The Democrats and Greens must set aside their differences.

[Cascadian]

I am getting so sick and tired of certain Democrats that keep playing this blame game on Greens and people who voted for Nader in 2000, It is old news and there is no grounds to support the fact that Nader helped Bush win. Bush didn't win anyway and you can thank the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for Bush getting the Whte House. It was not the Greens.

I think that excluding the Greens in getting Bush out of the White House is short-sighted and downright arrogant. Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich should be thanked for trying to reach out those who voted for Nader in 2000 and trying to bring the Green supporters to their fold. It is a very smart move.

We must set aside all differnces and focus on one goal....Deny Bush another four years and take the majority away from the Republicans in Congress. The differences we all must be put aside for now. Being divided is what people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney want.

So Democrats who are in this denial to why Gore couldn't get the White House, please stop it and reach out to the Greens so we can throw the Chimp out of the White House.

I also want to say again to fellow Greens, please not nominate a candidate. Not this time anyway. We better unite with the Democrats this time and patch up whatever differences we may have. This is serious and we cannot afford to do so.

John

[jenk]

1. we can't reach out to the greens

They won't support us under any circumstances, only if we run Dennis Kucinich for president. Sure we might get the 3% green vote or whatever, but we'd also lose all 50 states.

[AP]

5. This is so not true. In 2000 NINETY percent of people who preferred Nader

over all other candidates ended up voting for another candidate strategically (and almost all of them voted for Gore).

People who prefer Green politics are the most strategic bloc of voters (and the least loyal to party ideology/most loyal to political ideology, I guess) of any bloc of voters ever. At least, I think that's how the author of the study described it.

So, not only do you not have to worry about Green preferers (OK, so these aren't the party leaders), but you count on them comming to your assistance.

My theory is that the only thing you have to make clear to Greens is just how close the race is. In CA and NY where Gore got the most votes, so did Nader, because Greens knew it was safe (however, imagine how skewed the popular vote would have been in favor of Gore if they voted for him in NY in CA). In FL they simply had no idea how close it was (or maybe they did). I think in FL Gore only got 75% of the Nader preferers.

[Mairead]

118. AP, I'm not convinced that Greens are going to do strategic, this time

I suspect many feel as I do: that we got burnt to a crisp by the Dems during Coup2K; that we threw away our votes in the most complete and painful possible sense of that phrase. Not only did we not vote our party's ticket, but the lesser-evil guy we DID vote for then shrugged and walked away, which spinelessness was followed by the total failure of the Senate Dems to back the CBC in their righteous attempt to thwart the coup.

I suspect that telling us a second time that we simply MUST vote for a lesser evil again because "it's sooooo cllooossse" isn't going to work. I know for sure that it isn't going to work with me!

[Cascadian]

121. People forgot about the CBC's attempt to stop the approval of the coup.

I haven't. They knew the whole thing stunk to high heaven, but Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats just let it lie and keeled over.

John

[jiacinto]

141. Pray tell, what could they do

Even if they had "stood with the CBC" they would have simply been delaying out the inevitable. There was nothing them or Gore could to change the outcome. After the court had ruled it was clear that Bush was going to be president.

I find it funny that those who attack Gore over the Florida recount didn't even vote for him. Why should people care what you think when maybe if you--and the scores of other people who voted for Nader--had voted for Gore we wouldn't have had the FL recount? Oh yeah that's not your fault. I forgot.

What was the 37 ordeal about? And let's assume that Gore dragged out. Stopping short of standing in front of Bush's limo on Pennsylvania Avenue, or squatting in the White House and refusing to leave, what else could have done? The answer is: nothing. The decision had come down.

[Mairead]

147. Right, Carlos, the solution is always to drink the koolaid

Don't you ever get tired?

[Cascadian]

158. I guess some people like to lose.

I guess some people also support the Harlem Globetrotters' "rivals" the Washington Generals and they get paid to lose.


John

[jiacinto]

195. What was Gore supposed to do?

Magically call Tabitha from Passions to cast a spell to make him president?

[jiacinto]

180. Don't you ever get tired?

Again, what could Gore have done, post 12/12/00, to have changed the outcome? Please tell me. I guess that maybe Gore should have used magical Witchcraft or called Tabitha from Passions to somehow change everything.

[Mairead]

191. Carlos, I get so tired that I positively ache. But you don't get a pass.

Gore, as I and others have said many times now, should have displayed leadership by rallying the people against the coup. It was a coup d'etat, Carlos! The destruction of democracy and the rule of law. If that isn't worth taking risks to prevent, what in hell would be?

[Padraig18]

192. OMG, we AGREE!

It WAS a coup d'etat! People should have been in the streets en masse. :thumbsup:

[jiacinto]

194. That would never have happened

I could hardly see ordinary people taking to the streets. Among people I consider as friends none of them would have protested. That's the hard truth.

Expecting people who are more concerned about MTV and American Idol to protest is unrealistic.

[Mairead]

197. "Among people I consider as friends none of them would have protested"

Now why does that not surprise me?

[Mairead]

198. Astonishing, huh?

:evilgrin:

[ShaneGR]

177. LOL, almost all of them voted for Gore??????????? BULLSHIT

97,000 voted for Nader in Florida. Gore 'lost' by 550. BTW, where was Nader, the 'consumer' advocate, when voters were denied their right to a recount in Florida?

[0rganism]

10. Gee, thanks for telling me what I think, jenk

C'mon, jenk, who should I vote for? Who's ass should I kiss to get a corporate campaign donation? When the Democrats nominate another DINO, should I wear a clothespin or a gasmask to the voting booth? Why the fuck am I donating hundreds of dollars to keep this website running so I can read your bullshit, while you won't even contribute a dime?

