I'am SICK!! of this Green Party

[bigdarryl]

This so called party can't win any elections but deny the dems wins when they need it. Now we have this jackass from NY who now has got in the Senate race in NY. theres a Green canidate running in PA. in the senate race that Santorum has helped launch to split the dems vote. i'am starting to think this party is nothing more than a spoiler working in conjuction with the republican party. this idiot was on Tweety's show sounding like a nut job.

[valerief]

1. Green is for cold green cash. From the GOP, perhaps? n/t

[MADem]

3. No 'perhaps' about it...ask Ralph where he got his dough! NT

[AusTexDem]

181. Now Nader is the crazy uncle they keep in the attic

[readmoreoften]

2. Uh, you mean the Democrat running against another Democrat in the PRIMARY?

Please. Stop calling legitimate Democrats "Greens".

[Pirate Smile]

11. It was a Green candidate - not a Dem running in the primary.

It was Frank McCourt's brother - Malachy (I believe/sp?).

Matthews told him that he sounded like a good, liberal Democrat and he did. He said he was frustrated and had recently switched to Green i.e. he didn't want to discuss Ralph in Florida in 2000.

[readmoreoften]

17. Oh, well, then I agree. Fuck the Green candidate. We have a great prog dem

challenging the incumbant anyway.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. Are you referring to the NY Senatorial race?

I assumed you were but I'm just making sure. I support opposition in a primary race. I've always felt it keeps our people on their toes, Lieberman is an excellent example of what I mean.

I recall when Tasini switched parties to run in the primary many DUers were having a fit. Threads about it were being locked and people were screaming to support the "Party." I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.

[maddezmom]

4. what guy are you talking about?

I don't get MSNBC here. :hi:

[135th]

5. Pop Quiz:

Who was the Green Presidential candidate in 2004?

I bet more people here know then most "Greens" I talked to.

[yankeedem]

59. George W. Bush

Because that's who you are voting for when you vote for a green.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. You have something against democracy?

If I lived in NY I'd be glad to have the Green Party on the ballot to offset the (R) and "not as bad" as the (R) DLC candidates.

Fortunately, we here in Washington State do have such an alternative.

[meganmonkey]

14. Seriously. I guess this kind of attitude makes it easier

for TPTB to thwart our deMOCKracy completely, though.

:wtf:

[LoZoccolo]

33. No, do you? We can tell Greens to fuck off all we want.

That's democracy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Fair enough. We can tell the DLC to fuck off with equal gusto.

[liberaliraqvet26]

7. GREEN= Getting Republicans Elected Every November

When will they learn?

[QuestionAll...]

8. would be nice to have a bona fide 2 party system,...

wouldn't it?

I don't understand the Green bashing here, or maybe I do as this is not Greenocratic Underground.

[ikojo]

111. Right now we have a choice between two

pro big business parties...both out to screw the working person.

People claim to support democracy but when other parties run candidates they scream as if just because someone CLAIMS to be a Democrat (whatever that means now) they are entitled to our vote.

Well, I don't know about most on this board but if I want a check I have to EARN it...same with a candidate...if that candidate wants my vote he/she must EARN it. It is not their vote just because they have a D after their name. This is one reason the Dems take the base for granted because there is no real challenge to their pro business agenda. Whenever someone dares to run from the left they are demonized as being Bushies! A good thing about a multiparty race is that is broadens the debate and this country certainly could use a broadening of the debate.

[Autonomy]

140. You're ignoring the variation in the Dem Party

There's quite a spectrum in Dems' attitudes towards big business. Electing Dems to run the committees and set the agenda in Congress is the only real chance at putting reasonable restrictions on the corporatocracy. Voting Green does not help at all.

[Spider Jerusalem]

227. The only reason we have a two-party system...

is because of the winner-take-all nature of American elections. Smaller parties are generally only successful in parliamentary democracies where representation is proportional (any party receiving 5% or more of the vote receives an equal percentage of seats in parliament). Most European countries follow this model; this is why, in countries like Germany or the Netherlands, parties that have won a plurality but NOT a majority have to form a government in coalition with other parties to govern effectively.

And I'd say that this particular electoral system is more democratic (with a small 'd') than the way we do things in the US, but that's just my opinion.

[Realityhack]

228. This is a very good and often ignored point.

Winner take all is VERY diffrent than other election systems. And the surounding game theory is diffrent as well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

233. Right...

in a winner-take-all system, you can vote for a candidate who best represents your positions on the issues, but has no chance of winning; OR you can vote for a candidate who represents SOME of your positions on the issues, with whom you have profound disagreements on others, but who still has the best chance of defeating the candidate with whom you agree on almost NONE of the issues. Pretty basic bargaining there, I'd say. And since it's pretty much a zero-sum game, the maximin strategy is clearly for (say) a Green to vote for the Democrat, or for a Libertarian to vote for the Republican. As opposed to a proportional-representation system, where a party gaining 5% or more of the vote may wield disproportionate power in the event of a coalition government, in which case the best strategy is to vote for one's first party of preference. Seems simple enough to me...

[desi]

9. When will they learn?

Never..?? One would think that after 2000 they would have learned that YES Louise there is a major difference between the two parties. But don't expect them to ever accept responsibility for the condition that our country finds itself in today. It's all somebody else's fault.

[Lost-in-FL]

61. It wasn't Nader in 2000

it was the Supreme Court. Remember? :sarcasm:

[desi]

63. Yep, how I remember..

That and the Green's Tweedly Dee and Tweedly Dum bull gave Cruella and Jeb something to play with.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I think they already know, some of them want destruction and bloodshed!

This is a Stalin strategy of letting the enemy win in hopes they'll come running to you for help!

[GoneOffShore]

72. Oh, I like that.

Romanelli is trying to do that here in PA after accepting money from major Repugs. If Santorum wins because of him, I'm going to be majorly p. o'd

[QuestionAll...]

135. so Greens are more powerful than Dems?

say again?

[flyarm]

10. green means.........

g= gets
r=republicans
e=every
e=election
n= needed

ok so when do americans wake up to this farse????????

fly

[Buzz Clik]

18. When will the Dems try to figure out why the Greens deserted the Party?

Never, I guess. It's far easier to tell the Greens to screw themselves.

[flyarm]

23. don't ya think it would be braver and smarter to stick around and make

the changes nessesary..rather than running away and in essence getting republicans elected and taking republican money..just tell me what values do greens have that are supported by the republicans that time and again they get elected ??

and what values did nader sell his soul for to take the republican money..or was he being blackmailed??

hmmmm i have so often wondered!

i just bet the greens love little lord pissy pants environmental policies right????????
or is it global warming that pissy pants cares so much about that warms the hearts of greens..right??????

or how about the air quality in NYC that the epa lied about..bet the greens loved that right???????

or how about the gulf of mexico pissy pants wants to shit up drilling for oil..does that get greens all warm a fuzzy?

or how about the Kyoto treatey pissy pants signed..bet greens were so proud of that..ooppppppppppssssssssssss..didn't sign that either..greens had to get goose bumps on that..

or that pissy pants wanted to cut the lumber in the Sequoia's in Calif..bet that got the greens..saws out and ready to cut right??

come on..you know as well as anyone ..the greens are being used..and it seems with the excuses for them..some of the excusers are damn proud of selling out their values.

fly
fly

[Buzz Clik]

65. My personal opinion? Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing.

But I won't sit back and simply listen to people calling them whores simply because they've had a bellyful of Democrats pandering to the center and the moderate right.

