A plea to the Greens

[Michigander4Dean]

I know that I'm probably making this plea in vain, and I'll probabnly start a flame war. Nonetheless, here goes.

Let us make a peace treaty. If you join the Democrats, you can vote in our primaries and caucuses and support progressive candidates for President – Dean or otherwise.

Nonetheless, if the nominee is Bush-lite, you should still stay and vote for him/her, and here’s why. I think our common goal is to get rid of Bush, right? Well, if you want to prevent a favorite from winning, it's best to support whomever appears most likely to beat him or her; for example, I supported McCain . Without a doubt, the Democratic nominee will be the one most likely to beat Bush. This is too critical an election for people in close states to protest Democrats’ sleaziness by voting Green. Doing so would give Bush a second term and sink our country to a new low.

With that, I cordially invite Greens to support Democrats in 2004.

[thebigidea]

1. with the power vested in me by the kingdom of cookieville...

I hereby cordially declare this sure to be very very long thread open!

[Michigander4Dean]

3. Sing!

"Here come the flames..."

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. off topic...

sorry but you made me think of

"I hereby declare this pizza to be..AWESOME!"

hope you get the reference...hint: my nickname


TWL

[thebigidea]

18. altered states of drugachussettes... Mr. Show

"But we can't... we're... PARANOID!"

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. you are my new best friend...

ok that's creepy...

"There's people on the other end... They'll know! They'll know!"

TWL

[jiacinto]

2. Well

Maybe if they actually participated in the nomination process they might get candidates more in line with their expectations.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

13. GO DENNIS!

TWL

[Pastiche423]

4. A Green is running for president?

[UrbScotty]

48. Nader will apparently make his decision by the end of the year

Other than him, I don't know of any Green candidates yet.

[rucky]

5. Would you ever support a green candidate

for a lower office?

I've compromised with myself by going Green for the small ones & Dem for the majors. Would you be willing to do the same, if such an opportunity arises in your area?

[jonoboy]

27. thats not a compromise

it's just a practical way of gaining more power.
If Greens can win in local politics then they have more chance of influence higher up.

[bluestateguy]

6. If they swing another election to *, I will ignore Greens who criticize *

People's lives are at stake here. This is not a time for adolescent moments of life discovery just to find an ideologically pure candidate. More Bush means more people will die all over the world.

[jonoboy]

28. this is spot on

the next election is just too important to lose to Bush.

The Greens in Australia made a fatal mistake by giving preferences to Howard and allowing him to win. Now we have an Iraqi civilian bomber at the helm.

Vote Democrat

[stevedeshazer]

32. Get out of here

You still believe the fiction that the Greens are responsible for the Bush presidency?

[trogdor]

37. Fiction?

I don't think so.

[_NorCal_D_]

50. It's not fiction.

Florida would have been ours if we had even a handful of Green votes.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

George W. Bush: 2,912,790 48.85%
Albert Gore Jr: 2,912,253 48.84%
Ralph Nader: 97,488 1.63%

[no name no slogan]

52. We also would have won with Buchanan's votes

So what is your point? If it's saying that our candidate didn't do a good enough job of convincing voters that he would make a better president, then I agree.

If you're trying to say that ALL the votes should have been counted (which would have shown that Gore won), then I agree.

If you're saying that the Repubs ILLEGALLY purged tens of thousands of supposed "felons" from the voter rolls, then I agree.

IF you're trying to pin Gore's Florida loss on the Greens, then I'd have to respectfully disagree.

[_NorCal_D_]

53. I understand.

There were many elements that came into play (SCOTUS) that caused Gore to lose Florida. I'm not trying to place all of the blame on the Green party for what happened in Florida. Nevertheless they certainly didn't help matters.

[no name no slogan]

7. Been there, done that

Kucinich has been doing this for months, and has the support of many prominent Greens, including Winona LaDuke, Green VP candidate in 1996 & 2000. Ralph Nader has also encouraged Democrats to vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries.

