every turn. Where is this "secret plan" I was promised that would deliver the 02 elections? Where is all this talk on the economy? My GOD, Bush declares a war on false evidence, lies to congress, kills thousands of innocent civilians, outs a damn CIA agent, partakes in war profiteering to the tune of billions, and STILL not one Democrat has the guts to submit articles of impeachment? Not ONE? And no doubt you till tell me that impeachment can't win in the house. But how many Democrats would vote against Impeachment? How many Democrats would side with Bush and defined him against war crimes? Can you answer me on any of this?

Let me answer it for you. Let me spell it out.

There is no difference between the Republicans and The Democrats. They are on the same side. They are BOTH against us. They have been hitting us with the Good Emperor, Bad Emperor stick. The Repugs stab us in the heart, and the Dems stab us in the back.

But you don't like the facts so you try to explain them away piecemeal. Kindly give me an analysis that explains how the results in 72 and 84 were better than the results in 92 and 96. Because you're advocating the 72 and 84 strategies.

Just did dude. Of course, you will no doubt go running back to the 60's. Waiting for the Dixicrat to rise again. All of your demographics aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Might as well go out and sell soap.

It isn't that centrism always wins. It's that anti-centrism ALWAYS LOSES!

"Anti-centrism?" What the hell is that? Could it be any thing that isn't according to the book of McKaffy? Gee, the right wingers seem to be doing extremely well, despite your assertion. Unless you were including the right wing's position into your definition of centrism.

You keep telling me that the centrist platform is working. Well I just spelled out how well its working. Its working vary well at carrying foreword the Republican agenda. Its working vary well at protecting Republicans from criminal activity. Its working vary well and enabling the Republicans to become even worse, with ZERO fear of prosecution.

How many Democrats have called Rush on his drug hypocrisy? In fact, Rush's district is overseen the a Democratic prosecutor. So if the state doesn't press charges against Rush, it will be a DEMOCRAT protecting the Pig Man himself!

Three months ago, John Kerry went to Dallas Texas to give a campaign speech. But for some reason, Kerry neglected to tell the precinct captain that he was coming. This particular precinct captain just so happen to be one of the radio host to Radioleft.com. And they had in fact been trying to raise all of the candidates so they could give them air time over their net-cast to campaign with. Two blocks. That was what separated the two. They only found out about it the next day when they read about the event in the news paper.

Guy James went to a DLC convention to beg for donations to keep his show on the air. He was the guest of honor. Accolades and praise was heaped on him like a conquering hero by some of the most powerful and wealthy democrats in the state of Florida. How much money do you think he walked out of there with. Ten bucks. That was it. Ten dollars.

Back to Radioleft.com, they decided to try an experiment to see if they could get a member of the DLC caucus on the air for an interview. Hey had been prepared to set aside 2 hours. Not 30 seconds, not five minutes, 120 commercial free, open air, time. They got voice mail. So on a whim they called the RNC. Twenty minutes later, they had a Republican member of the House of Representatives on the air. It took them two weeks to finally get a Democratic staffer on the phone.

Do you now see how well your centrist democrats are doing? Hell, I don't even have to talk about politics. Let's talk logistics. Lets talk about strategy? Let's talk about media access? Lets talk about constant feed back.

In 1996, when I was in the Navy. A peer of mine got himself into some trouble with command he couldn't get out of. So he tried to contact his Democratic representative in the house for help. And came up empty. Another peer gave him the number of his Republican senator, and two hours later, command had suspended his orders so he could get his problems taken care of. Who do you think he voted for when his Democratic representative came around for re-election?

You want to play around in the past. Be my gust. But don't fool yourself into thinking you can brow beating me into ignoring all of this. Do you want a Democrat who bows to the Republican, or a Democrat who will stand up to them? But if the centrist win out, you may as well hang a Bush picture on your bed room wall right now, because the centrist WILL lose to Bush. They will FIND a way to lose to him. They will lose to him, and then come to me about how big their victory was.

[no name no slogan]

"swing voters"-- another myth propogated by Repub-lites

The so-called "Swing Voters" that the centrists like to fret about make up about 5% of the total electorate. They are usually the most fickle and selfish, and typically make up their minds a week or two before the election.

It's been demonstrated, REPEATEDLY, that a true liberal Democrat, when running against a Republican in an average (50% Dem/50% Repub) district, can beat the Republican on issues ALONE, even with less campaign money.

Look at 2002, for example. Most of the "centrist" congressional candidates the DLC funded in contested races got their asses handed to them, while the Dems who ran as liberals won almost all their races. The candidates who played "get along, go along" with BushCo got slaughtered, while the true "opposition" Dems did quite well, even if they were heavily outspent by the Repub.

The people will vote for a REAL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT if there is one available; yet somehow this party has convinced itself that going after this miniscule, fickle 5% "centrist" vote is easier than tapping into even one-tenth of the 50% of electorate WHO DON'T EVEN VOTE.

After the steady decline of this party over the last ten years (no president elected with a majority of the popular vote, losing the US Senate AND House, losing more governorships and state legs) that there's so many who still cling to the "centrist" apologist doctrine. It simply doesn't work for this party.

[Padraig18]

282. Try about 30-35%

Your 5% 'swing voter estimate' is LAUGHABLY lowball.

[Code_Name_D]

305. Then where are they?

Where is that other 30%? Could they be voing Republican per chance?

[library_max]

308. They split, or "swing," between the two parties.

Hence the name. The question is, which side is going to get the higher percentage of them? Answer, the side that is going to win.

[Code_Name_D]

316. Too bad you have to sacrife you base to get it.

I have news for you. They ain't swinging.

[Tinoire]

331. Ah.. And we should remain as indecisive a party as those swing voters

hoping they might jump on the merry-go-round on a whim?

WTH kind of a tactic is that? Stand for nothing in case a bunch of people who stand for nothing think you look more attractive this election cycle as more and more of your loyal bases turns away in sheer disgust at this pandering?!

What a nice little gamble! Let's just gamble away our principles, our positions on the issues, hoping we can "dilute" them enough to attract a bunch of people who can't make up their minds.

Never have I heard such a lack of logic in my life.

You cannot be everything to everyone and it's time the cement-headed DLC accepted that!

[library_max]

336. It's the only thing that ever wins, in national elections.

Hey, I didn't make up the system, and neither did the DLC. Don't blame us if you don't like actual politics. :shrug:

[Padraig18]

343. National elections are won in the center

I didn't make the rule, either, but I damned well know it's true.

[library_max]

307. People vote for a "real liberal Democrat"

in a real liberal Democratic district. Big woop. We're talking about national elections here.

[my_2_cents]

7. These figures say it all

http://www.goodgovernment.org/swingstate/stats/index.htm

Nader made sure Democrats could not sieze the momentum of the Clinton economy. As long as Greens campaign in states competitive for Democrats, Republicans will win.

http://www.goodgovernment.org/swingstate/stats/index.htm

Nader can explain himself all he wants regarding his attendance and sharing the stage at meetings with the likes of Grover Nordquist, but the numbers don't lie. He has used the Greens, and since so many of them are young, gullible and idealistic, they will eat it like candy. When they have to go get a real job and there aren't any, they can complain to Aunt Ralph that the cupboard is bare.

If their virulent anti-corporate policies were followed, unemployment would match many Latin American nations.

[E_Zapata]

11. Agreed! Thank you, I needed to hear that today.......

being that I am dating a GREEN -- who at the very least, I forced to admit with one hand on the bible that there *is* a difference in the parties! eerggh.

[Tinoire]

332. Yes there is a difference but it is getting narrower and narrower

to the point that soon they will be indistinguishable.

[Tinoire]

333. Yes there is a difference but it is getting narrower and narrower

to the point that soon they will be indistinguishable.

[MuseRider]

12. I know they

have said that they would vote for Kucinich but I don't remember anyone trying to dictate a candidate. I think many of them would like to be a member of this party but feel like they are not included, their ideas are scorned by many. So they are asking for a place, looking for a place, supporting one of our candidates and we continue to bash away at them. I guess I just do not understand. Those of us who do not support directly the front runners of our party do not automatically become "the bad guys" or do we? I guess I just do not understand the innability to understand that we all are different and come from different places when determining who we can support. Asking for respect from the Republicans is laughable but asking for acceptance from the Democrats should not be. At this point I have given over to the sad sigh when I read these things, my anger got me nothing but a bad stomach. So without anger, and fully understanding the implications that the greens are "traitors" I would like to ask why the more center members of our party are trying to send the rest of us away. I will be gone for a bit so I will have to wait for response.

[Padraig18]

15. Actually, they don't like losing...

... when, at the end of the day in the Democratic party, we have a vote and they and their idea(s) wind up on the losing end of it. They take their marbles and go home. Great believers in democracy, the Greens. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

335. And the Centrists? The Reagan Democrats? The "Swing-voters"?

The Democrats who repeatedly vote Republican?

Just what are they believers in?

Money? Tax cuts? Corporate protection? Welfare Reform? War? Occupation?

Great believers in Democracy! Great loyal people to hedge your bets and positions on!

The more the Democratic Party caters to them, the more it alienates loyal Dems like me.

[Deja Q]

14. Then get the Dem candidate to do a better job at signing and dancing!

The hard core element will stick to their party regardless.

Candidates of all parties do their song and dance to attract undecided, confused, or uncertain voters.

If you want that extra 97k then you'd better stick to Kucinich and dump Lierberman or example.

Of course, Paul Wellstone was FOR the DOMA and that probably ticked off a few. (I still voted for Mondale in the end and you're not mentioning the fact that, nationwide, there were FAR FEWER people voting Green in 2002 than in 2000.)

Oh enough, you're just trolling. x(

Go ahead and hate. It'll make you feel better.

[Padraig18]

17. Not trolling

Just expressing my outrage at the attempted blackmail by a party that has less than 2% of the vote nationwide, and being perfectly clear on who *I* think we are being asked to get in bed with.

[MuseRider]

90. Why even worry about it

if they are less than 2%. Personally I think alienating them is a bad plan but why worry? Everyone seems pretty darned worried about it for it not to matter.

[Padraig18]

124. Why?

Because I'm tired of people urging us to cave in to the Greens, which would alienate FAR more voters than it would bring in, that's why!

[liberalhistorian]

159. The problem appears to be that it doesn't

take much to "alienate" them. If the Dems don't agree with them 1,00o percent on EVERYTHING, they want to take their toys and go home. It's tough to come to any kind of compromise or agreement with a group like that.

And I'm not at all saying that the Dems are perfect, either, they most assuredly are not, especially the DLC corporate types.

[Padraig18]

167. "My way or the highway" = Green attitude toward coalition-building. n/t

[MuseRider]

223. And how does

this thread represent a different attitude?

[Padraig18]

252. This way:

*I'M* not trying to tell the Greens who is an acceptable candidate to THEIR voters.

[eileen_d]

16. Well, there are two sides to it for me

Based on my lurking on this board, there doesn't seem to be much point in courting Greens to leave their party for the Democratic Party. If a Green party member wants to vote for a Democrat, that's good news, but I don't expect it.

I *do* wish the Democratic party would move several notches left, which would make them ideologically closer to the Greens, and possibly pick up more of the Green vote.

But I agree with you that as the Greens are a separate party, there is no reason to let them to write the script and dictate the future for the Democratic Party.