[flyarm]

138. oh so the greens pander even farther to the riech..am i correct??

you bet i am correct..so ..by dems going to moderates..you go to the reich neo cons..wow that makes alot of sense!! i bet you say greens are progressive..i would hardly call conservative neo cons progressive..and i would most definitely call anyone who whored themselves to get on the ballot in PA paid for by the very guys campaign who took a dead fetus home for days so his kids could see it ..a progressive!

just can't stand for your values and fight for change can the greens ..so they sell themselves to the highest bidders...that is generally called whoring oneself..taking money and being bought..for the pleasure of others to fuck them!

and you worry about someone calling them a whore..hell i call lieberman a whore..so why should i not call the greens who do this over and over again whores??

[Buzz Clik]

176. Every time I see one of these threads and talk to someone like you...

... it becomes clearer why the Greens break away, why the Democratic Party can't find it's ass with both hands, and why Republicans consider Democrats intolerant.

[stuartrida]

25. When will greens wake up and realize that the only help Republicans?

Never I guess. Nobody loves greens more than Republicans.

[Buzz Clik]

66. Did you hear Casey debate Santorum on MTP?

It was nauseating. The choice in PA is between a disgusting hideous crackpot (Santorum) and a down the center, moderate Republican (Casey). :puke:

Thank God I vote in Indiana.

[desi]

76. I just replied to your post...

about "calling names" below and here you are calling a Democrat "Republican." You belittle people for not sharing your views yet you take exception when Democrats feel the same about Greens..????????

[Buzz Clik]

177. Correctly identifying a political ideology is not name-calling.

However, I can see why you find it offensive. That was my reaction to Casey.

I hope Casey wins, and then loses in the next cycle to a true Democrat.

[stuartrida]

79. I saw some of the debate, and voting for Casey and a democratic majority

is a no brainer.

[Buzz Clik]

178. No brainer for you and me. What about the voters of PA?

They're struggling a bit, and it's astounding. Santorum is an embarrassment, yet they can't buy into Casey.

This should be a wake up call. Instead, it serves no other purpose but giving DUers yet another reason to blame someone else.

[flyarm]

139. maybe because the majority of people in PA are moderate??

so we should run a radical left winger in a place they could never be elected..that would be smart why?? in a very moderate state?

see unlike the greens..we would like to take our country back from the fascists who are destroying this country now..you know the ones the greens are selling their souls to??!! the very ones selling off our national parks..and polluting our air and water and don't give a rats ass about global warming..oh i know you really don't care about that if you are a green right??

seems the greens only care about the greenback...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

we would like to get a balanced government again..unlike the greens who don't give a rats ass ..the very greens who sell their values and souls to the highest bidders..and love to throw elections...

fly

[JI7]

170. because Evan Bayh is a real left wing liberal , hahahahha

[LoZoccolo]

32. Not all of us have a degree in psychiatric pathology.

How can you begin to reason with people who, in ostensibly trying to get more of what they want, deliberately take actions to try to get less?

[Critters2]

37. Prove us wrong

Take some progressive positions. Why is that so hard?

[LoZoccolo]

48. Quit using violence against the people of America!

Quit drowning people in hurricanes because they didn't vote for who you want!
Quit sending them to war because they didn't vote for who you want!
Reason with the people rather than hurting and killing them!

[Critters2]

51. Stop nominating people who

voted for war. Among other not-so-progressive positions.

[LoZoccolo]

54. Ralph Nader snubs the Congressional Black Caucus!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5262963

[bvar22]

157. I don't believe that Nader is a Green.

*

[Buzz Clik]

67. Well said.

[flyarm]

141. very good point..thank you!! there is some sanity here!!

thank you, thank you!!

fly

[desi]

34. Why did they desert the party..??

Exactly what in heaven's name was wrong with VP Al Gore as OUR candidate in 2000..??

[LoZoccolo]

55. If they refused to be reasoned with then...

...why would we think they won't refuse later?

[Buzz Clik]

68. Good point. It pissed me off endlessly, too.

But did you stop to think why? Of course not. Let's call them names instead. (Keep in mind the Michael Moore campaigned tirelessly for Ralph Nader.)

[desi]

73. "Calling them names"..??

I've yet to do that..publicly anyway. Michael Moore among several other "progressive celebrities" made a terrible mistake in 2000.

[flyarm]

142. and has come out very vocally and said he was made a fool of by nader..

there comes a point when one can not defend the indefensible

so why are greens so willing to give up their values and defend the reich wing giving your candidate money to throw elections??????????

i know you will find some excuse to defend the indefensible

i expect nothing less.

fly

[Buzz Clik]

179. Michael Moore said he was made a fool by Nader? I'd love to see that quote

Care to provide a link?

[depakid]

80. After 6 straight congressional election losses

You'd think people would realize that pandering to the right isn't much of a strategy. You'd think maybe they'd look at how Republicans win and emulate how they do it.

Hint: they don't go out of their way to alienate their base- nor do they sound wishy washy (or even punt) on key issues- and they apologize whenever they make a forceful statement.

Progresive issues and positions are winning issues and positions (if one believes countless polls, that is).

Yet the far right wins in spite of their unpopular positions Hmmm.

Think there might be some lessons there?

[flyarm]

143. yeah the lesson is ..voting machines..we need to own them! n/t

[depakid]

149. If we did....

What do you think Republicans would do?

How do you think they (and their base(s)) would react.

Would they stand for what's been going on if the tables were reversed?

Rhetorical questions of course-

Just as these are:

How do you think the Republicans would have acted if the Democrats had abused parliamentary procedures and dispensed with- out of hand- 220 years worth of legislative traditions?

Would they have acted (I hesitate to use the term)- like all too many battered women (who've fallen for whatever reason into the trap of learned helplessness).

Would members of their party continue to apologize (through their public statements and their cross over votes) for their abusers?

Would they continually legitimize their oppositions' policies and behaviors?

Would they hug and kiss them on the cheek?

[TahitiNut]

27. Straight out of the "If You're Not With Us You're Against Us" book

... authored by Bush/Cheney. :puke:

[LoZoccolo]

28. Or...

Gets
Republicans
Elected
Every
November!

(Can't take credit for it though...)

[JVS]

244. I find the Greens to be no more of a farce than the 2 major parties

[Mark E. Smith]

13. Neo-Con Enablers

[Buzz Clik]

16. Unlike the Democrats who voted for war and unlimited Prez powers?

Right.

[Mark E. Smith]

112. Please, take a minute ...

... and explain to me how there was no difference between Al Gore in George W. Bush in 2000.

And then explain why there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans in 2006.

Oh, and while you're at it? Why is it the Greens take money from some of the most reactionary political organizations in America today?

C'mon. Put your enabler hat on!

[Buzz Clik]

180. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Mark E. Smith]

190. Of course you don't.

[Buzz Clik]

237. True enough -- I am not fluent in jibberish

[Mark E. Smith]

241. No, you just fall back on dishonesty

... when your claims are exposed as being empty and meaningless.

[Buzz Clik]

15. The Greens used to be Democrats and embraced by the Party.

The Dems refuse to consistently support basic Party values, and disillusioned Greens are seeking consistency. Suddenly these former Democrats are whores for the sin of refusing to compromise their ideals.