However, it's not entirely realistic to believe that all Greens will vote for a Democrat in 2004, especially if this party puts up yet another mushball moderate who is in favor of the complete opposite of what they believe in.

Sure, we'll get some Greens, but it's a tad bit arrogant to tell them "vote for us, or else". I think you'd do a better job by winning them over with our platform and ideas than with veiled threats.

[jonoboy]

29. what you say is true

but there is a threat and it's called Bush and it's deadly.

[RapidCreek]

34. There is another threat

It is called Bushlite and it is deadly also....it's ashame so many here fail to recognize that elementary fact.

RC

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[lcordero]

25. No

In 2000, a handful of people felt that Gore was going to win the Democratic nomination. They switched parties in order to vote for McCain in the primaries because if some sort of surprise happened where the Repuke won it wouldn't be anybody that was far right.

[lcordero]

9. UH

I'm a registered Democrat(How I got registered I would like to know since I have never filled out a voter's registration card) and I'm not going to be insulted into voting for Bush-lite.
Voting for Bush-lite is like having a dealer stack the deck against me in a card game. I'm not going to tolerate it. I will take my toys and go home.

After March, more than likely, I will be changing my affiliation or I'm going to see if I can deregister somehow.

[Terwilliger]

15. ummm.....what?

:wtf: do you mean you registered somehow?? ;-)

[lcordero]

19. I don't ever remember registering to vote

I have never voted before either. I was active Army all the way up to the end of March of 2001. I didn't even think about filling out an absentee ballot just because I thought (and still think) that the odds of getting defrauded are too high.

[Terwilliger]

22. hmmm

the army auto-regged ya?

[lcordero]

26. As a Democrat? not likely

[RandomKoolzip]

11. Look, I'm a green who votes for Dems in almost every election.

Locally (in Nashville, TN) not too many Greens run for office, but when they do, I keep track of them, and vote for them. I consider myself a Green, but I personally realize that Democrats have the only possible chance to parlay progressive ideals into political action on a natioanl/international scale. I harbor no illusions that Green candidates will ever hold national office, but for my conscience, I label myself Green. I realize the "ideal" candidate will never come along, that compromise is essential to the electoral process, etc. The DLC does not represent me. I will always be suspicious of corporate-backed candidates, including Dems, but it's a fact of life that the "lesser of two evils" is the prevailing paradigm here in America. I support a DEm candidate for 2004, donate to a Dem's campaign, and will support WHOEVER gets the nomination.

Is that contrite enough for you? (I'm sorry I voted for Nader.)

[jonoboy]

12. Im a Green

voter in Australia but I would urge any Green voter in the USA to do this.

The next election in the US is just too damned important for the whole world. Bush and tribe must go and the only way is for everyone to unite and elect a Democrat president. Don't split the vote. American politics have to be moved back to the centre.
Sometimes you have to put your personal desires on the back burner for the greater good.

Vote Democrat.

[Terwilliger]

16. how many "liberal" Aussies stood up and heckled Bush?

OH? What's that? They were Greens? Hmmmmm.

[jonoboy]

21. From everywere

Talking to other demonstrators against Dubbya in Canberra I would say they were from every walk of life.

Labour and Liberal (conservative) were well represented by people of all ages.
Liberal voters often commented on how disappointed they were that their party was lurching to the far right for the first time in the party's history.

I saw an interview with ex-Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who said his heart was with the demonstrations.

Vote Democrat.

[wdwilder]

14. are you seriously asking me to vote dem?

I vote the straight libertarian ticket. green when there aren't any libs. otherwise i write in sookmi whiner, or blue T. ouchress

[union_maid]

17. in other words you'll be throwing your support to Bush?

Thanks, on behalf of everyone who's been screwed by him in the US. And I don't know what the original poster means by Bushlite. There are no Bushlites likely to win the nomination.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. Are you seriously asking us to take you seriously?