You've got it all figured out, give us the deep deep answers.

[AP]

11. Who do you think the DINOs are this year?

?

[0rganism]

13. Ask jenk, he's got all the answers

!

[muchacho]

82. be cool

Jenk may not be correct, but let's be nice, yes?

Don't resort to neo-con baiting and snearing.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. DINO's = only people who kiss Bush ass

Other than that, Democrats are Democrats. Liberal or moderate we are united against Bush in one way or another.

[AP]

38. Which Dems are kissing Bush's ass?

?

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Well for starters... None of the presidential candidates

Not even Lieberman. Zell Miller pretty much comes to mind, unfortunately I used to like the guy. It would be one thing if he came up with his own ammendments and worked with the GOP senators but all he does is vote for whatever Bush proposes.

[Cascadian]

58. Well Kerry and Gephardt come up with anti-Bush rhetoric but....

they voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq invasion. Total spinelessness.

John

[quinnox]

2. Not really

The Greens aren't important enough to have any say in the Democratic party. They only represent 1-2% of the vote. Harsh, but that is the reality.

[Cascadian]

4. That's true.

This is why it makes the arguement that the Greens and Nader caused Gore to be denied the White House so ridiculous. Those Demos that supported Nader were disenchanted with the way the Democrats were becoming Republican wannabes. It was a protest vote more or less but did not cost Gore 2000.

John

[quinnox]

7. I agree

Gore's campaign made mistakes, he couldn't even carry his home state, which if he did would have put him in the White House.

[Padraig18]

8. You are *deeply* in denial if you think Green votes in FL didn't cost Gore

I'm willing to forgive the Greens, but I'll be damned if I will forget what they DID, IN FACT do--- saddled us with a bunch of crypto-fascists.

[Cascadian]

9. It wasn't the Greens in Florida....

You can blame Kathryn Harris and little bro' Jeb for skewing the Florida votes! BTW. some Greens are supporting Dean right now so you really need the Greens and anybody else to get Dean nominated.


John

[Padraig18]

14. The Greens cost Gore..

... at least 3 states, the winning of which would have made FL irrelevent! Deal with it...

[Cascadian]

15. Baloney!

What three states? Greens only got a small percentage of the votes. If the supreme Court and Kathryn Harris would have allowed the recounts, Gore would have won anyways but they didn't.

John

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Cascadian]

18. Smoking nothing.

Obviously have you? Never mind...You have been officialy ignored!

John

[Padraig18]

22. Awwww

My heart is broken... /sarcasm off

http://www.repentantnadervoter.com/faq/faq.html :

"Why blame Gore's loss on Nader?

We're not placing all the blame on Nader. Most of the blame should go to Gore and the Democrats. We know that there are lots of reasons Gore lost, and his own ineptitude and his party's spinelessness are high on the list. But it is irrefutable that Bush might not be in office if over 2.5 million of us had not voted for Nader and, specifically, if a majority of those who voted for Nader in Florida had cast their ballots for Gore. So, we should accept our part of the blame for the Gore loss and repent accordingly."

AND

http://www.repentantnadervoter.com/mediacenter/atlantajc1.html :

"...Democrats blame Nader and the Greens for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 election, arguing that the votes the party siphoned from Gore ensured Bush's narrow victory.

They specifically cite Nader's 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush eventually won the state by 537 votes and, with its electoral votes, took the White House.

Even some Greens have come around to the Democrats' view...."


Do the math... :eyes:

[Rowdyboy]

28. Padraig, this is serious, man...

You have been "officially ignored"...

We're not talking unofficially ignored, or disregarded. This is going into your PERMANENT RECORD.

You have been warned...

<<<sarcasm, in case you just don't get it>>>

How anyone, anywhere can defend Nader's actions in 2000 is far beyond me. I respect his work prior to 1999. After that, he died to me.

[Padraig18]

43. Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

"Officially ignored" will be on my permanent record? I wonder if it will be next to my 2-day suspension for forging hall passes that Bro. Eustace gave me? :P

[tinanator]

76. like this

besides the mendacity of corporatism run amok throughout our government and their intermediaries the "media", besides the Democratic complicity in coverups like Iran Contra, October Surprise, the S&L scam, Clarence Thomas' confirmation, BOTH wars on Iraq, and(as we will likely see)the 9-11 investigation, they had the undemocratic principles to exclude Nader not only from participating in the debates as the people wished, but had the NAZI in them to remove him from the premesis. If Nader chose to push the button at that point, I would certainly understand. But he didnt need to. Anyone with a shred of sanity recognizes the ultimate SCOTUS treachery, the media's tremendous bias and abandonment of their responsibilities under the law, and perhaps EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, the MUCH larger numbers of Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida et al. Of course, if that wasnt the case, scapegoating Nader would not be so essential, except to maintain an illusion. Its discouraging to see the total mental failure of so many wanna be fascists buying and selling lies, as if that will get you closer to a democracy, or whatever your goals really are.
Corporatism is fascism is two party politics (as currently practiced).

[tinanator]

98. thanks for the laugh!

that is sssssssssssooooooooooooooooooooooooo hilarious!
Shouldnt it say, "do the math incorrectly, and ignore all relevant facts"? I swear, that is totally laughable. "Who do you think youre foolin? Baby it aint me!"

[Padraig18]

116. Nothing wrong with MY math

97K Green votes in FL, which * won by 537 votes (allegedly). 97K - 537 = 96K+. I think you Greens need some remedial arithmetic lessons.