That kind of attitude will lure them back into the fold in a hurry. :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

19. Nope, not whores. We need to get 'em back in the party & kick out the DLC

[Buzz Clik]

70. Thank you. I agree 100%

[Ravy]

164. Won't happen.

The Greens have proven to be unbending, and maybe good for them (for that). However, the political reality is that A) They throw a wrench into the plans of anyone who isn't 100% with them, and b) there are FAR more votes to be had by going to the center in an election than going with a platform that is acceptable to all the Greens.

Principle is fine, but pragmatism trumps it every time in politics. They did their share in giving us Bush, and now, Lieberman, Santorum, and Talent are all being helped by the Greens.

[Critters2]

203. Yeah, "going to the center" has proven a brilliant strategy

If you want to elect Repugs.

[Ravy]

214. There is no other choice.

Electing progressive candidates doesn't stop Greens from running. The GOP is more than willing to finance a Green candidacy, and there is always some Green who is egotistical enough to take them up on it.

Not only is the net result that they get Repubs elected in close elections, it drives the Democratic Party further to the center, since fewer progressives have input in the selection process.

[TahitiNut]

21. Yep.

Incumbant politicians are "discovering" that they can't as easily raise campaign funding from the working class (because the working class has been pillaged) so they go to the corporate shills ... and completely lose touch with labor.

The beatings will continue until morale improves?

Since when is it "democratic" to blame voters for seeking those who represent their highest interests?

[LoZoccolo]

41. Document or retract.

Or is this another GREEN LIE like "there is little difference between the candidates"?

[ikojo]

118. The Greens I know, and I know a few, were never

Democrats. Many of them came out of the radical movements of the 1960s. They were socialists or communists back in the day.

The thing is that the Democrats, via the DLC and their many "consultants", have continued to govern and campaign to the right. Being against the war is a winning agenda but they still refuse to say it was wrong. Claire McCaskill is running against James no Talent but you couldn't tell she was a Democrat from the ad appearing on St Louis TV stations. She says nothing about supporting working people but a lot about being a prosecutor.

The Greens are a minority party..why get panties in a bunch over them...why not get panties in a wad over the fact that most Americans, seeing little or no real difference between the two business parties, stay home on election day. I suspect that if they heard a REAL CONSISTENT progressive message they would get off the couch and take the few minutes to vote. Jeff Smith in Missouri proves that as does Ned Lamont.

[LeftyMom]

20. All the Dems need do to prevent loss of votes to Greens is be progressive

Outside of San Francisco, nobody runs Greens against progressive Dems and gets anywhere. Stop running to the center and there's no problem. Ignoring the progressive base is what causes these problems. There's nothing in thier platform that should differ so much from the stance of a good liberal Dem except for IRV (which is a pretty good idea that people seem to like once it's explained.)

Edit: While everybody's at it, please stop blaming the voters for voting for the canidate who best represents thier interests. That's what they're supposed to do, and having greater loyalty to democratic principles than to a party is admirable.

[TahitiNut]

24. GMTA - channeling the same thoughts at the same time.

I said, "Since when is it "democratic" to blame voters for seeking those who represent their highest interests?"
You said, "Please stop blaming the voters for voting for the candidate who best represents thier interests."

Funny how so many DUers seem f*cking DEAF to that. :shaking head:

[Realityhack]

224. Just my 2 cents...

but that seems to me to be a prity childish view that completely ignores economic/game theory.

For the record I would like to see something along the lines of IRV. In that case one could vote as you discribe and expect a reasonable outcome.

Unfortunately we do not have that. And as a result it is unreasonable to expect voting for the green party to further your political agenda. A lot of people agree with your ideas but they see voting green as operationaly oposite to those ideas. Not only NOT getting what you want but actualy managing to move in the oposite direction.

[LoZoccolo]

35. Or treat the Greens like the Republicans they are. n/t

[LeftyMom]

39. Yep, bullshit and insults are sure to get Green voters back in the fold.

Great thinking! :thumbsup:

PS I hope I don't really need this: :sarcasm:

[LoZoccolo]

42. GREEN PARTY FUCK OFF! REPUBLICAN HIPPIES! n/t

[Critters2]

44. Yep, that'll work

Does the phrase "Governor Topinka" sound good to you? If not, try being progressive just a little bit.

[LeftyMom]

47. Jesus, am I the last DUer you haven't put on ignore?

Think, state an opinion, discuss the matter intelligently, or go away.

[LoZoccolo]

49. GREEN REPUBLICAN FUNDING! GREEN REPUBLICAN BALLOT SIGS!

It's all documented!

[LeftyMom]

57. I am convinced by the weight of your evidence.

:eyes:

What, pray tell, does the Republican tendency to fund Greens to hurt Dems have to do with the price of tea in China? I seem to recall that Greens were the ones working for a recount in Ohio because they believed Kerry voters were robbed of thier votes. I seem to recall they also ran a placeholder canidate in '04 (for reasons relating to funding they had to run somebody) and encouraged thier voters to vote for Kerry.

Some Republicans. :eyes:

[Critters2]

101. *snort*

:spray:

[Ignis]

206. Oh, "Daddy" is far, far too busy to provide sources.

As clearly shown by post #193, evidence would only muddle the argument.

After all, there's rhetoric to be shouted and podiums to be thumped! We have no time for facts and figures here! We think from the gut, not the head! Grab your pitchfork!

[LoZoccolo]

210. I'm waiting for a better argument than...

..."we need to run a third-party candidate who'll lose and let the Republicans win in order to make progress". Give me something better than that and I might argue with it.

Oh, and by the way, to the Green Party:

GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!

[Ignis]

60. Way to raise the bar on the level of discourse! (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

83. The Green Party uses VIOLENCE as discourse!

Using the Republicans to drown poor people is NOT how you get things in this country!

[nosmokes]

113. bullshit. you can talk shit all you want LZ, but it was the dems that OKed

shrub's little adventure in iraq, overwhelmingly. and when one of 'em, a hero like john murtha stands up and says pull out, where were the dems then? sinking down in their fucking seats trying not to be noticed. if they coulda swallowed invisible pills they woulda. that's why after being a yellow dog democrat since 1972 i'm a card carrying member of the pacific green party now. ifa democrat wants my vote s/he has to earn it. i'll not give another red cent to a group that takes it marching orders from the corporate suck-ups at the DLC. fuck them. and fuck your war that killing this country and has already killed iraq.

[LoZoccolo]

160. And it was Bush* who lied to them!

The preferred Green Party president!

[nosmokes]

171. OFFS. that doesn't make any sense at all.

FWIW i busted my ass working for kerry, and what did i get out of it? a mofo that said he'd vote for the goddam war *AGAIN*. even knowing that he was fed a plate of bullshit and there were no WMDs, and although he vowed to fight on if there was evidence ofchicanery in the vote tabulation and he had millions in a war chest for just such a situation (some of it mine, i might add), what did the SOB do? he left it up to the *greens and the libertarians to file lawsuits challenging the validity of the count. (and that was some of my money involved there, too, btw.) so just how the fuck do you figger we wanted bush as president? i think the
DSLC is infinitely happier with bushco than they would be with any real liberal in the office. y'all sit here and talk about how the greens are all pious and shit, and maybe some of that is deserved. but what's the use of me voting fo someone that's just gonna represent the corporate interest, but maybe a little less? fuck that. shoot me with a .38 or shoot me with a 12-gauge scatter gun. end result is the same, one just takes longer.