I may wish that people would vote strategically to get Democrats elected, as that has almost always been my choice, but I am glad another party alternative exists for those who wish to work outside the 2-party system. I would be even happier if this party alternative dropped some of its moral superiority and realized that many Democrats work within the existing system, and other Democrats think that's OK.

[Colin Ex]

18. Yeah harping on the same old shit over and over.

Hating people you perceive as the enemy and letting them know about it over and over and over sure is a great way to move them over to your side.

Some people feel the Democratic party doesn't represent them anymore. So what do the hardcore Democrats do? Call them idiots and dirtbags and call them the enemy. Again, a great way to win them over.

-C

[Padraig18]

23. I made it perfectly clear...

... that *I* DON'T want the Greens as my 'allies'. If 2000 didn't show their true colors, the Minnesota Senate race in 2002 DID.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

[Colin Ex]

36. Why don't you want people

who share your goals as your allies? We both want socialized healthcare, better wages; and they're the ENEMY?

-C

[Padraig18]

38. As long as they're not D's, they're opposition, plain and simple n/t

[Colin Ex]

45. Gee, I don't know if that's black and white enough.

This is turning out to be more educational than I thought; I think that I might prefer to be part of a group that doesn't embrace the Dubya Doctrine of "If you ain't with us, you's against us, yeehaw."


-C

[Padraig18]

49. In a war against *...

... I am not going to have my political 'flank' protected by a party who ran against Paul Wellstone!

[Colin Ex]

74. I don't even know how to respond to that.

I'm looking at my screen, but I don't know what to say. It's the same exasperation you get when you're trying to tell a child something and they plug their ears and sing the theme song from My Little Pony or something.

-C

[Tinoire]

130. Then bite your political flank good-bye!

Because certain people here are working over-time to drive away Progressives, Independent Liberals, and Greens at 3 times the rate that they're convincing Republicans to break ranks and follow Clark over here to vote for him.

Those certain people will continue destroying our traditional and loyal base of support and killing the Democratic Party. Nader and the Greens are not responsible- Intolerant, Selfish Centrists ARE for preferring to FORCE the Party to the Right even at the risk of losing even more loyal progressive voters, many of whom are loyal Dems but so sick of this absolute bull!

Since we never tire of asking this question of the Greens, where do your loyalties lie? To the Democratic Party which stands for progress or to Centrism who only stands for status quo?

[Cat Atomic]

47. Then get ready to lose.

.

[Kahuna]

66. Whoo. Here we go with the blackmail again. A pact..

with the devil if you will. No thanks.

[liberalhistorian]

145. LOLOL!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[lcordero]

19. How about you start complaining about a REAL issue

94,000 people were disenfranchised and 100,000 of Gore's votes were double-punched by the Robbingpublicans. There were issues like this all over the South.
Tennessee was won by a little more than 80,200 votes. I haven't seen or heard about any measures taken by elected Democrats to rectify the situation.

[wyldwolf]

20. Greens are in denial about their's and Nader's role in 2000...

In a May 2001 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Nader denies that Democrats are better than Republicans. He says, "For the past 20 years, the Democrats have been telling progressives that the Republicans are worse. I don't accept that." Even more alarming, Nader intends to teach Democrats a lesson by helping the Republicans in the future: "The Democrats will get the message, but they'll have to lose a few seats first."

http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?haney+701

Just one of the many reasons I have a really bad taste in my mouth for greens and so-called small "d" democrats.

I'm thinking 2004 will be A LOT different. With so many people pissed off at the Bushies, the Dems (big "D" democrats) will render the Bush enabling greens obsolete.

[Tinoire]

338. And there we have it. So that your Bush-enabling & Bush voting

Clark can get in. You've shown your true colors:

With so many people pissed off at the Bushies, the Dems (big "D" democrats) will render the Bush enabling greens obsolete.

I am beginning to think some conservative hawkish posters are on a deliberate mission to push Greens and other progressives out NOW to weaken the support that the Progressive candidates are getting in these primaries so that there boy can get in.

Well THIS is the Democratic Party, we run more than one candidate! We do not ask our candidates to drop out for the DLC nor do we ask people who are willing to work with us to leave the party!

If you can't deal with that then form a separate party for all these "swing voters" you think love you.

[tabasco]

21. Y'er right.

I for one am tired of hearing them whine about Democrats, as the repugs create a fascist state.

[liberalhistorian]

176. EXACTLY!

That says it all in just that one line! I've never understood Nader's continued pounding away at the Dems while the repukes are the real enemy destroying our country as we know it. I have NO patience for that anymore, if I ever had any at all in the first place.

[wyldwolf]

22. Nader: "The Democrats will get the message, but they'll have to lose ...

... a few seats first."

http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?haney+701

Nader is the enemy and, as long as the Greens hitch their wagon to him, they are, too!

[RichM]

24. I approve of posts like this. They'll help destroy the Democratic Party -

a fate it richly deserves. This type of post exposes the true nature of most of the Party -- narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying (and bullying only foes like the 2.7% Greens, while cringing apologetically in front of Republicans), & more than anything, intent on preserving its privileged status as the junior partner in the 2-party monopoly.

[eileen_d]

25. If you are a Green, your post may just expose

the true nature of that party. Or a minority of members within the Green party. I sure hope it's the latter.

[Padraig18]

27. I'm pleased to see responses like yours, too...

...because they so richly demonstrate the absolute truth of MY position. The Greens are NOT our 'friends', or even potentially trustworthy allies, so we need to quit smoking whatever we've got in that old dream pipe, and get on with the business of winning *without* them.

[Kahuna]

33. Thanks for your input Rich. It proves the point that Greens..

want the demise of the Democratic Party, and will use insidious means to achieve that demise. What I like about you is that at least you're honest about it.

[Padraig18]

34. I'll give him points for honesty!

I have MUCH more respect for the Greens who'll actually brandish the knife in the open, rather than waiting until we're in bed together before slipping it under my 5th rib.

[RichM]

35. Yeah sure it "proves" that. Except I'm not a Green. But don't let that

get in the way of your theory.

[Kahuna]

48. Oh yeah. You're a Socialist. Big difference, right?

--------------NOT!

[RichM]

70. To someone like you, there'd seem to be no difference. To someone

like me, there isn't much difference between most Democrats and Republicans.

[liberalhistorian]

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!!1

Not THAT bullshit again! A few more years of the repukes totally in charge will certainly change your mind, the problem is, the rest of us have to suffer with the consequences as well.

[Colin Ex]

78. Are you LISTENING to yourself?

While you're at it, why don't you say you're the Lord Jesus Christ, and that you're going to get drunk and beat up some midgets? (Apologies to Family Guy.)

-C

[Kahuna]

82. Typical blaspheming, juvenile response.. When all else..

fails, attack Jesus.

[sujan]

256. lol

[Tinoire]

344. Who are these New Dems attacking people like you?

Supporters of whom? It is all so blatantly obvious and I'm glad you're not letting these f(*&ing memes get to you.

It is humorous to watch the same people pushing the most Republican candidate out there (and trying to convince everyone that he's the best progressive out there) pushing progressives out of the party!

This needs to stop now before more people wake up saying "A pox on both your houses."

And of course the Centrists and Swing voters don't care which way their little gamble goes because they're comfortable enough in BOTH houses.

[Kahuna]

26. I don't kid myself. They ARE an opposition party..

and should be viewed as such.

[Padraig18]

28. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[AP]

29. So much anger at people who generally agree with you and. 90% of whom

abandoned Nader and voted for Gore in 2000.

This is a stupid strategy for keeping Greens voting Dem, which they do (and the ones who don't generally wouldn't be voting for anyone if not Green, so why attack them?).

[Padraig18]

32. Maybe because they keep attacking MY party?

Do ya think that could be why, maybe? :wtf:

[AP]

51. I think that Democratic Party is strong enough to withstand the criticism

of a 2% marginal party. Hell, I could do that right here, and I do do it here, without resorting to idiocy, which I think, for the reasons I said above, you argument is.

[library_max]

126. Well, for one thing

Republicans and their supporters aren't allowed here. Greens are. And some, at least, come here to prosyletize and say that real
Democrats or real liberals would vote against any of the Democratic candidates or any to the right of Kucinich. That any compromise makes you a "pink tutu" Democrat, a Repug-lite, etc. etc. etc. :puke:

And that hurts us. Get it?

[JVS]

330. I'm beginning to think that the party is unable to deal with criticism...

and move forward.

I hope the party is not like the people here who cannot seem to move beyond an event that took place 3 years ago.

If anyone here is of the opinion that the Greens are the enemy of the Democratic party I have one question for them: What are you going to do about it? I see two possibilities. You could try to appease them or you can ignore them and try to swing right to replace them. Either way you go, there is a draw back. By going left, you must be careful not to alienate centrist Democrats. Look to Bush for tips on how to placate party extremists without losing support of the more moderate. You need to be able to say things that seem insignificant to outsiders, but mean a great deal to insiders. On the other hand, if you move right the contention that there is little difference between D and R becomes more and more accurate, so you have to accept that the Greens will attack you with that and hope that you can offset the loss of their support.

But sitting here spinning your wheels trying to browbeat Greens and leftist Democrats into pledging blind loyalty to the party will not be an answer to the dillemma. In fact you are just driving a wedge deeper and deeper into the party you claim to love.

[library_max]

341. It's not a matter of trying to browbeat Greens.

People are going to believe what they need to believe. They're going to justify their actions until the cows come home. Many Greens have already admitted their mistake - the ones that haven't aren't likely ever to do so.

The point is to refute their arguments and blunt their appeal to other DUers, particularly the young and idealistic kind. It's fun to think that we can have everything we want just by wanting it badly enough and to think that we can win just by being loudly and proudly anti-Bush. This is poison for our chances of actually winning, and it spreads on DU unabated.

There is a reason why freepers and their ilk aren't allowed in DU. I understand the reason why Greens are allowed, but that makes it all the more necessary to refute their ideological purity and "pink tutu" arguments early and often. Not out of hatred, but because they might warp impressionable minds.

[JVS]

346. What should the party do?

[library_max]

349. About what? Not sure I understand the question.

[Scott Lee]

31. You owe thanks to the Greens

I'm tempted to remind you that maybe, just maybe, there would have been more cohesion between the Democrats and Greens if some Gore Democrats weren't throwing rocks (literally) at Nader supporters in a couple of well publicized rallies.

I'm also tempted to remind you that maybe, just maybe, there would have been more Greens voting for Gore had Nader been allowed (allowed????) to debate properly before the selection. You may recall that not only was he not allowed to debate, he was threatened with arrest if he so much as showed up as an audience member.

But let's put aside my temptations.

In fact, the Democrats owe a great debt of gratitude to the Greens. Why? Because it is the Greens who are making you angry enough to seize the initiative back. Democrats in the late 60s and early 70s gained a lot of power because they had initiative. They framed the debates, they had the motivation, they were righteous folks and they knew it.

I'm not a Green myself, but I can see that they doing some tough love for the Democratic party. They are forcing the weak spines out of the party, and hopefully on their heels will be the GOP Lite in the DNC who are the most loathesome of Quislings.

Will the Democratic Party learn and grow from this, or continue to sling venom at "opposition"? That remains to be seen.

[cap]

37. let's forget about Green-Dem squabbles

and kick Republican butt. When the present danger has abated, then we can think about how far to the left this country needs to move. We must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Surely a pleasant debate over how much health care coverage is better than watching all health care coverage disappear. This is a debate to be had later rather than sooner. Same with all of our other differences.