If you have such little regard for progressive politics, what the heck are you doing on this board?

[thebigidea]

23. allow me to sidestep the flames for one moment

and mention that I just love your nickname... what a great Firesign Theatre album!

And now back to the regularly scheduled charbroiling.

EAT FLAMING DEATH indeed.

[RandomKoolzip]

31. Danke Schoen.

Good news boy...Klong wasted...."The Pussycat!" WoofWoof.

(I live and die by the Firesigns....)

[drfemoe]

30. One Libertarian is asking

the party to consider voting democrat rather than repug ..

Attack of the Dean-Leaners
The Libertarian Case for the Democrats
Julian Sanchez

"In short Dean (or another Democratic nominee) has vices which are unlikely to translate into real policy. His virtues—opposition to an imperial foreign policy, greater support for gay rights, and even a qualified federalism, evidenced by his stance on gun rights—are more likely to be points on which bipartisan coalition building is possible." ...

"Because of our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system, the reality is that Ds and Rs are going to be the only live contenders for the foreseeable future. When libertarians as a group defect from the GOP to the Democrats (or vice-versa), our threat power is effectively doubled: each of us counts both as a vote lost to one candidate and a vote gained for the other. In close elections, a willingness to coalition jump may make the libertarian swing vote enough of a prize that candidates become, at the least, afraid of alienating us too severely. " ...
http://www.reason.com/links/links101403.shtml

[Iverson]

33. A Plea to Michigander4Dean

Fellow Michigander, it's nice that you've left the door open and want a civil discussion. However, your post tragically suffers from a complete absence of understanding about why there's a Green Party in the first place.

You invite me to do exactly that which has been demonstrated not to work.

"Nonetheless, if the nominee is Bush-lite, you should still stay and vote for him/her, and here’s why...."

This strategy, if it works, is its own justification for continuing in the exact same direction. This, too, has been demonstrated.

[0rganism]

35. Why the heck do you want me voting in your primaries?

Sure, I'll vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in the general. You pick 'em, I'll vote for 'em. But I have no business whatsoever rejoining the party that left me behind in its mad lurch to get its hands in the corporate moneybags. Now the Democratic party is positioned to represent the political middle, the moderates, the pragmatists, the lesser-of-two-evils-forever voters, if it can keep them. Welcome to the new Democratic party. Enjoy. You're in this to win, never forget it.

See, I would probably vote for Kucinich or Sharpton or Moseley-Braun in the Democratic primary, and if a lot of Greens like me did the same, it could seriously skew the results to a candidate that a lot of long-time Democrats wouldn't even consider voting for. Then, the fundamentalist Democrats on this board would accuse the ex-Greens of throwing the general election to shrub by nominating a weak candidate. I don't want to see that happening. You moderates go forth, nominate Lieberman if you must, and rest assured that he'll receive overwhelming indy and 3rd-party support from thinking Americans who realize that president Ham Sandwich would be healthier for the nation than what we have now.

[Mairead]

39. "he'll receive overwhelming indy and 3rd-party support"

I have no sense that that's true. There is a tonne of support for Dennis, and some support for Dean and Kerry, but after that the support is for running a Green candidate.

[quaker bill]

41. Before there was a Green alternative

there simply were not enough of us liberals to truly skew the vote anywhere as democrats.

McGovern was the only time we had an impact and that had much to do with the unique circumstances of the time.

Were all the liberals, Greens or of whatever stripe, to show up, it might give a left-winger a few more delegates at the convention. We would still be a profound minority.

[Voltaire99]

36. I plead with the Democrats to nominate a Democrat.

Think we can manage that?

Send us more GOP-lite, though, and all bets are off. I mean, that vision of America is really reprehensible: deregulation of the dishonest accounting industry, praise for prayer in school, blind support for Israel, warmongering, insane defense spending, censorship threats against TV and Hollywood...

And I'm merely summarizing Lieberman's record here.