[martymar64]

187. Document or Retract

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

189. Threatening to get Republicans elected is VIOLENCE!

People DIE at the hands of Republican policies!

There are posts where third-party advocates say that it would be good if the Republicans harm people because then people would run to a "progressive".

Nothing new, as Stalin suggested that German communists do this and get Hitler elected!

[Ignis]

191. No matter how many CAPS you TYPE...

it's all just BREATHLESS HYPERBOLE and FEAR-MONGERING without SOURCES!

But hey, all this NAME-CALLING is SO much easier than supporting progressive CANDIDATES, promoting a progressive PLATFORM, and keeping pressure on elected Democrats to OPPOSE rather than FELLATIATE the warmongering and poor-bashing policies of REPUBLICANS.

How's that support for good ol' Dems like Lieberman working out for you? I'm sure they'll return the favor and be loyal to the party, right? Right...?

[LoZoccolo]

194. No matter how many LIES GREENS TELL...

...they've never had a good reason for electing Republicans!

[martymar64]

192. That's not documentation

Document or retract

[LoZoccolo]

193. What do you want me to document?

The 2000 election results? You want daddy to look those up on Google for you? The Philidelphia senate race? What specific thing do you want established?

[martymar64]

201. You stated that . . .

The Greens used Republicans to drown poor people in Nerw Orleans. Since you made this positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you. So please, provide documented proof to this assertion or retract your statement. Simple as that.

[LoZoccolo]

209. Yes, Bush* would not be president without the Greens.

They use Republicans as weapons to intimidate people into their agenda.

[ulysses]

199. LOL!

:D

[Critters2]

46. How will this prevent the loss of votes of Greens?

Some kind of clever reverse psychology?

[LoZoccolo]

53. Diplomacy failed the minute...

...they spread the lie that there is little difference between the parties. That's where the conversation ended, when they introduced the tactic of lying.

[Critters2]

85. And the major differences between the GOP and the DLC are...? nt

[LoZoccolo]

88. DROWNING POOR PEOPLE! THE BLOOD OF KATRINA IS ON GREEN HANDS! n/t

[Critters2]

90. So you've said

Have you forgotten how many Dems voted for the war in Iraq?

[LoZoccolo]

95. ALL Greens did. n/t

[Critters2]

97. There are no Greens in Congress

Lots of Dems. And again, how many of them voted for war in Iraq? I can look it up if you'd like.

[LoZoccolo]

100. GREENS ARE REPUBLICANS! n/t

[Critters2]

102. You've confused the Greens with the DLC, apparently nt

[LoZoccolo]

104. Name one Green who refused Republican funding! n/t

[Critters2]

103. How many Dems voted for war in Iraq?

Throw out the Neo-cons...on both sides of the aisle!

[LoZoccolo]

107. All Greens support the Iraq war and Katrina social darwinism! n/t

[Critters2]

108. Since you can't put together a coherent argument for your position...

*ignore*

[LoZoccolo]

153. IF YOU PUT ME ON IGNORE, YOU WILL MISS THINGS LIKE THIS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xOdATCFM30

[redwitch]

156. Thanks ever so!

I have been longing to put someone on ignore! :loveya:

[LoZoccolo]

158. Have fun at Democratic Underground!

Dooga dooga dooga dooga!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xOdATCFM30

[GreenArrow]

93. uhh...

nomenclature?

[Critters2]

96. Exactly! nt

[desi]

58. "Stop running to the center and there's no problem."

Oh, I see, the "Green Way" or the highway. The Democratic Party has taken the highway several times that have made me very proud. They did not buckle under threats. Like when the NeoCons abandoned the party because it was not "radical left enough" or when the racist Southerners did not like the stance The Party took on racism/bigotry. I for one am happy that they abandoned us.

[LeftyMom]

64. Yep, damn those enviornmentalist, socially liberal progressive voters.

Who needs 'em? Certainly those people aren't the very heart and soul of the Democratic party or anything. :eyes:

Why do Greens get lefty votes? Because many Dems are too centrist and too corporatist and the electorate knows it. Fix that and fix the problem.

[desi]

71. The Dems are not the problem.

Roll your eyes all you want. The Greens will not intimidate the Democratic Party. Hell, if the Greens could not support GORE who will they support..?? Speaking of Democrats of course.

[LeftyMom]

74. It. Isn't. About Party.

People have every right to vote for the canidate who best represents thier interests. Telling them to FOAD won't get anybody elected dogcatcher. Stopping these bullshit attempts to win over right wing constituencies at the expense of natural constituencies on the left would be good strategy.

[desi]

84. People have every right to vote for the canidate who best represents thier

Exactly. I can only speak for myself and to me It Is about the DEMOCRATIC Party. It is the only party with the power that will do what's best for the country and that is paramount. I don't agree with everyone and everything in The Party but I'll be darned if the party is going to buckle because some threaten to go elsewhere. They went elsewhere and what did it get US..?? Even 8 years of Raygun and 4 of Poppy pale in comparison. For that, they need to just stay away if that is their wont. We will not be intimidated...

[LeftyMom]

110. You know what?

The majority of voters vote that both sides can fuck off every single election by staying home. There is no built-in constituency. Nobody owes anybody thier vote. If Dem canidates aren't out there busting thier asses getting thier traditional constituencies fired up and to the polls on election day, they have nobody to blame for the oversight but themselves.

[desi]

128. If you have some empirical evidence that what you stated is true

please share. "The majority of voters vote that both sides can fuck off every single election by staying home." Without the colorful language of course. (I can cuss too but will at this time refrain from doing so. ;-) I believe there is indeed some voter apathy but there must be other reasons why some people are parochial, not to mention that the poor who mostly vote Democratic have varied reasons why they don't make it to the polls....The Democratic Party is NOT the boogeyman/woman...the once proud Republican Party of Lincoln IS....

[LeftyMom]

144. Voter apathy is heavily studied and there are plenty of stats on it.

Get to googling, I'm neither your teacher nor your Mom.

[desi]

147. Your claim...

I knew you could never prove such a ridiculous ASSERTION. "I'm neither your teacher nor your Mom." Thank God..my mom is dead. And she was a nice lady.. ;-)

[GreenArrow]

98. it's all about party

Rah team!

[Irreverend IX]

154. Politics is the art of compromise.

If everyone wants to vote for the candidate that best represents their interests, they should just vote for themselves. Because think about it, who other than yourself could really represent your unique priorities? Of course, there's no way a million people voting for themselves will get elected, so we choose the candidate who has the best chance to change the government in the way we want. If you vote for a Green candidate, you might as well be voting for yourself; outside the Haight-Ashbury district, you and the Green have about the same chance of winning a national office. The only way to move the government in a progressive direction is to vote Democratic and use the party machinery to promote your ideas. If you want a more progressive party, get your friends together and take over the local Democratic meetings, volunteer for campaigns, blast-fax your representatives' offices and create a few PACs with fancy names and newsletters. And remember: anyone who takes money from the Republicans becomes part of their political machine.

[FlaGranny]

200. Come on now -

sensible statements like that make no impact on "Greens." I have yet to find one who won't cut off his nose to spite his face.

[Critters2]

204. Then Dems should be doing much better than they are

because nobody compromises like the Dem leadership.

[Critters2]

82. Yep, the Dems will sit solidly in the middle and lose as many elections

as we want. You can't make us be progressive. And, yes...:eyes:

[desi]

92. rofl...