[tinanator]

128. garbage in garbage out

I think you need to get the right numbers. Check out the Media Consortium results, and FACTOR IN THE CROSSOVER DEMS!!!!!
"Nothing wrong with MY math" indeed.

[Padraig18]

140. Nice spin!

I notice you *don't* address the 97K vs. 537 argument.

[tinanator]

161. yes i do

*when* I suggested you get the actual numbers. logic without facts doesnt get very far, believe it, or not.

as a matter of fact, now that you mention it, I see you dont address ANY of mine. go figure.

[Padraig18]

166. I see

You deny that Nader got 97K votes, or do you deny that *'s alleged margin of victory was 537 votes, or both? Please clarify.

[tinanator]

168. wasting my time all that important?

Maybe you can just guess what I mean. Your perceptiveness is not my responsibility today.

[Padraig18]

169. Nor is remedial math mine... n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

48. ROFL

you have really lost it when you have to announce that someone is ignored.

[Cascadian]

57. Like you?

eom

John

[Tinoire]

23. Damn!

I keep forgetting it was the fault of the Greens, who are their own separate party, and not of the Reagan/Bush Democrats or of the Democrats who were too lazy to get out of bed and vote!

[muchacho]

87. fringe

Political parties in America can be joined by any good citizen or fringe crank. You can't blame the greens for the fringe. At least thy're raising hard questions and taking it to the streets.

I wish the Dems could evoke that kind of passion (though I admit Dean seems to be able to).

[maha]

65. It cost him Florida.

Therefore, it cost him the election.

[AP]

6. However, something like 25-30% of the voters preferred Nader over all...

...candidates in 2000.

(Ten times the number who voted for him preferred someone else...what did he get? 2.5%? 3%)

[Cheswick2.0]

47. I do not beleive those numbers

sorry but that is just more propaganda, you can make numbers say anything you want.

[JVS]

83. Until everyone votes their first choice, those stats will be dismissed

It works like this. Supporters of a major party says "We must work together agains the evil of (insert candidate of opposing party here). It is too important for us to fight" However when asked what their part of the compromise will be they say "Well you guys are too small, go fuck yourselves! Most of your constituents voted for us so they must like what we are doing." They don't really want to compromise, they want you to compromise.

[Mairead]

123. BING-o! VERY well said!

That's exactly the deal. We're supposed to do all the compromising, or else.

To the younger, more right-wing, hard-of-thinking guys around here, the Greens are the perfect scapegoats: simultaneously too insignificant to matter, yet capable of single-handedly doing what even the combination of stunningly partisan bias by Media Inc, the illegal disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of mostly Black voters, the defection of tens of thousands of nominal Dems, a lackluster Gore campaign, and a criminal act by the Five Felons failed to do: give the White House to Cheneysmirk. uh-huh.

[lcordero]

25. First the Greens

Then the blacks(12%), latinos(14%), unionists(11%), women(50%), and people that basically just work for a living(95%). It looks more like a party that is self-destructing.

[Ardee]

75. say it again and again,Icordero

and maybe, just maybe those lost in the self serving bashing of any and every reason the democratic party is sinking slowly into irrelevancy excepting ,of course, the right reasons, might just begin to understand.

The debacle of the mid term elections had NOTHING to do with Nader or the Green Party, and the recently concluded abomination of a recall here in California showed clearly that union members , latinos and women deserted the democratic party as if it had the plague.

Those who look for reasons for the losses suffered by democratic candidates might look inward, look to the messages which show clearly that democrats like Lieberman and Gephardt,who stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush in the rose garden, smiling while they signed away the lives of hundreds of american boys and girls and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, who are as complicitous with the PNAC agenda as is Bush, are the democratic party in the eyes of many,many voters.

You fools (sorry but it is too damn true)who look to blame a candidate who polled only 2.75% of the electorate in the '00 election and had nothing whatsoever to do with the continuing losses of democrats thereafter are apologists for the reactionary democratic leadership that is steering your ship onto that iceberg. Some of you are undoubtedly right wing democrats seeking to shunt internal criticism from your leadership onto any one and anything else......good luck explaining the continual failures of your party in the future......sadly this leaves the nation with no voice other than those of the right.

[kanrok]

3. I watched Michael Moore on "Crossfire" yesterday

He seems to be leading the charge to "get over" Ralph Nader. He said, and I agree, that Ralph has made our country a safer place, and he admires him for that. He also said that Ralph should not and "would not" run again this cycle. I'm not sure how he knows this, but, if it's true, it'll go a long way to getting Nader back in the good graces of an awful lot of bitter people.

[0rganism]

12. Unfortunately, these sorts of posts are ultimately useless

I'd wager most of the people on this forum have forgiven the Greens, if not Ralph Nader. Those that haven't, well, I'd be truly shocked if this thread does anything to convince them otherwise. Happily, a lot of the state affilliate Green parties are already considering making the strategic voting route official, this time around.

What the 2000 election did is make quite clear that until we get something resembling Instant Runoff Voting in place, 3rd parties are going to have to accept the fact that they're potential spoilers.

Appeals for this sort of sanity usually result in a flaming of the messenger, and a lot of additional infighting. I recommend just sort of rolling along with it, although I can't say I follow my own advice very well.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. it is not about forgiving or not forgiving

It is about what they are going to do now. Besides, how do you "forgive" someone that does not take responsibility for their actions? When someone says to me the Green campaign of 2000 was 1) "dishonest" and 2) "we made a mistake", then I guess we could talk about "forgiveness".

[Mairead]

124. Are there 2 politically-different people who post under 'Cheswick'?

Because I can't quite reconcile what seem to me to be two completely different attitudes of mind being displayed by the same nominal person.