Some here realize how woefully beyond our influence the Democratic Party has become in recent years - with its rampant DLC, its Breaux and Liebermen and Zell Millers. These are corporate servants - Breaux the friend of oil, Lieberman the defense contractor's friend, and the pathetic Miller to be found at the bottom of the pile of any given Republican senate gangbang. They couldn't care less about you, the freedoms that define us, or the traditional values of the Democratic Party. In fact, they are as much to blame for our problems today as the Republicans - just look at their votes.

Yes, Bush sucks. Almost any earthworm could do a better job. But we should expect to be led by men and women, not by slugs on their bellies before money. If you want to settle for crawling, then just keep up with your "I'll vote for any Democrat who runs, and you should too!" outlook. Plutocrats love an easy-to-please public.

[Mairead]

38. " I think our common goal is to get rid of Bush, right?"

No, my goal is to turn the country around. That cannot be done by electing someone who lacks the motivation to do it, and that describes every candidate except Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton; none of the other candidates is willing to commit to doing more than tweaking. Between Dennis and Al, I favor Dennis because of his elected political experience and his proven backbone.

So until you either change allegience or demonstrate (facts only, please) that Dean will do a better job than Dennis, I'm afraid I'll have to decline your invitation. I vote for people, not uniforms.

[Q]

40. I've alwaays wondered about these threads...

...where an appeal is made to third parties instead of the traditional base of the party. That is...those who are dropping OUT of the party because they feel they're not being represented by the Dems.

- There are (non-voting) DEMOCRATS that would most certainly vote for a worthy candidate. One who actually represents THEM instead of the interests of the Bush* junta or corporations.

- If Bush* 'gets' a second term...it won't be because of the Greens. It will be because Dems didn't EARN enough votes from those looking for DEMOCRATIC leadership.

[quaker bill]

43. I disagree, in a senxe

You make a good point about democrats needing to empower and energize their base.

Those "dropping out of the party" for whatever reason need to be a concern for the democratic leadership. (not DLC, but actual leaders)

This is no less true than the need for concern about those who sit out or cross over and vote for repugs.

There is only so much that can be done to address these sources of erosion of democratic support administratively. There is no majical set of policy positions that will make all happy.

You are correct that a nominating a true leader who will fight and fight hard to win and turn the country around is the one actual hope for the party. It will also help stem the tide of those leaving and those might otherwise sit the next one out.

This will involve risk taking and bold speech. To the extent I am critical of my party, it is because they have been risk adverse and had a profound lack of spine.

Think of the big "D" democrats of 50 - 60 years ago. They had big ideas and powerful rhetoric, not a timid bunch. Win or lose, we need to do so on principle for a change.

Gore ran a tepid campaign focused seemingly on not pissing anyone off. It did not work. The same can be said about a number of other candidates since the 80's.

The time for smack-down politics has arrived, it remains to be seen if any one of these candidates has the cojones to pull it off.

[Terwilliger]

46. but Kucinich is not allowed to be what you claim to want

what party did you say you were with?

[Q]

47. Gore's campaign had too many DLCers 'advising'...

...but I noticed that his Sept speeches inspired many on the Left...including Greens. Many were disappointed when the NeoDems pushed him out of the party with their 'anti-populist' rhetoric. DLCers insisted he couldn't win with such a platform...ignoring that he DID win in 2000.

- Here is where the struggle begins and ends:

"Democrats are fearful of being branded "class warriors" in a war the other side started and is determined to win. I don't get why conceding your opponent's premises and fighting on his turf isn't the sure-fire prescription for irrelevance and ultimately obsolescence.