Don't let my Avatar fool ya...I was Lefty when Lefty wasn't cool (60's)...and still am.. ;-) I don't know why Greens think they have a lock on being Leftist.

[Critters2]

94. Because the Dems don't nt

[carpetbagger]

162. The Greens ran against Wellstone.

I think that says it all.

[Radical Activist]

197. And how much support did that Green candidate get?

Almost none. That also says it all. It proves that the comment you're responding to is 100% correct. Run good, progressive candidates and the Greens will be nothing to worry about.

[carpetbagger]

240. 1/6 of Coleman's margin of victory.

Small, but not insignificant. I think we have two senate seats by smaller margins, and then there's that whole presidency issue, which was decided in 2000 by less than 0.44%.

[omega minimo]

163. Ding

:hi:

[LWolf]

175. Beautifully said.

Thank you.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

196. Very productive post.

This is how the electoral system works. People need to stop using Greens as a scapegoat and accept that being moderate doesn't always make someone more electable, especially in areas where there are a large number of progressives who might vote Green.

[Critters2]

22. When I've voted Green, and I have on occasion

it's because they presented clear ideas and progressive values. I've always hoped my Green votes would send the message that the Dems need to move left and stay there to get my vote consistently. Yet, the Democratic Party refuses to get this. Case in point...the Dem Party wasted time and money fighting to keep the Green gubernatorial candidate off the ballot in Illinois. If they're afraid of losing votes to him, why don't they adopt the positions they think will gain him votes?

How hard is that?

[flyarm]

26. oh so sending your vote right ..real right ..neo con right, has helped

greens how??

so who have you punished..yourselves and our environment perhaps..and your misplaced values??

oh i get it..

wow dems have learned..by the greens..or perhaps is it the rethugs who have learned how easily greens will sell their souls??????

or perhaps ..that the greens are a little slow to the dance??

fly

[Critters2]

30. Whereas the DLC has been winning elections consistently

Talk about moving right :eyes:

[flyarm]

129. well see i am a dem and i have stayed right where i am and am

fighting to get rid of the dlc 'ers

in fact my local dec just booted out all the dlc types and replaced them with all progressives..so what have i and others accomplished..well we are taking our party back..

what have you done about the greens whoring themselves to the neo cons in every way?????????

i stay fighting..i will never ever give up my values..and i will stay and i will force the bad guys out of my party...and expose those who sell out my values..i never make excuses for them !


fly

[FearofFutility]

29. Proceed with caution...

Something just doesn't feel right here.

[LoZoccolo]

31. What does that mean?

Everyone knows the Republicans propped up this candidate with signatures and donations - it's all documented because that stuff is a matter of public record.

[FearofFutility]

36. I know that and that's not what I'm referring to

Sometimes people post things just to stir the pot.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Here's mine: FUCK THE GREEN PARTY!

FUCK THE GREEN PARTY REPUBLICAN FUNDING!
FUCK THE GREEN PARTY REPUBLICAN BALLOT SIGNATURES!

[Critters2]

40. You're right

Posting "FUCK THE GREN PARTY..." is much easier than consistently taking progressive positions. How's that workin' out for ya?

[FearofFutility]

43. Nevermind.....you don't understand what I'm saying

BTW...I agree with your post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Yeah, I Find The Greens To Be Super Ignorantly Selfish As Well. (By

Greens, I mean the ones that vote for Greens).

I find them almost to be worse than Republicans. At least Republicans are voting for SOMETHING. Might be something I find detestful and disgraceful, but they are voting with a purpose of control and agenda. Same with Democrats. We vote with a purpose of control and an agenda, of course one far better than the republicans.

But the Greens? They vote for nothing. They waste their vote due to silly stubborn misdirected pride. Ignorant to the max, those green voters.

[Lost-in-FL]

62. Be nice :-)

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. I Thought I Was LOL

Believe me, there's far more I'd say than that but I know it would be going too far.

But I would hope most Greens here would be voting for the Democratic candidate anyway, so they wouldn't be included in my mini-tirade whatsoever anyway. It's just the ignorant ones that waste their vote by actually voting for the Green candidate that make me want to smack them upside the head. :)

[Lost-in-FL]

81. If the Democrats win in 2008

there won't be hardly any Green's here at DU.

They are here with us Democrats bashing Republicans but after Jan 2009 they will be throwing dirt at us.

Did I just said that???

:::running for my life::: :yoiks:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. It's All Good...

...I'll cover ya. :)

[135th]

159. Greens Aren't Progressive!

Progressives are supposed to put the good of others ahead of themselves, and these Greens won't stop voting for members of their own party! That is, when they aren't spending Republican money or the night in jail with Libertarians becasue the Dem's blocked them from presidential debates. Don't they know that hurts real progressives like Joe Lieberman!

:eyes:

[Critters2]

205. *snark*

:spray: :kick:

[Mr_Spock]

52. I'm sick of this too

They are promoting conservatives by splitting the liberal vote - amazing!

[FearofFutility]

56. Divide and conquer.......................

And I'm not talking about the Greens. I think someone else is sitting back and enjoying a big bucket of popcorn.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. The Democrats And Green Voters Are Divided By Nature.

The green voters do not have our best interests at heart whatsoever and to think otherwise is foolish. Their whole agenda is to try to steal the Progressive wing of our party for themselves, selfishly. So the division is as natural as it is with the republicans. They are our foes just as much if not more so. At least republicans aren't wolves in sheep's clothing. The repubs make it clear they are wolves.

[Critters2]

91. Move to the left, steal the Progressives back

Really, not brain surgery. What is it about progressivism that scares you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. What The Fuck Are You Talking About? LOL

Who the hell said anything about fearing progressivism?

Man, did you read into something that wasn't there. :rofl:

[flyarm]

130. how does whoring for the repugs make one progressive???????

please explain..so is it progressive to trash the environment? and since when??

is it progressive to ignore global warming??..since when

is it progressive to trash our national parks?? since when

is it progressive to put more oil rigs in the pristine gulf of mexico?? since when

is it progressive to sell off the sequoia forrest to lumber companies for cutting?? since when

is it progressiveto pollute our air and water? since when

because this is what the neo cons are doing, the very neo cons.. the greens are helping steal ELECTIONS..and whoring themselves for..

progressive you say?? you greens are full of shit!

the greens are drinking the kool aide worst than the fundies, if they think selling their souls to the republicans is making them progressive!

what a joke...you can't even make a good case for the dumbness!!

fly

[undeterred]

69. Greens are too pure to run as Democrats

even though they could say exactly the same things and actually have the possibility of beating a lousy Democrat or even a Republican. They prefer to stay in the pure and rarefied air of the theoretical. That way they can stand up for all kinds of wonderful things that they will never in a million years accomplish. Why? Because they're too pure to really get involved in the political structure that exists. Because they're too busy critizing the people who are trying to fix the system to actually get involved in fixing it themselves.

Well, I'm not sick of the theoretical Green Party, which is oh so pretty on paper, but I'm sick of the Green Party which actually exists.

Green motto: We talk about making things better, but we actually make things worse.

[GreenArrow]

115. we'll certainly never accomplish any of those "theoretical things"

if we don't stand up for them.

Civil rights were once theoretical things.
Women's rights were once theoretical things.
Worker's rights were once theoretical things.