[Skip Intro]

17. I agree strongly with your suggestion

that the Dems and Greens form an alliance for 04, but not with your account of the Green effect on Gore's candidacy. The Greens were a factor in the esablishment of the bush regime, just as mistakes by the Gore team were a factor.

I'd be willing to call a truce on the whole issue, for now. The good of the nation, the fate of the nation, hangs in the balance of what we do, together, NOW.

[Cascadian]

21. It would be arrogant not to unite.

If the Democrats don't do this and the Republicans win, you'll have more people no longer voting and those who do care will join the Greens.

[Skip Intro]

26. I agree again

It would be arrogant for the Dems not to try to bring the Greens on board. But it takes two to tango, and the Greens have to "do this" as well.

We can be allies against the current regime, with some concessions or assurances given on each side. I think its clear that that will ulimately mean the Greens not running a Presidential candidate in 04, and hopefully not running a candidate in any race that would allow the repukes to retain any type of control. Yes, the Greens would have to back the Dem nominee (whoever that turns out to be), that's just the reality of the situation.

For this support, some consolations should be given. A say in the new government, maybe, I don't know. Maybe a high-profile appointment. Something could be worked out I'm sure.

But I agree with what I think is your bottom line - we choose not to work together toward defeating the current regime at our own peril, and at the peril of those who don't know better (the repukes).

[Mairead]

125. So what are you offering?

Are you willing to support Dennis Kucinich?

[Booberdawg]

151. What if Kucinich isn't the Democratic nominee?

When I first prepared to answer this, and before you edited your post, your question was "Are you willing to support the Green candidate?" So, I hold no illusions about your lack of sincerity on this issue.

To answer your revised question, sure, if Kucinich ends up being the Democratic nominee, of course I will support him. It’s already pretty clear that isn’t going to happen though. I like Kucinich. He just doesn’t have the support to make it. I want a candidate that can actually win. But it’s a moot point because he isn’t going to get past the primary.

So what is your point, anyway? You’ve already made it clear that you have no intention of voting for the Democratic nominee. (Since we know it will not be Kucinich) I support your right to vote as you choose. So just be happy with your decision and go do it. But why do you presume to ask for an offer, or compromise, from the Democratic Party? If you are promoting and supporting a Green candidate, you are the opposition, and deserve the same consideration, understanding, and compromise due a Republican – NONE.

I don’t agree with your version of the Coup2K and the causes and consequences, but I’m not interested in picking old bones. I don’t care about it; I got over it a loooong time ago. You still have a bad taste in your mouth about it. Well, then I guess you have a problem. Get over it on your own dime. Or not.

[Mairead]

176. I edited it because it was misleading.

I meant Kucinich, who is the guy who will get 99% of the Green support if he's nominated. So I was thinking of him as 'the Green candidate', but only twigged to how that would be misinterpreted after I'd posted.

Why did I presume to ask for an offer? I didn't, as you'd know if you'd read carefully. The point of the thread is that Dems and Greens must get together. The person to whom I was replying said there'd have to be concessions. I was asking whether Dems might be willing to vote for Dennis as one of those concessions, since he's the best Dem candidate in a generation and definitely someone representing the values the Greens and other lefties support--and that the Dems should support as well.

When people like you say you'll vote for Dennis if he gets the nomination, you're really saying that you'll do what you can to see that he doesn't. So I'm afraid I value your 'concession' at about the same level the Recording Angel valued the coal dealer's public prayers. If you were genuinely willing to vote for Dennis, you'd commit to doing so in the primary.

As far as Coup2K goes, you're welcome to think what you like. You can probably even get away with repeating the GOP talking points that it was 'a statistical tie' and that 'Bush and Gore both won'. Another poster did that, and the administrators didn't seem to be bothered by it even though I alerted them. But most Democrats, I think, know that it was a coup, that Gore rolled over, and that the Senate Dems shamed themselves forever by their spinelessness in the face of the CBC's integrity.

[Zorra]

19. The Greens have a

very Progressive ideology. They would still be Democrats if the Democratic Party had not shifted so far to the right.

Left--------Center--------Right
Greens I Democrats I Republicans

[Cascadian]

20. Hear hear!

It is just the height of ignorance to recognizer that they are getting stomped by the Republicans and this strategy they are following is a failure. They need to be just as tough and as scrappy as the Republicans but with a difference. Never go along with their right-wing agenda and vote for it and always keep the little guy in mind.

John

[burr]

24. Certain differences cannot just be set aside...

For example, after the 2000 election I decided I would never again support any Presidential candidate who failed to present a plan to reduce the deficit, to provide universal healthcare, and to embrace a plank in the Democratic Party platform supporting the abolishment of the electoral college.

Other differences to me..such as where someone stands specifically on the situation in Iraq, how they plan to deliver universal healthcare, or how much of the taxcuts they will repeal are secondary issues. The first thing that matters is where does our party stand on basic democratic principles such as..preventing Democratic votes for President from being excluded in states like Kansas and Alabama, and who supports insuring that every working person can move from job to job with the comfort that they will always have health insurance?

Any compromise on such defining issues is a compromise on the very morals which make Democrats...democrats. People will either stop voting or will find other means to be politically active, if our party betrays the most attractive elements that Democrats have to offer.

[mike_c]

27. why do all suggestions for compromise ultimately boil down...

...to Greens setting aside their convictions in favor of "helping the dems" oust the shrub? I'd be much more inclined to do so if the dems were actually willing to compromise, e.g. nominate a progressive, liberal, DEMOCRATIC candidate. That's a compromise-- a leftist democrat. I will certainly support the dems and vote for such a compromise candidate. I will not vote for a center/right candidate, no matter what letter follows his/her name. That sort of candidate is not a compromise-- it's a demand that the Greens and dem left toe the party line. Been there. No more.