We need to understand local politics and what is truly possible in a particular environment. That means putting up with conservative Dems in the South or West. That also means putting up more liberal candidates in places where they can win.

[Dr Fate]

88. Greens supported the recall- when are they going to stop this behavior?

They assured CA electoral votes for Bush in the process.

I will stop pointing out their destructive strategy when they stop helping Arnold and Bush.

[Iverson]

218. error of fact

http://cagreens.org/press/pr030508.htm

SACRAMENTO - In its trademark consensus style, the Green Party of California (GPCA) ended last weekend's state meeting with this unanimous decision: the state party organization will not join Republican efforts to recall Gray Davis. However, Greens say they will be ready with a candidate if the effort proves successful, and some individual Greens are already working on the recall. ...

[Dr Fate]

251. So greens went on TV and told people to vote NO?

Did Camjeo ever say this on his national TV appearances?

I could have sworn that I saw Camjeo on National and local TV saying that Davis and republicans were the same- and that the people of CA are "fed up" with DEMS.

In his post election statement, he spent at least 5 minutes bashing Davis with the basic "that will teach DEMS a lesson" crap.

I never saw the greens on TV activly supporting Davis and telling people to vote NO...

...Seems like the TV greens and the web-site greens are taking opposite positions to me...

[Iverson]

255. intellectual mischief

Now that your erroneous claim has been disproven, you are backpedaling and changing the terms of your statement. A guarantee of Greens never criticizing Democrats again appears to be your new measure, and we both know that that won't happen.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: individual actions, such as stray Democrats voting for A.S., are not the same thing as party position. Thus, you may well have seen what you say. Still, your broader claim does not follow.

At some point you need to ask whether your purpose is to pursue the truth or not.

[Dr Fate]

274. I never saw Camjeo or Nader at Davis's side oppsing Arnold/Bush

I do believe more people saw the TV version of the greens rather than the website version of their stance.

It's nice that greens too can "have it both ways"

I am going to have to believe "my lying eyes" on this one- I saw Camjeo bashing DEMS in general and encouraging the recall on national and local TV.

Most folks never saw the website, or Nader and Camjeo standing by Davis's side and opposing Arnold/Bush.

[Iverson]

301. sheerest sophistry

I will thank you, sir not to imply that I said you lied. Shame on you.

As I pointed out, now that your original thesis has been disproven, you wish to substitute other conditions. Now Camejo has to have appeared at Davis' side, you say.

You have begun with your conclusion and argued to fit it.

[ShaneGR]

40. Many of us have known that for a long time

Screw the Greens, may they rot in George W Bush hell.

[Padraig18]

44. Has anyone noticed...

... that not one person has defended what the Greens did to Paul Wellstone OR in Massachusetts? I think the silence speaks volumes.

They are NOT our 'friends', folks.

[Colin Ex]

50. Okay, I'll defend it.

In a democracy, people have the right to run as candidates for office.

Next?

-C

[Padraig18]

54. You just won MY complete trust back...

... ---NOT! If Paul wellstone wasn't liberal enough for the Greens, then who the hell WOULD be? :wtf:

[Kahuna]

59. Sure they do. Just don't say it's because you're our

friend and are working towards the same result. That's the point. Padraig has never said that Greens don't have a right to run. He's saying they do, because they are a SEPERATE party. Get it now? But while you're doing it, don't try to have it both ways. You're either a Green or a Democrat. You're not both.

[Padraig18]

63. Bingo!

They can decide to support or NOT support the Democratic nominee, but I will be DAMNED if I am going to allow them to pressure us into nominating a given cadidate by their *threat* not to support someone else! :toast:

[eileen_d]

62. LOL - that was easy

As I said earlier, as a Democratic Party member, I do not mind if the Green Party runs their own candidates. And if they choose to vote for Democratic Party candidates, I am happy (as a Democrat); if they choose to vote for Green Party candidates, I'm not going to get angry about it. To each his/her own.

Edited to add: I do think that if Green Party members want to change the Democratic Party, they should join it.

[Colin Ex]

65. See, that's the rational, reasonable, and charitable solution

that doesn't leave you looking like a jackass. :-)

Props to you, Ms. Eileen.

-C

[eileen_d]

71. Thanks - I did just edit

my post - I hope that doesn't make you want to take back the "props" ;) Even so, I think that my opinion (and it's just my opinion) is still reasonable.

[Colin Ex]

77. I disagree with it a little --

as I think that the answer is uniting from behind our parties for a common goal, a la European politics -- but compared to some of the bile being spewed, you're a saint. :-)

So, I maintain my props to you. :-)

-C

[eileen_d]

85. I would like Dem-Green unity too

and that's why I would like the Democratic Party to shift back to the left. But this hasn't been happening, and until it does, there will be Greens (and others) who are alienated from the Democratic Party.

As for me, maybe someday I'll be alienated enough from the Dems to join a third party, but that just hasn't happened yet. Part of it is the conservative area I live in.

Edit: When I say "shift back to the left," I personally would be OK with a gradual shift, and not a radical one. And I don't think the Democratic Party will ever be left enough for some people.

[0rganism]

284. If I thought I could change the Democratic party, I'd rejoin it

Hell, I campaigned for Democrats, donated to the DNC, voted in the primaries, and hoped things would improve. Instead, we got NAFTA, privatized prisons, and HMOs.

I gave up, it was too much to take. In 1995, I joined a party that actually has a platform I can agree with 99.9%. I still vote for the Democrat 90% of the time, but I've accepted the circumstance that the Democratic party will not and, some here say, cannot change to fit me. It is the party of centrism and compromise, and it's no surprise that when placed as sole opposition to the republican neoconservatives, the balance lies somewhere right of center.

But that is what corporate America wants. If all the Greens spontaneously switched back to the Democratic party, voting for Kucinich in the primary, what would happen? If he won the primary, we're told all the centrists and corporados would desert the Democrats, and the opposition would be left weaker than ever before.

So IMHO it's BEST for the Democrats to hold their primary without my input. Leftists only spoil the party from within, or so we're told. Corporate big-money donors and lobbyist insiders will make the final call, and I'll vote for whoever the Democratic machinery puts up against Bush. Why? Because there's a difference between Democrats and republicans. Democrats (and Natural Lawyers and Libertarians, to a lesser extent) represent the political center of America. Republicans represent the sickest reactionary forces of racism and greed within America. Greens, Socialists, and Communists represent what remains of the American left, which isn't much.

If some people here want to pretend I'm their enemy, that's their problem for living in an oversimplified universe.

[Darranar]

55. Stop this criticism of the Greens!

Whatever they did in '00, let's bring them back in '04. We need them to beat Bush.

[Padraig18]

57. No, we don't! n/t

[Darranar]

67. Yes, we do...

we need every last person who doesn't like Bush to vote against him. We need the Libertarians, the Independants, the Buchanans, the Greens, the Natural Law, the Socialists, the Communists... EVERY LAST MAN OR WOMAN!

This is going to be a close election, and our country, and this world, can't afford to lose it. We must unite, and not divide.

[Padraig18]

76. If they want to vote *D*, fine!

But if they want a seat at the table, either in selecting the nominee OR policy, then they had better become D's! Do you let even your very close friends weigh in on strictly family matters, or do you expect them to become part of the family first, e.g.?

[Darranar]

79. I agree with you (about this, and only this)...

but I doubt they'll become Ds if you and others keep flaming them.

[Padraig18]

81. When have they *ever* quit flaming US? n/t

[Terwilliger]

83. I was flamed the day I arrived here

fuck this "oh, I'll be courteous and I won't repay their slanderous, hateful vitriol with some of my own"

Well, I didn't...I told Carlos he should SHOVE IT!

[Dr Fate]

95. At least Carlos fights Republicans instead of DEMS...

here at Democraticunderground- gosh- how dare him.

I'm in CA "loving" this recall/Arnold crap that you guys supported, BTW...

THANK you so much for "teaching me a lesson!" I will never flame you guys again- you are my GOOD FRIENDS!!!

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

155. Was Carlos for the Recall? the right won that one. Was carlos for Gore?...

...in 2000? Well, the right won that one too!!!

Wow! What a way for Carlos to fight the left- he was for Gore in 2000, and he opposed the recall- yet rightwingers won both of those...

But who were those "benevolent gadflies" that opposed Gore and was for the recall- were those people fighting the left too?

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[liberalhistorian]

188. It would appear that, to the Greens,

the "right wing view" is ANY position not in 1,000 percent agreement with the Green position. No wonder they hardly ever win any elections.

[ulysses]

191. y'know, we keep hearing this.

the "right wing view" is ANY position not in 1,000 percent agreement with the Green position

Personally, I've never seen any Greens or Green sympathizers on DU being as closed-minded as people keep saying they/we are. The support of many of us for Howard Dean should pretty well put that to rest, but it hasn't yet.

So, please show a pattern that proves your claim.

[Dr Fate]

217. Yeah- like being anti-recall and pro-Gore!!!!

Your accusations against my friend are bordering on slander- I know that Carlos is on my side and that others are not.

Were you for the recall? Do you vote DEM? Did you vote Gore in 2000? Who are the liberals here?

[Darranar]

84. The DLC deserves more flaming...

then the Green Party.

[Padraig18]

89. As President Lincoln told SOS Seward...

... during the Trent affair, "One war at a time, Seward."

The DLC isn't far down on my list! :evilgrin:

[Darranar]

92. Good!

n/t

[library_max]

140. Why?

The DLC helps us win. The Greens help us lose. Please explain your logic.

[Darranar]

146. Oh, the DLC-granted decisive victory in '02!

[library_max]

236. You're probably forgotten 9/11

There's been so little media coverage of it, after all, so few reminders. :eyes:

But 9/11 was what made 2002 a no-win situation for Democrats. If we'd courted the base, we'd have lost even more seats. To most of the country, Bush was a saint and any criticism was treason.

[Code_Name_D]

320. You mean like this?

It was the DLC-funded "centrists" who got kicked to the curb by the Repubs. Most of the Dems who stuck to their liberal guns came back to their jobs.

Also, let's be realistic about how the Dems have done since 1992 under the DLC leadership:

* Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote in either of his "wins". Perot had more to do with his wins than his Republican opposition did.

* The DLC-led Dems LOST CONTROL of the US House, which they had controlled for nearly 40 straight years, under Clinton. In 1992, they still had a decent-sized margin over the Repubs, which they squandered in 1994 because of Clinton's ineffectiveness with the Congress.

* The DLC-led Dems also lost control of the US Senate, TWICE.

* Clinton did more to pass the Republican agenda in Congress than even the previous REPUBLICAN administration. His so-called "Universal Health Care" plan would have enriched big insurance companies at the expense of the government and average citizens. Not to mention "Welfare Reform", "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", "Defense of Marriage Act", "NAFTA", "Most Favored Nation status for China", and REFUSING to set lower emissions on new autos are just many of Clinton's Republican-friendly initiatives. Even RICHARD M NIXON set lower limits for vehicle emissions during his administration! What does that tell you?

* We've had a net loss of governorships and state houses, too.

The DLC leadership of this party his been a "dismal failure", to quote Dick Gephardt. If you want to see the Dems become the next Whig Party, go ahead and support the DLC. -No slogan no name.

I think I can handel defeat like that.