The old saying goes, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". By the same token, the mediocre is the enemy of the good. Our political system, both wings of it, are awash in mediocrity, corruption, cynicsm, greed, and hypocrisy. The Greens, however unlikely their chances of winning national power, are already involved in the political structure that exists, a structure which they find keeps a vested interest in maintaining its own power; it is not welcoming to newcomers, particularly newcomers who challenge its primacy. You say the Greens are "too busy criticizing the people who are trying to fix the system to actually get involved in fixing it themselves". The people who are trying to "fix" the system are simply maintaining the machine that permits them to consolidate and wield their power with impunity. The people deep within the system don't want to fix it.

[undeterred]

120. The Democratic party already has

organization, structure, power, and money that the Green Party does not. Contrary to popular belief, any Progressive person can walk right into the Democratic Party and run for office, as hundreds of people across the country are doing this year. There may be a core of Democratic Power which will not be available to us, but that core cannot ignore the massive number of Progressives who are becoming active within the Democratic Party. And the corrupt Dems have a lot more to fear from Progressive Dems than they do from the Green Party.

But there are somethings you can only understand from the inside, from active involvement and risk taking, by being willing to contaminate yourselves in the dirty world of electoral politics. Politics is not a spectator sport.

[GreenArrow]

133. yes, the party has money, structure, power...

but it is a self-perpetuating machine, incapable of hearing criticism, resistant to change. It uses its power only to maintain its power. If the party wins, it asks for more money. If the party loses, it asks for more money.

"But there are somethings you can only understand from the inside, from active involvement and risk taking, by being willing to contaminate yourselves in the dirty world of electoral politics. Politics is not a spectator sport." Politics is a spectator sport, (and it is largely ego gratification and power lust; true altruists seldom get very far, or else become tyrants), and as with other activities, spectating often allows for a clearer view of the proceedings. As with any other game, sides are chosen, bets are taken, campaigns devised, and game plans executed. The crowd roars for its champion, and jeers its foe, and in the end, one head is raised and one bowed...the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. It's all a game.

You're right of course; there is a difference between playing in a football game and watching it from the stands, or running for office and following it through the media, but in the end it's all a game.

[undeterred]

137. "a self-perpetuating machine, incapable of hearing criticism, resistant "

I just told you that this isn't entirely true and you refuse to hear it or believe it. I am working for wonderful progressive candidates who are running as Democrats. The official party ignores them, but when they are elected the official party won't be able to ignore them. Candidates are elected by the people, not by the party.

You've used the broad brush to tar thousands, millions of people. You can't hear or see when a real opportunity is right in front of you. All you can do is bash, bash, bash Democrats. You're a Green.

[GreenArrow]

146. oh, I credit your belief in that

and I'm also willing to accept that you could be right about it. I truly hope you are. I tend to be very cynical where politics is concerned.

User name notwithstanding, I'm not a "Green" (is that supposed to be some sort of insult)? I do, however, have considerable sympathy for their platform and principles, and further, I think their criticisms are a great gift to the Democratic party...if that party decides to use them. I believe that their vision of what this country can be is healthier and more humane and more practical than what the two major parties are offering. Perhaps, as you suggest, there are some within the party who share many of the same concerns with the nominal Greens, and labels aside, are working towards the same ends.

[undeterred]

148. think Green, vote Blue

:bluebox:

[depakid]

75. The Dems decided to run an anti-choice candidate

Which they should have known had the potential to come back to haunt them.

Trouble with the Dems is that they NEVER learn. They keep on pandering to the right and alienating their base.

And then they act surprised and get indignant when a certain percentage of folks support the Greens- or probably more often- simply won't turn out to vote.

Personally, I won't vote for far right enablers anymore- which means the congressman in my district (who crossed over on the Medicare scam ond the bankruptcy bill- along with others) will be doing without my support- and my vote.

If a Green were to run- I'd surely vote for that candidate over someone who's shown that they lack integrity (and in my critter's instance- personal character).

[w4rma]

87. And if it's not that issue it'll be some other issue of non-perfection. nt

[depakid]

105. That's a pretty damn big issue

and as it turned out- it got even bigger when a rape victim was denied emergency contraception- first at the ER and then at her local pharmacy. It's gotten big press all across Pennsylvania.

If Casey were smart, he'd turn that into a wedge issue- it's one of those deals where a HUGE majority supports the progressive position. Unfortunately, as I mention, the Dems never seem to learn- which is why overall, I'm not optimistic about November. I've seen the pattern way too many times.

This isn't about "purity" or "perfection." It's about standing up for traditional Democratic values on the one hand- and selling them out on the other (usually for corporate cash- though with Altio- who knows what that was- cowardice maybe).

[w4rma]

116. Most of these issues are big. And noone is perfect. (nt)

[depakid]

151. add 'em up then

and look at them in the aggregate.

Not one by one- but as a party. Trace 'em out and do some overlays. Can you find coherence to a set of principles and values?

Many who look these days cannot- and so they vote (or choose not to vote) against their own interests.

Many more- a HUGE percentage- they just don't care. And why should they?

Can you in good conscience give people a better answer than "Republicans are so much worse."

Can you show us hope- something to rally FOR.

[w4rma]

173. You have heard of primary elections, haven't you?

You do realize that Democratic voters picked these folks to run in the general election? If this "perfect" Green can't win in a progressive heavy primary, then this "perfect" Green will *never* win in a general election.

[JI7]

167. the Greens made clear they don't care about abortion rights

in 2000 when Nader was asked about Roe v Wade and what could happen to it if Gore or Bush is elected.

[depakid]

182. That's unfortunately one thing that Nader indisputably got right

Democrats had the power to block Thomas and Scalia- just as they had the power to block Roberts-

EVEN WORSE- they let a man who had already PROVEN HIMSELF UNETHICAL ON THE FEDERAL BENCH AND LIED TO CONGRESS in his previous hearing onto the Supreme Court.

The Party "leadership" and it's DINO's showed everyone loud and clear that if there is a dime's worth of difference between the parties on that count- Democrats won't fight for it.

That was one of the most pathetic things I have seen in my adult life.

[Critters2]

99. The Connecticut primary demonstrates what can happen

when the Democratic Party puts forth real progressive candidates. The DLC candidate lost!! The progressive candidate won--and sent the party leadership into a shitload of confusion about who to support at first, because real progressivism scares them so.

Yet, if the Dems would field progressive candidates consistently, we could win a good many races where the Green vote is otherwise a factor.

FUCK the DLC...support PROGRESSIVE Democrats! Or lose votes to the Greens.

[Ravy]

165. And the Greens are running someone there against Lamont

Would you like to edit to say FUCK the DLC, *and* the GREENS?

[seabeyond]

106. nader took money from the republican party as he claimed both

parties are a like. no difference. he is the special one. it was 2004 and he taking republican money that turned me off for good, all his smarts and good works, in the trash

[GreenArrow]

114. John Kerry and Al Gore

made no attempts to get votes and money from moderate GOP backers, either individual or corporate. They scorned the votes and money of disgruntled GOP.

[seabeyond]

117. nader took republican money cause repugs wanted nader to effect

the election.

there was no good intent there and how ridiculous to suggest it. nader is a sellout. no better, maybe worse than those he scorns

[GreenArrow]

123. Nader may be a sellout.

But that doesn't preclude those in the two major parties from being sellouts either. Actions speak louder than words, and it's the utmost in hypocrisy for either of the two major parties to lecture a third party about money. Hey, it's their party, the Republicans and the Democrats, they made the rules, and they have no call to bitch when someome comes along and use their own rules against them.