[jiacinto]

30. Yep

Just as I thought. The only candidate the Greens would support is one compeltely unelectable and unacceptable to the electorate at large.

It only goes to show how unreasonable the Greens are in their demands.

[Cascadian]

59. Republican Lite is unelectable in my book.

Remember what Truman said. "If a voter had a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, the Republican would win everytime..."


John

[jiacinto]

134. But you have a very high litmus test

The only Democrats who would meet your standard is someone like Cynthia McKinney, Barabara Lee, or Dennis Kuchinich. Democrats who come from the very far left of the part. And Democrats who are probably even more to the left of most people in their party.

[Cascadian]

153. The center hasn't done anyting for the Democrats.

So what is wrong with people like Cynthia McKinney, Barabara Lee, or Dennis Kuchinich? What is so wrong with them?


John

[jiacinto]

181. They couldn't win statewide or national races

That's the point. Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis didn't do anytying for the Democrats either. Only one of them won.

[Cascadian]

190. Explain 2002 and California to me again?

eom

John

[jiacinto]

193. Easy

California--Davis was unpopular due to Enron screwing over the state. His approval numbers were in the dirt. Even if he ran to the far left he would have lost. Please tell me then why Arianna and Camejo didn't do better than the paltry single digits they both received? Even Satan would have beaten Davis.

2002--9/11. That's the answer there. Voters were unsafe and scared. They wanted someone who would protect them. Issues like education and the economy took second place to national security. And rightly or wrongly they saw the Republicans as having the more compelling version.

[Ardee]

80. No Carlos that is NOT what it shows

what it really shows is that you underestimate the american peoples ability to decide for themselves about a candidates message.What it showes is that you are far too closeminded to the reality of the corporate pandering of the democratic leadership forcing its elected members to downplay any criticism of Bushs' policies until the public understands that democrats stand for nothing.

You do not win an election by saying "vote for me because Im only a little like Bush".........

[Cascadian]

84. Thank you!

Absolutely right! There are those people who follow blindly and those who think for themselves.

John

[jiacinto]

136. And you don't win an election on a socialist platform either

nt

[Cascadian]

150. Yeah Democrats should just change their name.

To the Republican Lite Party. Screw the poor and give more money to the rich. Support the Patriot Act and let's go invade Syria while we are in Iraq too.

Give me a break!


John

[jiacinto]

182. Give me a break

The majority of Democrats in the House and in the Senate voted against the war. As for the second argument, if I wasn't mistaken, Democrats fought the Bush tax cut.

I guess the party that you want is the Socialist party. And frankly that party will never be elected. Live in reality. America is never going to turn away from capitalism.

[Cascadian]

187. I don't want it to turn away from Capitalism

I want America to have a free-enterprise system but I do not want a country where you have the haves and have nots and that is what we are heading for. I want universal health care and I want labor rights acknowledged. What in the hell is wrong with that?

John

[Padraig18]

44. The reason for that is...

... it's not YOUR party anymore, see? Those of us who remain in the party feel we should have the right to decide who the nominee will be, rather than be blackmailed into choosing someone you Greens 'could vote for'.

I know it's a weird concept, but that's just how we are.

/sarcasm off

[JVS]

90. That person is so in the party. Read the post.

[Padraig18]

115. I did read the post

"...I also want to say again to fellow Greens...."

[jiacinto]

29. I am sick of the Greens who whine about Bush all the time

I am sick of the Greens who savage Gore over the FL debacle when they didn't even vote for him. Maybe if they had voted for Gore the whole matter of Florida might not have been an issue.

What was Gore supposed to do? Run out in front of Bush's limo on Pennsylvania Avenue and stand in front of it? Squat at the White House?

I am getting so sick and tired of certain Greens who bitch about Bush but won't do anything constructive to get him out of office. I am sick of the Greens who bitch about Bush and then won't vote to stop him at all.

I am sick of the Greens who try to rationalize their Nader votes and refuse to accept any responsibility for Bush being in office. Are they totally responsible? No, but their anarchy did help Bush and Harris at crucial moments.

For the Greens it is about "heightening the contradiction". Many of them probably do want Bush to win so that "things can get worse before they get better".

[Loyal]

31. Carlos,

I think the Greens would have preferred that Gore prostitute himself to the largely upper class white male Green eletorate, and sacrifice the votes of conservative dems and labor unions, most of whom don't agree with the Green philosophy of free love and socialism. :puke:

[jiacinto]

32. Yep

Most Greens seem to be totally unreasonable. That most of them here would only support Kuchinich, CMB, or Sharpton show how unreasonable they are.

[Loyal]

33. I agree,

they don't belong in the Democratic party, especially considering how Ralph Traitor fucked us over in 2000. If Ralph Nader cares so much about the poor, why did he give us Bush? Why does he live in a 3 million dollar town house in Washington, Dc if he cares so much about the poor? Why don't him and Michael Moore actually HELP the poor like we Democrats do instead of just fucking writing books about the problems of the poor?

[jiacinto]

34. Good question

They are more talk than action. Let's be blunt.

If asked to the Moore/Nader contingent would follow their heroes up to the top of the cliff like lemmings and then jump into the sea and drown.

[fujiyama]

35. Nice to see...

Atleast a few people around here get it...

I think every green needs to understand that at this point in time, they are really compromising their own principles by NOT voting democratic. I really don't understand, how anyone that believes in a progressive/ liberal agenda could purposely have voted against Gore, when every poll showed how close it was going to be.