[library_max]

326. Ooooh. Spamming of a message I've already refuted

and which was written by someone else. You certainly have put me in my place. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Code_Name_D]

339. Oooooh, Snapy come back.

Snapy come back. No argument. No substance. No facts. You didn't question a singel detial. But it was so susefuly refuted, wasn't it.

BTW: I had answered that post.

[library_max]

350. You know,

I've decided that the best way to susefuly refute your snapy come backs is to just let other people read them. In detial.

[Terwilliger]

151. Show me a DLC win

we've lost the presidency and both the House and the Senate....AND the Pukes are redistricting out all the states...

Where is the DLC win record? Isn't Bill Clinton it? Wouldn't that suggest that Clinton was the influential factor in his win, and NOT his DLC propensities?

The DLC are the ones that left the Democratic party.

[library_max]

239. 92, 96, and 2000

The last three presidential elections. Also, we did better in '98 than the party in the White House usually does in an off-year election. So the whole basis of your gripe is 2002, when Jesus Christ couldn't have gotten elected as a Democrat because of 9/11 and the paranoia that followed.

[no name no slogan]

287. MANY Anti-war Dems were elected/re-elected in 2002

It was the DLC-funded "centrists" who got kicked to the curb by the Repubs. Most of the Dems who stuck to their liberal guns came back to their jobs.

Also, let's be realistic about how the Dems have done since 1992 under the DLC leadership:

* Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote in either of his "wins". Perot had more to do with his wins than his Republican opposition did.

* The DLC-led Dems LOST CONTROL of the US House, which they had controlled for nearly 40 straight years, under Clinton. In 1992, they still had a decent-sized margin over the Repubs, which they squandered in 1994 because of Clinton's ineffectiveness with the Congress.

* The DLC-led Dems also lost control of the US Senate, TWICE.

* Clinton did more to pass the Republican agenda in Congress than even the previous REPUBLICAN administration. His so-called "Universal Health Care" plan would have enriched big insurance companies at the expense of the government and average citizens. Not to mention "Welfare Reform", "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", "Defense of Marriage Act", "NAFTA", "Most Favored Nation status for China", and REFUSING to set lower emissions on new autos are just many of Clinton's Republican-friendly initiatives. Even RICHARD M NIXON set lower limits for vehicle emissions during his administration! What does that tell you?

* We've had a net loss of governorships and state houses, too.

The DLC leadership of this party his been a "dismal failure", to quote Dick Gephardt. If you want to see the Dems become the next Whig Party, go ahead and support the DLC.

[library_max]

296. Shameless. Tch tch tch.

Dick Gephardt was talking about the Bush Administration, not the DLC.

Your "anti-war Dems" were running in bulletproof districts. The elections we lost were the ones that were actually up for grabs. The DLC doesn't bother with the gimmies.

Don't pretend you don't know what a Dixiecrat is, please. Dixiecrats weren't Democrats. We did not have control of the House or the Senate in 1992. Dixiecrats merely made their alliance with the Republicans official during the 80s and 90s.

Nixon was a Republican president in liberal times. Clinton was a Democrat president in conservative times. He did what he could for us. The leftist laundry-list of Clintons sins doesn't magically turn him into a Republican. We have an actual Republican in the White House now. Are you seriously telling me you can't see the difference?

Before the DLC, the Democrats were floundering and losing every election in sight. Only in the world of make-believe would we have been better off without them.

[Code_Name_D]

311. Whow, now who is hand waving the facts?

Did you ever stop to wonder just WHY the libiral dem districts were bullet proof? And many of thoese contestable districts were found in the South. Strange that you guys are looking their for your victory in 04.

Clinton was a Democrat president in conservative times.
Yay. You just confermed my argument that Clintion was a weak presdent. (Thank you, thank you.) It might help your case if you could some how come up with a little consistancy with your argument.

Before the DLC, the Democrats were floundering and losing every election in sight. Only in the world of make-believe would we have been better off without them.

Dude. We are living in a worse off world with them. Or am I supose to beleive the Patot Act is a good thing.

[Andy_Stephenson]

173. Oh boy...So the last 3 years have been a figment of my imagination?

Gore is in the White House? The DLC fought for the recount? Jeez thank god the nightmare is over. It was a bad one...Bush was selected and from there on the DLC was loosing every election.

[library_max]

243. Yes, they fought for a recount

They lost. The court was stacked against them. What were they supposed to do? Burn down the Supreme Court Building? Lynch Antonin Scalia?

"From there on" is one single election, 2002, which nobody could have won for the Democrats because of 9/11.

[Dr Fate]

91. I wanted them back for the recall- they refused...

...instead they encouraged voters to vote "yes", thus assuring Arnold and Bush's victory...

[Darranar]

93. I think many Greens...

voted NO.

[Dr Fate]

102. But their candidate was on national & stateTV advocating the recall

So which is it? Were greens pro-recall or not?

Even after Arnold won, the green candidate (what is his name- Joe Shmoe?, Mr. 2%?, I forget...)all he could do is blame DEMS...he would not even discuss the implicationjs of a pro-Bush governor that he helped facilitate...

[Darranar]

107. Did Nader endorse it?

[Dr Fate]

123. Greens happlily endorsed the pro-Arnold recall on National and local TV...

...and even after the Republicans defeated us all, all the green candidate could do is continue to bash DEMS- instead of admitting that he just supported a successful GOP coup...

[Terwilliger]

134. Bustamante endorsed the recall

and cost Democrats the state

[Dr Fate]

160. Cruz told people to vote "yes" on the recall? LINK?

It was a mistake for greens to appear on TV and tell voters to support the recall- right?

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

209. I asked for a Link with Cruz telling people to vote "yes"

...and I'm still waiting.

I do know that Arnold/Bush and their greens wanted people to vote yes-

I am a DEm and I voted "NO"- how did you vote, or how would you have voted if you were in CA?

[Terwilliger]

214. Im in Berkeley

I voted NO, thank you very much

Camejo had his rights to his own thoughts, which apparently don't serve the interests of Borg Democrats.

Bustamante told latinos, blacks, and progressives that HE should be the focus of the vote. He was. They lost the recall election that should have concentrated on NO.

[Dr Fate]

225. I would like a link to confirm this, please.

I would not doubt it, DEMS do stupid shit too...but I will need I link with proof that Cruz campaigned for a "yes" to recall vote...

Even so, the fact is that we have Arnold/Bush, Greens, (and you say Cruz)supporting this mess- it shows that we need to focus on defeating Republicans and not each other...

I am glad you voted no and that you oppose the greens and thir disasterous "strategy" of opposing viable reppublican opposition-

I must have misunderstood you- I thought you were defending the pro-Recall/Arnold/Bush voting greens...

[Iverson]

219. error of fact

See post #218 and link.

[Dr Fate]

269. I wish Camjeo had read this web-version of the green stance...

...because his televsion speeches painted quite a different picture, I 'm afraid.

[Terwilliger]

58. depends of who your `friends' are

you're a rabid Clarkie and a Green-hater...sounds DLC to me

Both Nader and Winona LaDuke endorsed Wellstone...another Green ran in the primary and won, defeating the run of the ill-conceived support of a conservative liberal (probably a DLC Dem, in reality) who had nearly stopped running by the time of the primary.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

53. he'll be here, I know it

btw I am no green but a proud leftist democrat. If I could vote in the next election I would vote for the nominee of the party, now maybe not with the same ethuaism I have for Kucinich but you know, I would despite my problems with some of the candiates, :shrug:

[Darranar]

61. I support ABB, too...

but I still get annoyed at these knee-jerk criticisms of the Greens. We need to UNITE the opposition, not further divide it. If Ralph Nader runs again in '04, though, I'll get annoyed.

[Andy_Stephenson]

We were right...

Just like clockwork...albeit not as precise.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Kahuna]

68. Shut up! LOL!

:evilgrin:

[JohnKleeb]

73. heh

[Zorra]

56. Hey, at least Greens

never vote for republicans, like a lot of moderate Reagan "Democrats" do.

If you want to discuss blackmail, those of us who are somewhat to the "left of center" are probably going to be forced to vote for some "moderate" corporate ass kisser who will do nothing to solve the long term problems that plague our nation. If a "moderate centrist" is not nominated, many of these "moderate" "Democrats" will vote for Bush. Or so we are repeatedly told.

Talk about blackmail. At least you can count on Greens to never vote for a republican, because republican ideology and philosophy is the complete opposite of theirs. And they are at least willing to support at least one Democrat. Many Greens split off from the Democratic Party because they recognized the fact that direct corporate influence
within the Party and from right wing media propaganda is shifting the Party away from Jeffersonian principles and toward republican ideologies. This effectively neutralizes any possible long term political and social change. Will a centrist work to balance the media? No. Will a centrist work to fix the blackbox problem? No. Will a centrist work to remove corporate wealth and power from controlling government policy? No. It's just not on the corporate agenda. Unless these problems are solved, we treat the symptoms, not the disease. The Greens figured this out, and they split. Personally, I am sticking around to try to try to help the Party get back to it's roots -- as the political party of the People, not the corporations.

And it is not looking good for the home team right now. The Democratic Party is infested with media brainwashed :puke:"Reagan Democrats".

And no, I am not a Green, although I thoroughly respect their ideology and understand why they established a third party. I am a yellowdog Dem.

[patrice]

224. Very Good analysis Zorra!

My thoughts exactly.

[Dr Fate]

86. Greens also supported the pro-Arnold/Bush CA recall...

...they supported and voted FOR Arnold's recall...

...sure they voted for Joe Shmoe (G) or whatever, but they knew full well that Arnold (R) would win. Now Bush will pour federal money into the state, assuring a CA victory in 2004- THANKS greens! You ROCK!!!!

You see, the greens are "benevolent gadflies" who are here to "teach us a lesson" for "supporting DEMS, who are no different than republicans"...

WOW! Thanks greens- I needed that "lesson"!!! But please, no more favors, at least until 2004-no, really, please...

[Padraig18]

96. LOL!

I was wondering when someone in an equally bitchy mood would show up and point that out; surprised it took so long. :P

[Tinoire]

197. Guess you didn't see all those Recall SI Bustamante SI

panels?

Or all those Democrats who voted for Arnold??!

Do not EVER forget that the San Francisco you recently moved to is not all of California!!

[Dr Fate]

216. I saw greens in SF supporting the Recall...

...they has a booth set up at one of the fesitivals on Polk St. doing just that.

The good Dean supporters and DEMS were encouraging people to vote "NO" on the recall.

NO- I did not see the any DEM signs encouaging the recall- were those put out by DEMS? I dont suppose that could of been GOP or green mischief could it? I'd like a link with Bustamante telling people to vote "yes" likje Arnold/Bush and the greeens did.

I dont know one single "Democrat" who voted for Arnold, BTW, but I personally know some "liberals" who voted "yes" on the recall- I also know Republicans who voted "yes" as well.

[Tinoire]

348. Like I said- Get out of San Francisco and drive down to Salinas

and similar towns. Plenty of them there and some of the signs are still up on people's front yards. Plenty who wanted to see their boy Bustamante in power. Do not also please forget the powerful influence of the Indian gambling industry which had a vested interest in seeing Bustamante win.