Let's not be naive; if a third party candidate had been threatening to take votes away from Bush, the Democrats would have been supporting that candidate in every way possible, in order to effect the election. That's politics.

[seabeyond]

125. they arent bitching. i am bitching

nader is a sell out as he tells us how important it is to change party that was in charage, by weakening the democratic party. ego. it was ego with nader. he hurt the country and the very citizens he had a reputation of supporting so many decades ago.

we arent talking about the republican party, nor the democratic party. we are talking about the third party. and it is a negative to the democratic party.

and you cant say that the democrats would have done the same. they havent done the same in the past. i am not even critizing the republicans for giving the money. it is all on naders shoulders

[GreenArrow]

132. ego.

It's ego with ALL of them. The partisanship is bullshit, and a false dichotomy. It's not the Republican party, it's not the Democratic party, nor is it the Green Party, all of which are only rather elastic vehicles, it's the good of the country which is at stake, and neither of the two major parties (one major party, to be accurate) have any idea what they are doing any longer; they are like wind-up toys, going through prescribed movements with little variation, and with only a grotesque relation to anything living or organic. Their only interest is self-perpetuation. A third party is negative to the Democratic party? Horrors! At this point in our history, both major parties are negative to our country. They have become vacuous, insipid, insincere, dishonest, and moorless, lacking in vision and beholden to money, power, and ego.

"and you cant say that the democrats would have done the same. they haven't done the same in the past. i am not even criticizing the republicans for giving the money. it is all on Nader's shoulders"

Of course the Democratic party would have have done the same; you don't think if Roy Moore decided to run as a third party candidate that the Democrats wouldn't help him out, both overtly and covertly?

[ikojo]

121. Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for

Hillary...talk about taking Republican money!

[seabeyond]

126. nader took the money from the republicans to be able to run against

kerry and make him weak allowing bush to win. difference

[flyarm]

134. who says the dem party of voters will support hillary..i sure won't!

and i will work for a candidate that opposes what hillary stands for..why will you not disavow the candidates whoring themselves for the very people you so call say are opposed to the values you say you have??

you find everything wrong with democrats..but sleep in the bed of fleas..the very people who are totally fucking everything in our enviornment..so what is it??

are you all whores or do you stand up for your values..or are all greens just sell outs meant to be the puppets of the republican party? the party that fucks our forrests and trees, and water and air , and oceans, and dumps shit everywhere they go!

can i say hypocrite??

[spanone]

109. The fellow from NY was a fool. They are a threat to no one. IMHO

I really can't see these people doing anywhere near the damage that Nader did. These are idiots, and democrats, present du'ers included, are intelligent folks.

[Ravy]

166. No threat in NY, but they may make the difference in

close Senate races like CT and MO.

[gully]

119. With several political parties in the US why the hell does the MSM give

The piddly assed Green Party attention? Hmmm, could it be because they divide the left? Yeah, I think so.

[Ignacio Upton]

122. The NY Senate candidate, Howie Hawkins, is a joke

He runs for a new office every year. In 2004 he ran against Congressman Jim Walsh (whom the guy in my sig will take out this November :)) and in 2005 he ran in the Syracuse Mayoral election.

However, I am concerend about the PA Green Party, and Santorum's purchase of it.

[stevedeshazer]

124. Hey bigdarryl

Aren't you sick of the Republican party?

[SOS]

131. Reality check

This thread was prompted by Malachy McCourt's appearance on tonight's Hardball.

He's running for NY governor on the Green ticket.

The Republicans are going to run John Faso.

On the Democratic side we have Eliot Spitzer, who will beat DLCer Tom Suozzi by 60 points next in Tuesday's primary.

After 9/12, it will be Eliot Spitzer vs. John Faso. Rasmussen (July 2006) has Spitzer crushing Faso by 40 points.

The next governor of New York will be Eliot Spitzer.

Why get upset? The Greens are completely irrelevant in this race.

[Generic Brad]

136. It's not easy being Green

Or so I hear.

[yurbud]

145. eventually, we need to change the system so we have a true multi-party

democracy, and third parties can run without being spoilers.

[AngryAmish]

150. I am sick of this muthaf'n Green Party on the muthaf'n plane

[Vidar]

152. And one more thread to hide.

[LoZoccolo]

155. Bubbada dub dub dub dub...

...bubba bubba dubba dubba dub dub dub dub dub dub dubba bubba bubba bububububba dub dub dub dub dub bubba dubba bub.

[omega minimo]

161. Why did all you folks fall for this?

Where did "bigdarryl" go?



Any mention of Green's gets this sort of rabid reaction on GD, no matter how well or crappily its presented, by whoever. Would someone toss some Green bait in DU just to see what happens (what always happens)?



What are you afraid of? Why do Greens scare you so bad?



Is there any value in any of the Green principles or party platform that are of value to Democrats/liberals/progressives, aside from the irrational hysteria that the name sets off?

[hogwyld]

172. The way some people react to them

They would probably like to outlaw the Green party, and have it's non Democratic party convertin' members lined up and shot as traitors.

[omega minimo]

185. It allows some Dems to ignore and avoid Dem responsibility and action

Too busy hating Greens to consider the reasons Repug Lite doesn't work for Democrats and what to do about it.

[Ravy]

202. Bullshit. When progressives win the primary, Greens still run.

Greens can't put their ego aside.

[omega minimo]

216. See that prepackaged spew has nothing to do with my post and the

responsibility Democrats have. Just blaming Greens doesn't address that.

I'm sorry I don't see how your post makes sense as a reply.

[Ravy]

220. You indicated that the Dems could do something about their

plight. You accused Dems of going Repub Lite, which is far from the truth, at least in most cases.

So, other than trying to get back into power to enact some meaningful legislation, or trying to prevent detrimental Republican legislation, what is their "responsibility" as you call it? And what can they do about it?

I guess I thought you were insinuating "Run a progressive", but I don't believe that makes any difference at all to the Greens. Honestly.

There will always be some Green out there that can be convinced to run against the Democrat, and there will always be Republican money and legwork available to make it happen.

[omega minimo]

222. Lefty Mom said it in #20

"You accused Dems of going Repub Lite, which is far from the truth, at least in most cases."

Repub Lite IS the Dems problem, failing and their responsibility. It doesn't succeed! THAT is helping Republicans!! Not Greens!

[Ravy]

242. If the Greens would not run against Democrats who are not

"Repub Lite", then you might have a point. But they do, so you don't.

[omega minimo]

248. That may be true if you think in black & white terms that end discussions

Do you ever look at it from the voter's point of view?



LeftyMom (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-05-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
20. All the Dems need do to prevent loss of votes to Greens is be progressive
Edited on Tue Sep-05-06 03:39 PM by LeftyMom
Outside of San Francisco, nobody runs Greens against progressive Dems and gets anywhere. Stop running to the center and there's no problem. Ignoring the progressive base is what causes these problems. There's nothing in thier platform that should differ so much from the stance of a good liberal Dem except for IRV (which is a pretty good idea that people seem to like once it's explained.)

Edit: While everybody's at it, please stop blaming the voters for voting for the canidate who best represents thier interests. That's what they're supposed to do, and having greater loyalty to democratic principles than to a party is admirable.

[FearofFutility]

174. Whew!!! I thought I was the only one who saw the OP for what it was.

I tried to point out the obvious in a subtle way, but emotions seemed to have gotten the best of everyone.