Not only that, but they have the audacity to still claim that of those 90+ thousand votes cast for Nader had no effect on who won.

One other thing that has to be realized by the greens is that the democratic party can't go around begging for their support. What the greens are doing is practically extortion, and that too simply out of spite -- "you don't agree to my agenda 100% therefore I will never vote for you"...

Greens have to realize that a majority of the people are afraid -- afraid they either can't find a job, or will lose the one they have, afraid their nation is stuck in a war that is not being won (a quagmire basically), afraid that terrorists will strike another city at any times. And this fear is forcing them to turn reactionary a bit.

Does that mean the dems have to become reactionary? Of course not, but that does mean understand the role national security will playa role in the following election, even though the two or three percent of greens out there believe that the only way to conduct foreign policy is unilaterally disarming, and that being the case, the terrorists will love the US.

Greens also have to get over themselves. Many times I see them coming off as sanctimonious pricks. Many times they are extremely self righteous, and they are just as misinformed as anyone else. I remember meeting one guy a while back, spouting the usual Nader line, "democrats and republicans are the same". Then he said "I'm Green, I'm different". So what? Should I give you a cookie? Other than a few seats on a city council or being the mayor in some college town, have you really done anything worthy? Have any of your members actually ever voted on a federal bill? No you haven't. You haven't even won one seat nationally. Start off small, win some seats in the house, and then, maybe a majority of Americans will respect you.

Oh, and if greens think that by threatening the democrats, they'll grovell at your feet, you're wrong. They'll continue to run to the center, where a majority of the electorate does lie. Also if anything, Dean's campaign should prove that the base can have a say in the party. If you show interest, the party will be forced to change. No one needs to kiss and make up. I will always believe those in swing states that voted for Nader made a big mistake and had a part in bringing this horror to power, but I'm willing to forget all that, and welcome new members. The greens just have to be willing to join.

[jiacinto]

40. Good post

I get it. But realize this, Fujiyama, the Greens here are very loud; but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them either. A shrill minority that is loud does dominate this board from time to time.

You write:

"Greens also have to get over themselves. Many times I see them coming off as sanctimonious pricks. Many times they are extremely self righteous, and they are just as misinformed as anyone else. I remember meeting one guy a while back, spouting the usual Nader line, "democrats and republicans are the same". Then he said "I'm Green, I'm different". So what? Should I give you a cookie? Other than a few seats on a city council or being the mayor in some college town, have you really done anything worthy? Have any of your members actually ever voted on a federal bill? No you haven't. You haven't even won one seat nationally. Start off small, win some seats in the house, and then, maybe a majority of Americans will respect you."

A good point. The Greens demand respect they haven't earned yet. The self-righteouesness is so ironic because they get so little support. As you said, beyond City Council seats or state legislature seats, the Greens are nowhere to be found. Given how the US political system exists the Greens are probably going to be no more than a regional party, despite what their supporters at DU think.

It is pathetic how the Greens try to rationalize the 2000 election. They did help make Bush president. That they still remain in denial truly shows how unreasonable they are.

[Darranar]

105. Yet more intolerant junk...

I think every green needs to understand that at this point in time, they are really compromising their own principles by NOT voting democratic. I really don't understand, how anyone that believes in a progressive/ liberal agenda could purposely have voted against Gore, when every poll showed how close it was going to be.

What if they were in a heavy Republican state, or a heavy Democratic one?

Not only that, but they have the audacity to still claim that of those 90+ thousand votes cast for Nader had no effect on who won.

The only state in which it would have mattered was Florida, but the <[main cause of Gore's defeat there was Cuban Americans angered over Elian Gonzales.[br />
One other thing that has to be realized by the greens is that the democratic party can't go around begging for their support. What the greens are doing is practically extortion, and that too simply out of spite -- "you don't agree to my agenda 100% therefore I will never vote for you"...

Uh... extortion? Actually, I think they're trying to bring the Democratic Party back towards the leftist grassroots, a truly noble cause.

Greens have to realize that a majority of the people are afraid -- afraid they either can't find a job, or will lose the one they have, afraid their nation is stuck in a war that is not being won (a quagmire basically), afraid that terrorists will strike another city at any times. And this fear is forcing them to turn reactionary a bit.

And this has to do with anything because?

Does that mean the dems have to become reactionary? Of course not, but that does mean understand the role national security will playa role in the following election, even though the two or three percent of greens out there believe that the only way to conduct foreign policy is unilaterally disarming, and that being the case, the terrorists will love the US.

I don't think Greens believe that, but I think they know, as do I, that bombing a country to bits and then basically ignoring it doesn't accomplish anything against terrorism.

Greens also have to get over themselves. Many times I see them coming off as sanctimonious pricks. Many times they are extremely self righteous, and they are just as misinformed as anyone else. I remember meeting one guy a while back, spouting the usual Nader line, "democrats and republicans are the same". Then he said "I'm Green, I'm different". So what? Should I give you a cookie? Other than a few seats on a city council or being the mayor in some college town, have you really done anything worthy? Have any of your members actually ever voted on a federal bill? No you haven't. You haven't even won one seat nationally. Start off small, win some seats in the house, and then, maybe a majority of Americans will respect you.

Don't you understand that atht's what they're trying to do?

Oh, and if greens think that by threatening the democrats, they'll grovell at your feet, you're wrong. They'll continue to run to the center, where a majority of the electorate does lie. Also if anything, Dean's campaign should prove that the base can have a say in the party. If you show interest, the party will be forced to change. No one needs to kiss and make up. I will always believe those in swing states that voted for Nader made a big mistake and had a part in bringing this horror to power, but I'm willing to forget all that, and welcome new members. The greens just have to be willing to join.