San Francisco is not all of California. San Francisco is Liberal Democrat heaven with a heavy sprinkling of Greens- all of whom I know voted No on the recall and then whatever candidate. Even the Bay Area Greens here at DU, who are my personal friends, voted that way. Why would you choose to give support to those insulting them? Those are the Bay Area DUers we've protested with and worked with for years. And it's a very tight knit circle of Dems and Greens that doesn't take kindly to these flame wars and gets very defensive for our friends, the ones we KNOW we can count on and have counted on and who have been here for years. Loyal. Not Johnny come latelies like many of the originators of these threads and stirring up trouble in the community. Please don't be as pig-headed as they are and join them in helping chase people away.

---

We won't even talk about the Dems who didn't even bother going to vote. Honestly, I'm about to just wave both my hands in the air and walk away from this entire political mess not caring anymore because of the juvenile attitudes I'm seeing here and the head-burying and finger-pointing permeating the Democratic Party these days.

I don't personally know any Democrats who voted for Arnold but I read there were quite a few. And you know why? Because Arnold, hate him as we do, is a Centrist Republican.

And this year, this election, according to an article from 2 days ago for which I do not have a link, the Republicans are going to run a Centrist Campaign. Because of apathy, suspsicious electronic voting, and centrist confusion between the two parties, I fully expect the nation to go the same way California just did.

“When people are given a choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they’ll pick the Republican every time.” - Harry Truman

[Iverson]

221. error of fact

See post #218 and link.

[jiacinto]

87. I agree with you

Early on I was more than willing to work with the Greens. But let's be realistic--their demands are unreasonable. And the fact remains that they will only support Kuchinich, CMB, or Sharpton--three candidates who, with all due respect, are not acceptable to the general electorate at large, thus rendering themselves unelectable.

The Greens' leader has said that they want to destroy the Democratic Party. You make a good point.

[Padraig18]

94. He wants to destroy both parties, Carlos.

I'll be damned if I'll stand by passively and HELP them do it to mine. :thumbsup:

[Darranar]

97. Don't generalize...

and this is going to be an election to defeat the incumbent, not to elect a candidate. Plenty of voters are going to be voting D while holding their noses.

Many Greens are going to go ABB. Nader has already indicated that we need to beat Bush. We need to bring the Greens back, not further alienate them.

[Dr Fate]

98. But this did not occur in CA- they voted FOR the pro-Arnold recall

...and now Bush and Arnold will work together and try to win that state in CA.

Greens had there chance to oppose Republicans and Bush in CA, but they refused.

I'm starting to think that greens are either political hacks, acid casualties, or both...

[Darranar]

101. Did Nader endorse the recall?

[jiacinto]

105. But Camejo sure did

nt

[Darranar]

109. Greens don't neccesarily follow party line...

If Nader didn't, how can you blame him or the Green Party leadership?

[Dr Fate]

115. Did Nader come to CA and counter-act this loose cannon then?

Or did he sit by at let him continue to support the pro-Arnold/Bush recall?

I never saw Nader come to CA once and stump for DEMS and against this guy...

I have a hard time believing that he did not have the full support of his party...

[Tinoire]

242. He did huh? Like Bustamante didn't help enable this little coup?

C'Mon Jiacinto. C'Mon down to Salinas, CA to see all the Recall Si! Bustmante Si! votes. From there you can drive though Indian country to see the same signs.

Cruz deliberately gambled on this and he had nothing to lose! He's still Lt. Governor!

I posted a California story about this a few months ago.

This was yet another DLC gamble and it lost!

And now you're once again attacking the Greens! :wtf:

[Dr Fate]

113. Yes- the Greens were even on national TV supporting it...

The green candidate in CA was on national and local TV telling voters to support the pro-Arnold recall...

Apparently with the full blessing of the Green national committee...I never heard anyone tell this guy to stop stumping for the pro-Arnold recall...

either they are ignorant, or they supported the recall with tthe FULL knowledge that Arnold/Bush would come out on top

[Darranar]

117. Did Nader endorse it?

Passive acceptance is different from active support.

[Dr Fate]

137. If Nader opposed it, then why did his party refuse to listen to him?

Did Nader come to CA and help us fight against Arnold/Bush?

he must be an awful leader, all of his disciples in CA ignored him and supported the pro-Arnold recall instead.

Did he denounce the "loose cannon" in his party and cut off his funds and support?-...

Did he demand to debate the green "loose cannon" in order to point out his mistakes of supporting Arnold?

If Nader is so all-powerful as you suggest, then he would have put a stop to that nonsense-

I did not see the one interview or whatever where Nader apparently suggested some misgivings about "his" parties pro-Arnold strategy...

Apparently he did not speak out enough, or he has little power- I never heard him, and his pro Arnold/Recall people under him apparently do not listen to him...

[Terwilliger]

136. or, your simplistic assessment draws that conclusion

because you've been so successfully programmed by the Democratic Party hysteria generator

[Dr Fate]

144. I have a Republican Governor now- Greens supported the recall

Did greens not support the recall? You suggest this is some sort of perception or bias on my part? Did i not see and hear greens on national and local TV supporting the pro-Arnold recall?

The DLC did not tell me about this- I saw the greens on national and local TV supporting it.

[Terwilliger]

157. Cruz Bustmante and a LOT of other Democrats endorsed it

AND, Gray Davis lost the state to a fucking actor because people hated him SO much...is that Camejo's fault too?

[Dr Fate]

163. Cruz told people to vote "yes" on the recall? LINK?

????

[Padraig18]

161. Oh yes, we all drink the Kool-Aid while...

... the Greens sip only the nectar of truth and enlightenment. :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

177. Nader never said there was no difference...will you admit that?

Nader didn't cost Gore the election...will you admit that?
Greens have a right to be heard when the Democrats don't represent them...will you admit that?
Opposition to Democrats can't include people further left than they are...will you admit that?

[Padraig18]

182. I will NOT admit #1!

The other 2 are obvious.

[Terwilliger]

201. that's what I thought

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

262. You thought correctly, then. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

196. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Right on!

[Padraig18]

100. Sarcasm-free post

I could forgive Nader in a heartbeat, if he would utter but one simple phrase: "I was wrong to do what I did in 2000." He could even qualify it a bit, with "But I thought it was the right thing to do, at the time", etc..

But he hasn't, so I'm at where I'm at until he does.

[Darranar]

104. I think he already thinks so...

the same way I think Kerry thinks he was wrong to vote for PATRIOT and IWR.

Saying so, of course, is another matter...

[Padraig18]

111. Indeed!

And until I hear the words (or their equivalent) spoken PUBLICLY, I'm at where I'm at. If he's truly sincere about defeating * in 2004, he needs to tell us so.

[charlie]

99. Plenty of the long-timer Greens here

y'know the guys you've had battles royale with since forever, are backing Howard Dean, not Kucinich, Braun, or Sharpton.

...who, oddly enough...

is the same guy you're backing!!!!

............

............

Go ahead, I'll wait here while you scream and poke your eyes out.

[Padraig18]

103. I know that

But I am also ABB; are they?

[MuseRider]

118. Frankly

that is none of anyone's business but I would guess they are probably mostly ABB. You are wrong if you think that they don't see the problems here with Bush* too. So lets call them out some more so that they can't even stand the thought of voting with us.

[ulysses]

185. speaking only for myself

but no, I'm not ABB. The very strong likelihood is that I'll be voting Dem in the general no matter who wins the nomination, but simply being "better than Bush" isn't enough.

[MuseRider]

202. For me

it is to that point. I feel we can't take another 4 years however after that I will vote my preference. I can tell you for certain after all of this it will not be republican but could very well be green. Being better than someone else is a poor way to have to vote, have done enough of that in my lifetime to really want to vote for someone I respect.

edit You know, I would never leave the democratic party, I was as commited as they come but now after all of this and past threads like this one I can say I feel little allegience. The DLC has screwed some of us and these attitudes here creep me out. It feels almost...never mind

[saoirse]

120. Voting Green = Voting Republican

Sorry, but it's the truth. If you don't like it, shouldn't you
be at Green Underground?

[jiacinto]

122. Good question

Sometimes I wonder if I am on a Green baord.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

142. I'm an "extremist?"

Wow, that's new.

I consider myself a dovish anti-corporate Democratic Socialist. My views are pretty much in line with many people here, and many Dems out in the world.

[jiacinto]

148. Yes you are

The amount of Americans in society who agree with you are quite small.

[Darranar]

162. And you know this because...?

Quite a few are anti-war, quite a few support more Welfare, non-privatized Social Security, a living wage, and Universal Health Care, in one form or another. Many are against the PATRIOT Act and are pro-choice. If those views make me an extremist, well, big deal.

[Andy_Stephenson]

166. He knows because his middle name is

Kreskin

[ulysses]

179. being in the minority makes one an extremist?

Pray tell.

[saoirse]

143. I refuse to allow the progressive vote to be split

Which is the whole reason the Green Party is allowed to exist.
There is ample evidence of GOP infiltration into the Green Party. I don't doubt the sincerity of most Greens, but they have been duped into serving as a spoiler that has helped the Republicans gain power.

No, it's not Progressive Underground either - it's Democratic Underground. If I wasn't a Democrat I wouldn't be here - and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same courtesy from others.

[Darranar]

154. If you don't want it to be split...

then there are two things you can do.

One: You can fight the vile DLC with everything you have, and stop them from turning this country into a one-party state.

Two; You can extend a hand to the Greens and stop flaming them. Maybe then they'll come back to the party.

[saoirse]

203. Both worthy causes

And I'll say that there's one big thing the Greens can do: NOT nominate a presidential candidate in 2004.

That would send a big message that getting rid of Bush and his cabal is THE priority for progressives.

I will say that most sincere Greens are on the right side of virtually every issue imaginable. But one reason the Republicans have had the success they've had is that they're UNIFIED. The recall election was a perfect illustration of this. Conservatives (especially of the religious persuasion) knew Ahnold was hardly the candidate of their dreams, yet they held their noses and voted for him because the payoff of gaining control of a blue state was so huge.

And while I have no great love for the DLC, I do respect them for choosing to work WITHIN the Democratic Party - thus preserving party unity and showing that we are the big tent the GOP professes to be.
I welcome anyone and everyone to our party, but as a Democrat I expect them to support our candidates - otherwise, why the hell would they want to be Democrats?

And I don't buy for a second the ridiculous arguments that we don't have enough progressive candidates or that we're, with the GOP, two sides of the same coin. Do you really think our country would be in the mess it's in if Al Gore had been allowed to claim the presidency he actually won? We have great candidates that appeal to a wide range of the political spectrum - and even those I don't agree with on a lot of issues, like Lieberman, are still on the right side of most issues.

A political party is sort of like a really big family. All of us will never agree about everything, but we're still committed to each other. And we don't run away and find another family when things get tough - we stick together. At least, we should - if we want to win.

[jiacinto]

186. Don't call the Greens Progressives

Their real is name is "The Regressives".

[Terwilliger]

198. coming from the Democrat of the Leisure Class

certainly don't call Democrats progressive

[Dr Fate]

229. Classic green-style slander- Carlos works for a living pal...

...how dare you slander a hard-working and active DEM in this manner.

Am I "leisure class" too?

I doubt you want to compare bios with me, but then again, Im not here for a "I grew up poorer than you" pissing contest- I'm here to defeat republicans and people who support their recalls.

[ulysses]

233. gee, Fate.

Did you ever take Carlos to task like this when his mantra was "Greens are all trust fund babies"?

[Dr Fate]

267. As much as I respect you as a person, I am not here to defend greens

...does that answer your question?