What will it take to get back in the fight? Understanding the real interests and deep opinions of the American people is the first thing. And what are those? That a Social Security card is not a private portfolio statement but a membership ticket in a society where we all contribute to a common treasury so that none need face the indignities of poverty in old age without that help. That tax evasion is not a form of conserving investment capital but a brazen abandonment of responsibility to the country. That income inequality is not a sign of freedom-of-opportunity at work, because if it persists and grows, then unless you believe that some people are naturally born to ride and some to wear saddles, it's a sign that opportunity is less than equal. That self-interest is a great motivator for production and progress, but is amoral unless contained within the framework of community. That the rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. That public services, when privatized, serve only those who can afford them and weaken the sense that we all rise and fall together as "one nation, indivisible." That concentration in the production of goods may sometimes be useful and efficient, but monopoly over the dissemination of ideas is evil. That prosperity requires good wages and benefits for workers. And that our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive "half slave and half free" – and that keeping it from becoming all oligarchy is steady work – our work." - Bill Moyers

- Democrats want leadership.

[quaker bill]

44. I disagree, in a senxe

You make a good point about democrats needing to empower and energize their base.

Those "dropping out of the party" for whatever reason need to be a concern for the democratic leadership. (not DLC, but actual leaders)

This is no less true than the need for concern about those who sit out or cross over and vote for repugs.

There is only so much that can be done to address these sources of erosion of democratic support administratively. There is no majical set of policy positions that will make all happy.

You are correct that a nominating a true leader who will fight and fight hard to win and turn the country around is the one actual hope for the party. It will also help stem the tide of those leaving and those might otherwise sit the next one out.

This will involve risk taking and bold speech. To the extent I am critical of my party, it is because they have been risk adverse and had a profound lack of spine.

Think of the big "D" democrats of 50 - 60 years ago. They had big ideas and powerful rhetoric, not a timid bunch. Win or lose, we need to do so on principle for a change.

Gore ran a tepid campaign focused seemingly on not pissing anyone off. It did not work. The same can be said about a number of other candidates since the 80's.

The time for smack-down politics has arrived, it remains to be seen if any one of these candidates has the cojones to pull it off.

[noiretextatique]

42. no offense, but you need to plead with democrats

particularly the ones who vote republican...far more of them than greens.

[Ardee]

45. You are missing the point

and by a wide margin at that! firstly, I am NOT a Green, not yet at any rate. But I am no longer a democrat either, so ,while you may feel that this makes me a traitor I feel that I am not represented by
democrats any longer.

The problems that beset our nation and this world of ours are not of Bushs' making, we seem to need to demonise individuals for some reason unbeknownst to me. George Walker Bush is a failure at almost everything he has attempted in life, he is a fifth rate intellect and (former?) alcohol and drug abuser who has been propped up by his fathers powerful friends throughout his life.Those that seek to make him the equal of Lex Luther or some other arch enemy directly from the pages of comic book intellectualism do this nation and themselves a disservice.

As long as we ignore the forces within our country that have altered the democratic processes, as long as we fail to understand that it is no one person, neither Nader or Bush, that is to blame, nor can any one man, neither Dean or Dennis, save us, we will continue down the path to empire buiding through corporate control, we will continue to lose the middle class at an alarming rate, we will continue towards the becoming just another third world nation with a small upper class controlling all the wealth and the rest of us scrambling to escape poverty, denied safety nets for seniors, denied access to health care, and our children denied the opportunity to get a decent education.

You ask leftists to rejoin the democratic party because you think in terms of cartoon characters, absolute good vs absolute evil. I do not and thus I ask the democratic party to rejoin me!

[UrbScotty]

49. I hate to say this, M4D...

...but I think you started a flame war.

Whoops.

[GreenInNC]

51. why the Greens have to run a candidate

We (the Greens) have to run a candidate in at least 37 of the states to keep our ballot access for offices down the ticket. In California for example, if we do not run a candidate, no one can run as a Green for four years and everyone registered as Green automatically becomes an unaffiliated voter. The Democraric leadership of this country has know about our predicament for years and choose to do nothing about it. Maybe they want to make sure they have a scapegoat.

We are only playing by the rules that the Democrats and Republicans have made.