The more Democrats cater to the Republicans, the worse they'll do. They have to attack, attack, and attack some more. Dean, for instance, is rather conservative, but I still like him ecause he's doing waht the Greens want to do, and what the Democrats should be doing, which is attack.

The more the Democrats go to the center, the more the Republicans will go to the Right. Since they'll be no real opposition party to challenge them, they'll succeed.

[Cascadian]

68. Following the DLC is kind of like lemmings to a cliff too!

Talk about more talk than action. I will never forget Tim Daschle going on a diatribe about Bush and how wrong to invade Iraq was but when the time to vote came he voted along for it. You call that action??? What would you call it???

Oh please!

John

[Cascadian]

73. Nader did not help Gore lose in 2000!

It was his weak candidacy efforts, Kathryn Harris, Jeb Bush, Joe Lieberman, a faulty voting system in Florida, and the U.S. Supreme Court that cost Gore the White House. Quit using the Greens and Nader as scapegoats.


John

[jiacinto]

129. Bullshit

Nader wanted Gore to lose. He said that several times.

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "
======================

So to somehow act as if Nader innocently ran for president is to be dishonest. The Greens and Nader did have a role.

I guess that in the Green fantasy world they are never responsible for anything.

[Darranar]

88. Complete, total, 100% junk...

Well, if they doon't belong in the Democratic Party, how are we going to win if they supposedly lost us in '00? Nader is no traitor.

Do you believe that the Democratic Party should become a right-wing stronghold?

[Loyal]

196. Only on the DU

would the Democratic Party be seen as right-wing, Darranar. There are other parties for you types, namely the Socialist party and the Communist party. :hi:

[Cascadian]

66. Yeah being left wing is a bad idea.

Just like supporting a living wage, not supporting the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and cutting veteran's wages. Forget supporting legalization of Marijuana, renewable energy, and Universal Health Care. Those are "horrible" ideas too!

John

[jiacinto]

130. I didn't say being left wing was a bad idea

But the Greens want everything now. They won't compromise.

[hippywife]

135. Maybe because

they are tired of watching the centrist Dems compromise with the Republicans. They have compromised to the point that the Dem party of the civil rights era wouldn't even recognize it.

I will vote Dem to remove Bush because I believe in Dennis Kucinich and my state offers me no other choice, but immediately following the election, that will change.

Thanx to all of you showing me that the Dem party is nothing but a shill of what it used to be.

[Cascadian]

155. Compromising has gotten us nowhere.

Except for the screw in the back by the Republicans and if you look at the 2002 elections and the recall in California, you are not dealing with reality. The time to compromise is over. It's time to fight back.


John

[jiacinto]

183. Fight back, yes; turn to the very far left, no

nt

[Cascadian]

61. What is wrong with Socialism?

I think certain aspects of Socialism are needed in America (i.e. Universal Health Care, Free Education, A comprehensive mass transportation system, etc...). It hasn't hurt the Swedes or Canadians and these are essentially capitalist countries. That whole Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" trickle-down theory is flawed and it's inconceivable why the Democrats would embrace such nonsense.

John

[jiacinto]

132. Earth to Cascadian

The United States is never going to be a socialist country. And maybe most Americans are pefectly happy with Capitliams. And maybe that's why the Democrats aren't socialist.

Where are the socialists? Please tell me. The only place I see them are in the Bay Area and college towns, along with DU.

[Cascadian]

148. There is nothing wrong with aspects of Socialism...

and there is nothing wrong with Capitalism, but like too much of anything it can be bad. I don't believe in that trickle down nonsense laissez faire economics. If Universal health care is a bad idea as well as helping out those who are underpriviledged then something is very wrong here!

Look at the capitalist countries of Europe like Sweden, Holland, and Norway. They have the best of both worlds so why can't America?


John

[Darranar]

78. They are hardly responsible at all...

Had Nader not been there, the Repugs would have simply been more fradulent. They were going to steal the election regardless.

Why don't you blame the Bush voters? Or those people who abandoned the Democrats because of one issue and turned to Bush?

[jiacinto]

139. That's another attempt to avoid responsibility

A 50,000 vote lead is harder to rig than a 20,000 vote lead. Period.

Nader attacked Gore for months on end. How you can somehow say that he had no role in electing Bush is being dishonest. Pure and utter dishonesty.

But what else do I expect from DU's cadre of resident Nader apologists?

[Padraig18]

152. And we *do* have a core of them, jacinto! n/t

[Darranar]

159. You know what?

A half million point lead is harder to rig then a 20,000 point lead, too. What about those voters who didn't go out to vote? Why only bash Nader and the Greens?

[jiacinto]

184. That's a really stupid question

They lied about Gore. They attacked Gore at crucial points in the campaign.

[Cascadian]

160. So where do Jeb Bush, Kathryn Harris, and the Supreme Court stand?

Where are they in this equation? Are you going to say they are Greens too?

Your points have no base or even logic. It's just instincts.

John

[jiacinto]

185. They get the majority of the blame but Nader is also

responsible. I guess that I didn't see Nader lie about Gore all through 2000. I guess that I didn't see his followers attacking Gore more than Bush. I guess that I didn't see Nader get around 90K votes in FL that could have changed the outcome. I guess that I didn't see Nader get 21K votes in New Hampshire either. I guess that I didn't see any of that.

[Cascadian]

167. I am no Nader apologist

But I am so sick of the Greens being treated like the red-headed stepchild that gets kicked around. It borders on the arrogant that Democrats cannot get along with a third party. That is not Democracy. It is tyranical.