And now for some antecdotal observations:

I worked for the DEMS in GA, and they were almost all minority, Union, old-time veterans (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, some Gulf War), Carter-King style Southern Baptist, 1st generation college graduates, etc...The only upper class types in my local org. were transplants from up north or out west. My predasessor as Prez. of the Young DEMS is a tough,Chicago working class kid who is ROTC and active military reserves.

I'm not one to generalize too much, And I am certainly not pointing the finger at you, who I would like to think of as a friend, but all the greens I have met are college kids from solid upper-middle class back-grounds...No black kids, no poor kids, no ROTC...

I can see why Carlos has made this observation, whether it is 100% true or not, I dont have enough "evidence" to make that genralization

[ulysses]

275. I suppose it does.

I take you to mean that you're fine with accusing people who are not wealthy of being wealthy, and therefore uncaring, as long as they're Greens. Got it. The generalization is still wrong.

I'd like to consider you a friend as well, but I think you can see the hypocrisy in the gnashing of teeth over Carlos being called a "Democrat for the Leisure Class" - and if you'll remember, that moniker was coined by no less a white, upper-class, collegiate Green than Jesse Jackson.

[Dr Fate]

280. Jesse Jackson was anti-recall, and votes solid DEM...

...he also activly campaigns for DEMS every chance he gets.

When Jesse Jackson Joins your party, then he will belong to you- his was a call to strenghten DEMS, not abandon them for a another small party.

You and I both see the same problems with the DEMS, we just have different ways of solving it- I dont think abandoning DEMS and handing over CA and the US to Repugs at this crucial juncture is the answer...I still believe we can all join forces, defeat BUSH and divide the spoils- I still believe we can all compromise instead of fighting each other and strengthening Bush/Arnold/etc...

[ulysses]

283. Jesse's already in my party.

You seem to be missing that the "Democrats for the Leisure Class" thing is a well-deserved slam at the DLC, not the party as a whole. Not all the criticism of the DLC comes from without the party.

I still believe we can all compromise instead of fighting each other and strengthening Bush/Arnold/etc...

Let me know when the DLC is ready to compromise. I already am.

[jiacinto]

272. A lot of them are

nt

[ulysses]

277. and a lot of them aren't.

Your point?

[jiacinto]

281. They aren't the ones who are paying the price of living

under Bush. That's the point.

[ulysses]

290. "They" who?

[Iverson]

234. really?

Then by now you have no doubt stopped fostering the misimpression about the Green Party supporting the recall. I have provided a link in message #218.

Individual Greens, like individual Democrats who voted for Schwarzenegger, might do anything, but the claim is clearly implied about the group.

[Dr Fate]

244. Yes, really, Greens were on TV supporting the recall- did you miss that?

They were on National and Local TV supporting the pro-Arnold/Bush recall.

[Iverson]

250. link provided in note #218

What individuals do (and here I note amazingly that you've ignored stray Democrats) is not the same as what position the party takes.
You know this.

[Dr Fate]

276. I see, so TV greens and Web greens are 2 different parties...

...the Web greens are sort of like the DLC- the "conservsative, pragmatic wing",

...while the "Liberal, party building" TV greens refused to stand by Davis and publically refute the pro-Bush/Arnold recall, instead they went on national TV and repeated the anti-DEM mantras we heard in 2000.

Fascinating- I did not know there were 2 diametrically opposed postions/strategies in the green "organization"...

[Name removed]

246. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

259. No- I respect people who work for a living...

...and who work hard for the DEMS- unless he is lying, he fits the bill for both of these. I dont care what class you are in- so long as you work hard to help others- not just philosophy- but actually getting people elected you can do these things, like DEMS...

I thank my lucky stars that I am no longer low working class- I plan on fighting to elect DEMS to raise up others.

I am thankful for DEMOCRATIC programs that allowed my eat nutrious meals and recive medical help as a child and even go to college for free.

[jiacinto]

266. What you didn' t realize

1) I had to put that laptop on a credit card and I had papers due for school that couldn't wait. That's why I bought it.

2) I did buy Enron stock and paid the price for it. So do you have a problem with people who own stock?

3) I bought a new car because I needed it for my new job here in Florida. A job that turned out to be a nightamre that I had to quit.

So I am not rich. I have student loans that are as much as a mortgage on a house. I am not dirt poor, but I am not in the "leisure class" either. In fact I am hardly even in the middle class.

[jiacinto]

263. Thanks

great post.

[Iverson]

228. Don't let conservatives define "progressive."

The smart thing would be to judge for yourself whether the Greens are progressive or no by reading their platform.

http://www.gpus.org/platform.html

[ulysses]

231. one just did, though.

:)

[Dr Fate]

238. Hmmm, the most recent Green iniciative was being pro-Recall though

...Rather than read their philosophy, lets see what they have actually done that is progressive...

You see, I like to study HARD politics- I like to see what people can DO, not what people "would" do, "if" they could get more than 2 or 3% of any vote.

CA is one of the most Liberal states, and they could not even get above 4%...

I could care less what someone says they would do in a fantasy scenario- I want to know what they HAVE DONE and what they WILL DO.

So far, any progressive legislation in this country has been spearheaded and inacted by DEMS.

The most recent example of the Green voting record is their ardent support for the pro-Arnold/Bush recall...that is a documented record of what Greens will do for us- support Arnold's power grab.

Besides supporting Arnold's power grab, what progressive legislation have greens inacted for us?

[Iverson]

247. you must have missed the other four reminders

The Greens were not pro-recall. See note #218 and link.

[Dr Fate]

261. Then why were they on TV supporting it?

The TV greens and the web-site greens need to coordinate better, no?

[Terwilliger]

317. Greens are not monolithic

like the formerly "big tent" Democrats seem to be

[library_max]

265. Your link, of which you seem to be so proud

Refers to May, quite a long time ago. The statements on TV that other posters refer to are much more recent.

[Iverson]

304. accuracy, not pride, is the point

I would not have needed to post it multiple times had the same error not been posted multiple times.

Sorry that you didn't catch that.

[library_max]

322. Totally missed my point, I see.

[MuseRider]

125. Silly me

I thought this was a board for Democrats and Progressives. Ooops.

[eileen_d]

152. Voting Green is not voting Republican.

I used to buy this argument but I don't anymore. Voting Green is voting Green.

Look, if Democrats want to attract Greens, they need to take actions and espouse policies that attract Greens. And I believe if Greens want to effectively change the Democratic Party, they should join it. But if Greens want to work for change from within their own party, they have every right.

[library_max]

268. The objection is that they come here to DU

and prosyletize and electioneer against us. Republicans aren't allowed to do that. Also, the end result of all their efforts is that, the more successful they are, the more firmly the Republicans will control the country, which seems to be the opposite of their intentions. Hence the frustration, which, I agree, is not in itself productive.

[ulysses]

147. KILL 'EM ALL!

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

150. I find it amusing in the extreme that...

... some of the very same people I see pillory General Clark on an almost daily basis for his past in regards to the Repubs will absolutely LEAP INTO THE BREACH to defend Nader and the Greens!

Note to mathematically-challenged: a vote for Nader in 2000 was NOT a vote *for* Gore!

Hello? Ding! Ding!

[retyred]

319. SLAM!!!!

[Iverson]

153. It's time to quit kidding yourself about something, all right.

The phony pose of victimhood in your note reveals a simple desire to have your prejudices validated.

Go back to your precious "bipartisanship" and leave dialogue to those who approach it in good faith.

:thumbsdown:

[Padraig18]

169. Nothing phony about it

But thanks for your input, if it was in fact input.

[Iverson]

183. laetrile

There's a lesson here.

[charlie]

204. Pshaw...

This thread is just an excuse to indulge in your wankery. You've done little but tearass around with one-line snarks and insults, your joy undisguised. Cascadian's original thread is raging nicely, flowing over with flames and teeth-baring, there was zero need to reprise it. No two ways about it, you enjoy pitting DUers against each other, relish the division and hard feelings. The bulk of the Greens here have found Democrats to support, but what does that matter when there are NOTICE ME DAMMIT threads to start?

BTW, the Green you're currently crapping on is a civil soul, accomodating to a degree you'll never manage. Try really talking to him if you dare.

[patrice]

248. That is exactly what is going on Charlie. - eom

[retyred]

165. They did not cost Gore the Election...So stop say that!

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray." – Ralph Nader In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000



The math is simple: Gore lost the pivotal Florida race, officially, by only 537 votes, while Nader pulled 97,488. Additionally, Gore only needed 7,000 more votes to take New Hampshire, but Nader got 22,156 potential Gore votes away. When questioned about the Green Party's responsibility for the 2000 election's outcome, Nader said: "I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?" -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

**********************

The same argument the Greens used here on DU after Selection 2000 is being used today, but now they want inclusion and acceptance while admittedly remaining Green loyalists....Thanks but no thanks.

Many of these same Greens asked about Clarks record of Democrat loyalty while remaing a registered Independent but now expect us to over look their insistence at remaining Green with the promise of being a Democrat ally....Register Democrat and we'll talk, till then I have no reason to believe.


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

[dolstein]

171. Excuse me, but some of us were never fooled

I have no problem with the Democrats trying to reach out beyond their party base, especially since party membership has declined to the point where it is simply no longer possible for Democrats to win without attracting support among voters who aren't registered Democrats.

But I simply don't buy the argument that Greens are natural targets for our efforts. There are many, many times more votes up for grabs among independents than there are among Greens.

[Padraig18]

175. Yes, there are! n/t

[Terwilliger]

180. dolstein (as per usual) forgets the more than 50% that don't vote

but, OH YEAH, let's RUN for those less-than-conservative conservatives...that's a wellspring!

Hey, you want to get the white male 18-49 vote? You could run Senator Bimbette! She's a comer!

[dolstein]

323. Terwilliger (as per usual) forgets that the 50% that don't vote

aren't left-wing ideologues. If a left-wing agenda was what these non-voting 50% wanted, they would have turned out en mass to support Ralph Nader in 2000. They didn't.

[jiacinto]

181. Good post

But see the Greens, in their deluded Marxist/Socialist fantasies, act like the world is dying for the revolution.

[Darranar]

220. "Socialist?"

The Greens aren't Socialists.

[ulysses]

207. so, how's that working for ya?

All those committed centrists making your life easier yet?

[dolstein]

325. Al Gore: > 48% of the vote; Ralph Nader: < 3% of the vote

Personally, I like the Democratic nominee's chances in 2004 a hell of a lot better than the Green nominee's chances.

So tell me, do you still believe Nader was correct when he said there wasn't any difference between Al Gore and George Bush?

[ulysses]

345. answer the question.

Personally, I like the Dem nominee's chances better than the Green nominee's chances too. That wasn't the question.

How are those centrists working out for you?

And to answer your final question - I never believed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. An insufficient difference, but never no difference.

Do I get an answer to *my* question now?

[w4rma]

174. Yup

For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn't about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of “heightening the contradictions”. It's not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It's that he's actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can better.

Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that the Reagan-era interior secretary James Watt was useful because he was a “provocateur” for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club's membership. More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here's the Los Angeles Times' account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, California, last week: “After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilise us.'”

Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. “When {the Democrats} lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters,” Nader told an audience in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months ago, according to a story in the Nation. “We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes.”

That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked “about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party”. Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. “I hate to use military analogies,” Nader said, “but this is war on the two parties.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

Last Thursday morning CNN showed Nader voters ecstatic and unapologetic about their part in the election mess. “I'm a part of history,” burbled one woman.