[LoZoccolo]

183. That's like asking why Republicans scare us so bad.

They're the same thing.

[omega minimo]

186. It's fear of responsiblity

[Marr]

168. The DLC has cost the Democrats alot more votes than the Greens.

Without the DLC and other DINOs, the Green Party would be about as big as the LaRouche cult.

[JI7]

169. they ARE Republicans, they ran against Paul Wellstone

when Nader was asked about whether he would endorse Wellstone by Bill Moyers he said he wasn't sure and that Wellstone didn't support him for President.

Nader finally did endorse a few days before Wellstone died.

but how can someone who refused to back Wellstone and his record from the time they knew he would run be called a liberal or progressive ?

after Wellstone died Nader let out some article about how Wellstone was the only one or some other crap. yet he didn't even support him until a few days before while the rest of the Democratic Party was campaigning for Paul.

Nader also said in 2000 that if roe v wade was overturned it would "just" mean the decision goes to states. yet his followers continue to use that issue against Dems. what a bunch of phonies.

in 2003 Camejo pushed for the recall of Dem Governor Gray Davis in order to help Republican Arnold win the election.

[Buzz Clik]

184. So, all non-Democrats are Republicans.

One certainly cannot argue against that solid logic.

[LoZoccolo]

195. Both Republicans and Greens understand that!

Republicans prop up the Green party with ballot signatures and funding!

The Greens accept those!

[Buzz Clik]

207. At least the GOP is offering those Greens something other than insults.

Perhaps you could try being supportive of them.

Just kidding. Your head would explode. Please -- go on hating them.

[LoZoccolo]

208. GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!

GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!
GIVE BACK THE FUNDS!

[Buzz Clik]

238. Why the hell should they? To compensate for a pathetic nominee?

[LoZoccolo]

251. GREENS WHORE FOR CONSERVATIVE CASH! n/t

[Q]

188. It's called...

...Democracy.

[Greyhound]

198. I am SICK!! of this constant scapegoating and denial.

Our failure to run relevant campaigns and to offer a significant alternative has cost us the last FIVE elections. Cry and whine about those awful Greens all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

[LoZoccolo]

211. I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKIN' SNAKES ON THIS MOTHERFUCKIN' PLANE!

n/t

[paulk]

212. I think we will have to accept the fact that there are always

a small number of extremists unwillingly to participate in our political system in any meaningful way. It's unfortunate that the present day Green Party has devolved into that category. But, that doesn't mean we should treat them any differently than any other group that stands between us and our political goals. The notion that they are somehow on the same side as we are is demonstrably false, and should be rejected out of hand.

[depakid]

213. And this is why the Dems lose

and why they'll probably keep losing.

[paulk]

215. vote Green, then.... help elect a Republican

that'll show me....


----------------------------

[depakid]

225. Yep- alienate your base and your natural allies

and the people who won't vote for tweedledum vs. tweedledee.

Pandering to the right and abandoning traditional Democratic values- that sure has proven to be an effective "strategy."

[paulk]

235. Sorry, kid - someone who is constantly threatening to vote

3rd party is not the "base". And a party that would accept money from Republicans to finance a campaign - they are not my allies. They are my enemy.

And the tweedledum vs. tweedledee twaddle sold by the Greens is a lie - a lie exposed completely by the last six years... only fools are buying this argument anymore.

-------------------------


The rest of your post is just the usual uber lefty tripe so common among those with no real grasp of the history of the Democratic Party or of the realities of American electoral politics.

[depakid]

236. Nelson, Landrieux- to some extent Lieberman

and about half a dozen others in the Senate- and 40 or so in the house are tweedledums.

They're the reason that the Dems keep losing and are unable to draw a contrast between themselves and the far right.

As long as they (and the cowardly consultants) define the party- the Dems will not only keep losing, but will remain largely irrelevant in antional politics and policymaking- as the past years have shown us all too clearly.

I also find it interesting that people think (not you neccesarily- but others I hear) that these closet Republicans will magically stop crossing over and undercutting traditional Democratic values if the Dems should somehow regain a majority. There's no evidence for that at all- in fact, evidence shows the reverse will be true.

[paulk]

243. Voters define the party, not consultants

The voters who put Nelson, Landrieux, and even Lieberman in office.

Nelson has one of the highest approval ratings in the Senate.

Have you ever spent any time in Nebraska? GW Bush won Nebraska by 40 points. It's a state full of tweedledums - why should you be surprised when they elect a tweedledum to represent them? If you really think a progressive can win in NE, then I invite you to spend some time living and working there. Really.

------------

Let me ask you a question - what are "traditional Democratic values" to the Nebraskans who voted Nelson into office? Do you think their definition will be the same as yours?

[depakid]

245. Seems to me Bob Kerry was from Nebraska

Isn't that the guy whose seat Nelson occupies?

[paulk]

247. to quote Bob Kerrey -

"I’ve gone from Nebraska, where people thought I was a liberal, to New York, where people think I’m a right-wing nutcase."

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/n_8653/index.html


----------------------------------

Did you know that Kerrey has endorsed Lieberman and agreed to campaign for him?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/11/ct_sen_lieberman_wins_kerreys_backing_plans_first_ad


--------------------

[Swamp Rat]

217. YAAAY!!! Let's just have ONE political party!

[omega minimo]

218. Did Rummy elect to have Zeig Heil surgery?

:shrug: :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

226. LOL!

:hi:

I sure see a lot of 'ignored' on this thread. :D



Keep an eye out for fake Democrats! ;)

[omega minimo]

229. PNAC is a four letter word

:hug:


I'm about ready to Ignore myself :wow:

[Ignis]

219. Nail on the head, SwampRat.

Many of the opinions voiced in this thread remind me of the following quote:
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."

Gee, I wonder where we've heard that before...

[Swamp Rat]

239. Speaking of heads...

:D

[Ignis]

249. (sings) "If I Had a Hammer..."

Well, you know the rest. :)

[LoZoccolo]

221. The BIG GREEN LIE rears its head again.

Eight years of Republican rule not enough for the so-called "progressives"?

[nosmokes]

223. we do. the corporate partry.n/t

[omega minimo]

231. oh no you di'nt!

:applause:

[IChing]

230. this thread is a, Oh look a bright shiny bubble or pony

Which goes round and round on purpose

[Swamp Rat]

232. LOLOLOL!!!!!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

234. The answer, my friend

is blowin in the wind
:evilgrin:

[CollegeDUer]

246. Should the United States not have a progressive party?

The Democrats are too controlled b the hyper-wealthy to ever be a progressive party; shouldn't the US have a left-wing party like most countries? I understand if you don't agree with some of their specific tactics, but I do think we need much more variety in views and parties than we have.

[LoZoccolo]

250. Why are you here? n/t

[CollegeDUer]

253. Why are people like me who believe we should have fair democracy here?

So you can't believe in democracy and be on DU? You can't believe that there should be many choices and stable parties in the United States to try and represent everyone? You don't believe these things?

[LoZoccolo]

254. You have to believe in the Democratic party here.

You don't sound like you do.

[CollegeDUer]

255. Because I believe people should have a choice?!

It doesn't matter which Party or independent you are, you still believe fundamentally in democracy! And for your information and assumptions, I plan to vote straight Democrat in November.

[BurtWorm]

252. Are you talking about Hawkins in NY?

He didn't sound like a nutjob to me.

Clinton is going to run away with the vote. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and no one is entitled to a free ride into office. Not even Hillary.