Along with that woman CNN showed another Naderite who shrugged off the prospect of a Bush presidency with the following: “I believe things have to get worse before they get better.”

That seems to me to adequately sum up the belief of Ellen Willis who, in a Salon piece supporting Nader last week, wrote: “More and more I am coming to the conviction that Roe vs. Wade, in the guise of a great victory, has been in some respects a disaster for feminism. We might be better off today if it had never happened, and we had had to continue a state-by-state political fight. Roe vs. Wade resulted in a lot of women declaring victory and going home.”
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/15/nader/

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.”

“If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.” - Nader
http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

The only prominent Democrat who Nader seems to believe offers the party any chance for redemption is Russ Feingold, the maverick senator from Wisconsin who cast a lonely vote against the Bush Administration's antiterrorism legislation. Feingold is a rare Democrat who consistently says things like, “Ralph Nader is talking about issues Democrats should be talking about.” But the mutual admiration goes only so far. Nader rejects the idea of backing a Feingold run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. “I'll say a lot of good things about him, but we're not trying to build the same party,” he says.

Nader admits he experiences “lots” of frustration with the Greens. He warns that the party is not running enough candidates to achieve critical mass at election time, and he says it must do so--even where that means challenging relatively liberal Democrats.

Does Nader worry, even just a little bit, that another candidacy might divide progressives and produce another Bush presidency? “Look, I'd rather be engaged in the nonpartisan work of building a civil society. For me, there has been a gradual commitment to getting involved in the electoral process, and I still cling to this civic, nonpartisan vision of how to do things,” Nader says. “But if you do an acute analysis of why things don't change in this country, you come back to what has happened to the Democratic Party. When I look at how the Democrats have responded to Enron so far, it seems to me that we all have a responsibility to try to jolt them into an understanding of what is at stake. If Democrats respond effectively, there will not be much point to me or anyone else challenging them. But if they do not, something has to give. People realize that. People know what the Enron scandal means. This is a test. Are Democrats capable of addressing massive corporate crimes effectively? If Democrats cannot, if they are in such a routinized rut that they are incapable of responding, then how could anyone make a case that they should be given deference at the ballot box?”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020225&s=nichols

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because “that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray.”
In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, “No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman.” -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

“Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy.” -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

“I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?” -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001
http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

Contrast his statements above with some information on the two pre-Nazi Germany liberal parties:
In 1930 the parliamentary coalition that governed Germany fell apart, and new elections were held. The biggest winner in these elections was Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party. From twelve seats in parliament they increased their seats to 107, becoming Germany's second largest political party. The largest party was still the Social Democrats, and this party won 143 seats and 24.5 percent of the vote. Communist Party candidates won 13.1 percent of the vote (roughly 50 times better than the U.S. Communist Party did in the 1932 elections), and together the Social Democrats and the Communists were large enough to claim the right to make a government. But Communists and the Social Democrats remained hostile toward one another. The Comintern at this time was opposed to Communists working with reformers, and the Communists believed that a collapse of parliamentary government would hasten the revolutionary crisis that would propel them to power.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

[gully]

194. Good info.

Thanks!

[ulysses]

206. and I suspect that you're aware

of the difference between Ralph Nader and the people who voted for him. Don't you, Rick?

[patrice]

260. Thanks I needed that to figure out what is going on

around me here locally.

[diamondsoul]

342. Having read this entire post, and without

checking the provided links, I'm just stunned. I can't say it's positive or negative stunned, just stunned.

I keep looking at some of the quotes and just thinking "Damn, there is this very dark and scary sense of logic to this!".

Now I'm a lifelong Democrat, probably since I was about 6 yrs old, the party of the people and all that just fit my beliefs about right and wrong, and about the country. Even so I loved Nader before the Green Party was formed, and afterwards, well I was pretty well a robotic Democrat. I voted the Party whenever possible and the closest alternative when Dems didn't run. I've never resented the Greens for anything, and I don't plan to start anytime soon.

No, I don't see them as the enemy, and frankly reading all these Nader statements makes me even more inclined to admire him. That doesn't mean I agree with him, but damn, I have to admire his ability to think, and his guts in coming out with his views so boldly.

He looked, he got pissed, and he figured out a way to make it known, not just to the DLC and DNC but to the whole damned country! That's just...inspirational, imho.

[patrice]

187. Never ever underestimate the strength of *anyone's* reflex . . .

to cut off his/her own nose to spite your face.

Show them the respect of leaving them alone.

Don't get suckered into a stupid fight.

Go about the business of doing OTHER stuff that works.

Let the Greens be.

Leave the door open.

[Padraig18]

189. The original post is aimed at *Democrats*

I was speaking as a Democrat TO Democrats.

[ulysses]

222. great

Then you're talking to me. Cool.

[Iverson]

237. Is it time to quit kidding yourself about this thread?

DU is a board for progressives of all stripes. To pretend not to know this defies belief. You were speaking TO (sic) everyone.

You were castigating a group of people. Expect a response.

[patrice]

302. ? So I'm not a Democrat because I said we should respect Greens?

What kind of Democrat does that make you, trying to push people out of a political party that some of us used to talk about around his/her father's dinner table, as the group that stood up for those whom Republicans didn't want?

[Iverson]

309. approximately, yes

However, among rational people, civility is highly prized. Cheers.

[Padraig18]

310. I'm not pushing anyone out

They left. If they want to be Democrats, fine.

[Iverson]

318. mm hmm

From my vantage point, the Democrats left. However, carry on the inquisition. I'm sure it will encourage lefties to obey unquestioningly.

[Padraig18]

327. That's entirely possible

The party has been centrist for a decade, if not longer.

[patrice]

321. So you were refering to them not to me then.

I'm around a *bunch* of Greens right now, and working for Dean.

Trying to figure out how to deal with them, so far, I've said if you've got something to do for Kucinich, I will help you when I can, and I will. Dean/Kucinich would be a nice ticket.

[Padraig18]

329. I want Kucinich to stay

I think Kucinich makes a valuable contribution to the party, and he STAYS a Democrat, even if he loses! The Greens could learn something from DK. :hi:

[gully]

193. Agreed.

Thanks for posting.

[George_Bonanza]

230. I don't like Nader that much

First, he greatly distorted the truth when he said that there's no difference between Gore and Bush. What's Bush doing right now? Empowering the rich and fighting messy wars. What's Gore doing? Trying to establish a mainstream liberal media outlet in America. Can anyone see a big difference here? I surely can.

Second, he seemed to greatly dislike Gore because he felt Gore was too corporate. For someone who's so judgmental, one could easily find Nader's corporate connections and investments which have made him a very wealthy man. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being rich, but there's something wrong when you're hypocritical about it.

Third, the Greens running against the one of the most progressive Democrats, Wellstone, just shows they only care about their party, not their beliefs. They seem to wave the party flag just as much as the Dems or Repubs.

Fourth, the way the Greens targeted hotly contested states in 2000 didn't do liberalism one favour. Again, can you honestly tell me that we'd be in Iraq if we had Gore as president? This is a president who would NOT have selected PNACers as his cabinet and advisors.

I like the Greens, I wish they'd join the Democratic party and become part of a bigger whole than simply a small fragment. They have no national representative, yet they want to clutch the big prize first. That's not how it works. First, get some senators and reps in, introduce yourself, and then work gradually for the brass ring. Instead, they forego any long-term success to allow people to vote a "tantrum vote". That's all they'll be, a tantrum party, until they build a strong national infrastructure, and gain influence in Washington. Being the "Holier than thou" party will never get you past 5% nationwide.

[lifelong_Dem]

245. I've said this before, and I'll say it again

(1) I estimate that 50% of those who voted for Nader in 2000 will not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate. Ever. Not even Dennis Kucinich. They would find a reason to stab Kucinich in the back were he to win the nomination (i.e., you'll start hearing a lot of "principled" Greens bringing up the late-seventies "white candidate" hoo-haw). We Democrats should get that in our heads right now, and forget about trying to win this lot over to our side. They ran a candidate against Wellstone and are planning to run a candidate against Barbara Boxer. Your chances in convincing a Jehovah's Witness to convert to Catholicism or Judaism are greater. Forget them (whether or not you agree with any portion of their views). They are every bit the enemy as Bush* and the PNAC.

The other half of those who voted for Nader, on the other hand, are reachable. How to appeal to them has already been hashed out and I don't have much more to add. Personally, I think that the past 2 3/4 years of Bush* and the PNAC running things will have opened their eyes. While we should try to reach them -- and encourage them to (a) settle their differences within the Democratic Party (if they are Democrats) or (b) convince Greens to be more pragmatic this time (if they are Greens) -- Democrats should also not "unilaterally disarm." That is to say, make it known that Nader won't get a free pass this time; highlight why Nader is unacceptable (esp. to those who "voted their conscience); and figure out a way to craft a Democratic Party message that would appeal to them without angering moderate/center-left voters.

(2) Nader blew all of his goodwill in 2000. He literally has none for 2004. No-one can credibly say, as they could in either 1996 or 2000, that he's "a man of unimpeachable integrity" or any such thing. If he wants to be a politician, he should be treated no differently than any other. If he and/or his supporters whine that this is somehow "unfair" and bring up the sickening "Saint Ralphie" nonsense again, use his numerous faults against him (just as we should use Bush*'s numerous faults against him). Remember, this is Mr. "I'm not interested in gonadal politics"/"I busted a nascent labor union in my own shop"/"I hijacked a political party to use as an egocentric vehicle"/"I supported impeaching President Clinton" -- you get the picture. Above all, he gets no free ride this time -- 2004 is war, and if he runs he's as much the enemy as Bush. Period. No ifs ands or buts.

(3) Above all -- we as Dems need to GET A MESSAGE AND STICK WITH IT! Nature abhors a vacuum, but demagogues (right and left, Bush* and Nader) don't. Let's not give Bush* and Nader another opportunity to screw us over by not having a message and/or failing to communicate that message clearly.

[ulysses]

249. ok...

I estimate that 50% of those who voted for Nader in 2000 will not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate. Ever. Not even Dennis Kucinich.

What do you base that on?

[lifelong_Dem]

253. The fact that even Wellstone wasn't good enough for them, for starters

[ulysses]

257. so how does that follow?

McGaa - who seemed to have been a pretty fucked-up individual - makes a halfhearted run against Wellstone...therefore half of all Greens would never vote for a Dem?

The logic seems lacking somehow.

[lifelong_Dem]

264. Did you follow what happened at the Minnesota Green convention in 2002?

I did. The Greens were so desperate to run a candidate against Wellstone that they picked McGaa without even really checking into his beliefs and stands on issues. They said they were running against Wellstone because of his support of the War on Terror, and yet the candidate they picked - McGaa - was also a supporter of the War on Terror!

These are not the actions of a party that is interested in reasonable compromise.

[ulysses]

270. can't say that I did.

I'd still like to know how you came up with the 50% idea.

[lifelong_Dem]

273. Read my post again

The 50% is an estimate. Could be more, could be less. Regardless, there is a very significant portion of the Nader/Green faction that will never support a Democrat under any circumstances. They view the Democrats as an even greater evil than the Republicans. Go check out the newsgroup alt.politics.greens if you want to see some examples of this attitude.

[ulysses]

279. fine.

The 50% is an estimate. Could be more, could be less.

In other words, it's something you pulled out of your ass and which has no basis in any kind of empirical fact. Thanks.

[Iverson]

258. and what did Winona LaDuke have to say about that?

It's very hard to keep up with the propaganda. I recommend you look into it.

[Booberdawg]

271. I agree

Repost from another thread:

I am not interested in rattling the old bones of election 2000. I'm only interested in moving forward and getting the most dangerous and sinister occupants ever to inhabit the White House out on their asses in 2004 and replaced with a Democrat. And as far as I'm concerned that alone is a compelling enough reason for anyone to support the Democratic nominee whoever the hell that ends up being. Period, end of story, and I'm not open to debate about it.

My feelings and my position on the Democratic vs. Green squabbling has hardened over time, and where I was once willing and eager to listen and felt a need for compromise, I'm just no longer too interested in any of our Green members opinions or positions anymore. In fact I consider this obstinate position of some to deliberately split the vote and thus insure a Republican success unless they get a laundry list of demands met immediately is just ignorant and asinine extortion and I resent the hell out of it. If someone cannot see that a half loaf of bread is better than starvation then I’m just not interested in trying to reason or compromise with anyone who is that willfully ignorant or ridiculous or deliberately spiteful.

Someone in another thread suggested the solution to Green/Democrat vote argument would be for all the Democrats to vote Green. That was offered in sarcasm, however I have seen this same theme in various degrees and strains offered in all seriousness. Well excuse me all to hell, but this is a Democratic Party forum, not Green, and if anybody wants to promote the Green Party or Green candidates why don’t you go to their website to do it, and why the hell should I have to tolerate it here? Unless its about a Green candidate in a race in which there is not a Democratic candidate on the ticket, you are the opposition, and deserve the same consideration, understanding, and compromise due a Republican – NONE.

The bottom line with me about Greens is just decide what you’re going to do and just do it. I really don’t want to engage in any philosophical debates, and if you want to sponsor the Democratic ticket for 2004 that’s fine, I’ll support you, and if you want to sponsor the Green ticket (or not vote at all – which I have NO respect for) that’s fine too, then just go do it and quit pissing and moaning about it. I have no interest in trying to change your mind; I’d appreciate it if you’d just leave me the fuck alone about it too.

The LAST straw for me was the CA recall and the interference and propaganda sponsored and promoted by the LEFT, not only in DU but in CA real politic itself. I will spare you the details; I’m not going to sway any opinions and nobody is going to sway mine. The point is I just no longer feel there can be any compromise with any position that seeks to divide the vote on the left. And quite frankly, I’m more inclined to take active steps against them. I just don’t care about them or what they want anymore; they are the opposition, they are the enemy. That’s just the way I feel now – it’s been building for some time and now I’m serious as a goddamn heart attack about it.

[quaker bill]

278. Time for the Greens to stop kidding themselves about the Greens

A couple of simple concepts first.

A vote is a vote, it is not a barganing chip. No one can tell what you were thinking when you cast it. It is a simple statement that I want this person to be president. I support the right for anyone to vote for anybody who can get on the ballot. A vote for one candidate is implicitly a statement that I do not want the others to become president.

There are two distinct types of candidates. Those who are actually trying to get elected, and those who are making some form of political statement.

Candidates who are trying to make a political statement are not constrained to any attempt to form a coalition or consensus that might result in victory.

Those trying to get elected must do the actual work of finding a consensus among the electorate that would result in a working majority. They understand that if they fail to get elected, nothing they believe in will become policy.

Now as to the Greens, at least those in here, I hear that Nader voters did not change the election results. Yet from the same sources you hear that if Democrats want to win next time they will move in the Green Party direction. The argument is a contradiction in terms on it's face.

Posit for a moment that votes for Nader did not change the results of the election, then by implication a move by the Democrats to the left to capture those votes, even if successful, would not have changed the results. If these votes did not matter, what is the incentive to move the party to capture them?

Posit for a moment, as I have also heard, most folks who preferred Nader voted for Gore, and the remainder that voted for Nader did not make a difference. While I have seen no real data to back up this assertion, for the sake of argument I will provisionally grant it creedence. In this case, Gore was far enough left to capture all of the votes that could have made a difference. If the remaining votes did not matter, what is the incentive to move the party farther left to capture them?

Let's look at the practicality of moving the party to the left. Here we get stuck on the notion that the Democrat is trying to get elected and the Green Party candidate is trying to make a political statement. It is not possible to left-flank a Green Party candidate.

Posit for a moment, as I have also read, that Gore lost the election because too many Democrats crossed over and voted for Bush. I have heard it said that since far more people crossed over to the right for Bush than to the left for Nader, the Nader votes did not make a difference. In this scenario, moving to the left to attract more Nader voters is exactly counterintuitive. This is the best argument made for the DLC.

The only basis for the Democratic party to move to the left to capture Green Party voters is if their votes for Nader in 2000 made a difference. If they made a difference, then the votes for Nader gave Bush* the Whitehouse.

Now is the point where we go off into the BFEE stuff. Yes the election was rigged, but not enough, they seriously underestimated the turnout in the Black community. They expected 10 percent of the electorate in Fla to be Black people, it turned out to be 15 percent because of NAACP GOTV efforts. Bottom line, if Gore had 97,000 more votes in Florida in 2000, the election would still have been rigged, but Bush would have lost anyway.

Here is the punchline.

The Nader Campaign did nothing to advance the 10 Key Values of the Green Party. In fact the country is only that much farther away from moving toward any of them now.

The Nader Campaign did nothing to result in a move of the Democratic Party to the left and obviously from the virulence of most of these threads made few friends here.

The Green Party needs to get a grip on it's role. Either their campaign made no difference at all in the outcome and they are therefore precisely irrelevant, or they made all the difference and their votes for Nader gave Bush* the Whitehouse. You can't have it both ways. If you want influence, accept responsibility for outcomes.

Enough for me on this one.

[Booberdawg]

285. Excellent post!

Saving for future reference. :thumbsup:

May I quote you on this?

[quaker bill]

292. anytime

I only post to get it read.

[jiacinto]

286. One wrench in your point about "Democrats voting for Bush"

A lot of those "Democrats" haven't voted for the party's presidential candidate since 1976, and many not since 1964. To this day some of the more Repbulicans areas in the south still have more Democrats than Republicans. These "Democrats" may vote for the party's candidates in local and downballot races, but nationally they have been supporting Republicans for years.

[Dr Fate]

291. Right- a "registered" DEM is not a solid or "party" DEM

I registered as a republican in GA when I was a dumb 18 year old...

I did not change it until somtime after I realized who really represented my values...party registration often means nothing...

[quaker bill]

293. True

That is the essence of the DLC argument. They say we need to move right to get them back. I don't agree with that line of logic either.

[Dr Fate]

288. It's philosophy vs. hard work/choices

greens are the party of "philosophy"- what they "would" do "if" they could somehow get more than 5% of the vote (they even failed this in Liberal CA) They seem to be content as "benevolent gadflies" - perched on their snow-white moral tower of non-accountability...

has any Green EVER been held accountable for their platforms? Has a green EVER actally kept a promise? NO -because they have never been in a position to inact a promise- HOW CONVIENENT for these benevolent gadflies!!!!!

DEMS are the party of hard politics- actual work and hard choices- what they "will" do "when" they get elected, becuase we CAN and often do get more than 50% of the vote, nationwide and in practically every state...

[jiacinto]

289. I would love to see a Green president

I would love to see a Green President try to implement his or her agenda against a Congress that would be bitterly opposd it to every step of the way!

[quaker bill]

294. Agreed

You think they hammered Clinton for 8 years? We would see that stuff go to a whole new level.

[0rganism]

295. You're half right

The Greens are not a relevant party, because the unmonied left is irrelevant to current politics. That's why I wish certain people would stop picking fights about it. If Greens rejoined the Democrats, en masse, we'd do more damage to the Democratic party through left-leaning primary votes than we do isolated and running separate candidates in the general.

Those Greens who can crossover and vote for Democratic candidates will do it, despite everything certain assholes on this forum say about us. Those who won't vote for a Democrat no matter what, well, don't worry about them. They're irrelevant, or at least less relevant than they would be if they participated in the primaries.

It's time for the Democrats to stake a solid claim to the political center, and not worry about the American left. This next election, in particular, is about the (temporary) survival of democracy, and the Greens won't be anything at all compared to the damage the republicans dish out. Don't mind the Greens. We're invisible, irrelevant, useless. Go after the center, and take votes away from shrub if you can.

[Padraig18]

297. Barking chihuahuas

The Green party has become the chihuahua that snaps and bites at our party's ankles---- occasionally taking a chunk out of our leg--- yet they expect us to ignore all of that and instead pat them on their precious little heads and give them tasty morsels and treats! In addition, they present themselves in an extremely condescending manner toward the rest of us 'wayward souls' who have remained loyal to the party, treating us with barely-disguised contempt. Only the Greens know 'the truth', you see? The rest of us are simple-minded tools to be played with by corporate America! :eyes:

You know what, Greens? You're not worth it! You're not THAT important to our chances at recapturing the WH in 2004, and the party whose 'demise' you now mourn has been dead for at least a generation, if not longer; the party which you profess to revere is as dead to today's world as was the party of Andrew Jackson to FDR's world.

You're a minimalist party whose support is shrinking with every election, and by 2004 you'll be lucky to receive an asterisk when they add up the votes. *THAT*, my Green friends, is reality--- deal with it! If you want a 'say' in the Democratic party, then become D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S and bring something to the table instead of trying to extort something FROM us; until you do, you're just another opposition party.

As my ward committeeman once said, "You're not that important--- no one is THAT important."

[ulysses]

298. for a bunch of

"barking chihuahuas" that "aren't worth it", a lot of folks here seem insistent on talking about them.

If you want a 'say' in the Democratic party, then become D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S and bring something to the table instead of trying to extort something FROM us; until you do, you're just another opposition party.


Tell that to those for whom the almighty, centrist independents are everything. Tell that to Al From the next time he advocates open primaries.

Extortion indeed.

[earthman dave]

299. Steady on there ...

"Filthy commie econazis! How DARE they disagree with The Party! You're either with us or against us! etc..."

[Thomas Jefferson]

303. The good news is that the Greens will back us if we back Dennis

I don't particularly like what the Greens have done but I want to win. The Democratic Party is not longer the majority party and we need a majority to win in 2004.

[Dr Fate]

312. What if a majority of "Moderates" decide to vote in the DEM primaries?

You know, "regular" folks who do not consider themselves DEM, GOP, or green- what if they are sick of Bush and vote in the primaries for
Edwards,Dean, Kerry, or Clark?

Will the greens still smear our candidate in this more likely scenario, like they did Gore?

[Padraig18]

314. I'd bet money they would! n/t

[Dr Fate]

315. Greens secretly hope that DEMS cover for them- OR...

...they actually want DEMS to lose, in order to "teach us a lesson"

Admit it greens- when you vote against DEMS, you are either secretly hoping that we will pull through and defeat the Pukes- OR you are hoping that the Pukes will WIN- in order to "teach us a lesson"

Which type of green are you?

[jiacinto]

334. More of the latter than the former

nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

340. And you know what floors me the most?

They didn't even say they were sorry. What gall!

[earthman dave]

347. The Greens are Bush-sympathizers! With us or against us!

Well, it's quite obvious that the greens are Saddam^H^H^H^H^H^HBush sympathizers and traitors. The enemy within, no less. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wankers! :evilgrin:

[kaitykaity]

351. Locking.

Please continue here:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=523639