I sometimes get the feeliong that certain people at the center-right of the Democratic Party are really Republican operatives who are doing their best at neutralizing the Democratic Party and damn all who get in their way espceially those at the left of center.

Karl Rove wants nothing more than the Democratic Party to disappear and with the Republican Lite game that the leadership wants you will have that.


John

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I'm not mad at the greens, Michael Moore just confuses the hell out of me

Seriously he rants about how Gore is really the president, yet at the same time he talks about how he loves Nader so much.

[neuvocat]

41. Well at least consider that

he urged everyone to vote democrat during last year's elections.

I happen to be a Green myself, and a California one at that. Still, I voted No on the recall and Yes to Bustamente'. I plan on supporting whoever the eventual Dem nominee will be. I do know of other Greens who will do the same thing for the same Dem nominee.

As for why I'm Green, or what Nader has done or what has happened over who did what and when, I won't discuss it for the time being. It would just be too counterproductive.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. I am sick of Greens who will not take responsibilty

for the part that Nader and his ugly stupid dishonest campaign played in 2000. He bitched and bitched about Gore and how the candidates were the same and it was not true. Unfortunately lots of stupid people bought it.

You want to work with democrats fine, don't run candidates against us. Better yet (and frankly the only way the green party is going to be a positive force rather than a negative) is if it becomes a part of the democratic party and works for democratic candidates who fit its criteria.

Get a clue, when you are running a candidate in the same race you are an opposition party.

Talk about being sick of something, I am sick of the Green party using this board to divide the democratic party.... and spare me the "I am still a registered democrat and have worked for democratic candidates for twenty years, but the party left me" bullshit. Who cares? Get some new talking points for goodness sake. The old ones are too transparent.

Who is trying to exclude you from voting against bush in 2004? You want a say in who the democratic candidate is? So register as a democrat where nessesary and vote your choice. Don't expect other Democrats to vote your choice to keep you "in the fold". That is just insane, it doesn't work that way. I can almost garantee you that the nominee we get this time is going to be more centrist than Gore. If you vote for that nominee then you are not excluded. If you run Nader, or some other candidate, you are excluded. It is so simple.

[Padraig18]

45. Bravo! Encore!

You hit the nail SQUARELY on the head, Cheswick! :thumbsup:

I am sick of the rationalizations and intellectual contortions worthy of Houdini himself that the Greens use to explain how they are not an opposition party, and how Nader's narcissistic behavior in 2000 had absolutely nothing to do with Gore's defeat in 2000! It is bad enough to be asked to pretend that the 2.5 million votes Nader got didn't swing the election to *, but then we are told who we must nominate in order to get their votes. :eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

49. thank Padraig, sadly

I am fairly left on the political spectrum and would appreciate the help getting liberal/populist candidates nominated and elected.

Why people don't understand that they must work within a party to effect its behavior is beyond me. But then, you must also admit that centrists have a right to exist within the party and accept the compromise.

[Padraig18]

50. I agree

For want of a better definition, I'm a populist--- definitely left-of-center--- although like most in our party (and America itself) I am all over the place depending on the specific issue in question. It is the sanctimonious, preachy "Do as we tell you" attitude of so many Greens that just pisses me off royally! They're not even DEMOCRATS any more, ffs, and yet we're supposed to allow trhem to dictate our choice of a nominee???? How's that again? :eyes:

I said in my initial post that I am willing to forgive the Greens and try to work with them in 2004; I am not willing to be TOLD who to nominate, nor am I willing to become an amnesiac and forget their part in saddling us with * and his crypto-fascist neocon pals.

[Ardee]

91. a steaming pile usually found in barnyards

Though I am not a Green I find such posts as yours and Carlos' among far too many others reprehensible and unworthy even of this little attention....sink with your party, pointing fingers all the way!

Nader spent far more time castigating Bush policies and campaign points ,far far more, than did he on Gores shitty campaign. I wonder just who is stupid here, someone who voted h/her conscience or someone who decides that ones constitutional rights to voice an opinion, to form a political party and to speak to the ills one perceives makes them traitorous.

The Greens on this board are far less angry at democrats than vice versa, further this independant sees them as far more truthful and inciteful than are the reactionary neodemocratic conservatives who are ultimately responsible for the death of the the two party system!

Just who in the hell do you people think you are anyway? Ill tell you who you are, you are the folks who drove me from the democratic party after a forty year membership therein.Just because Cheswick is tired of hearing the truth does not make that truth any less relevent it simply speaks to his lack of insight and conscience.That it what is so "simple".

Nominate a candidate who is Bush in drag, what does that do for this nation other than to confuse the electorate? Where is the clear cut message that the democrats do not agree with nor support Bush internationally or domestically? How is our nation served by throwing out Bush and replacing him with Bush spelled differently?

[Iverson]

94. hay hay

Ardee, don't let the straw men get you too riled.

Those arguments (I use the expression loosely here) may be advanced not because the discussants believe them, but instead because the pro-corporate, anti-Green wing wants to make lefties mad, and fundamentally believes in the methods of the far right. In their ethos, it's just the wrong team that ends up winning.

You don't have to live that way, so be calm.

edited typo

[Mairead]

133. "If you vote for that nominee then you are not excluded"

So even if that nominee doesn't represent us in any significant way, you're saying we're still not excluded? What sort of definition of 'not excluded' are you using, then?

[jiacinto]

137. Good post, Cheswick

I fully agree with you. You are one of favorite DUers.

[jiacinto]

138. Cheswick, good post

I fully agree with you. You are one of my favorite DUers.

[Kamika]

51. what are you talking about

Its the greens that should reach out to us, we both want bush out its just that unlike the greens we dont live in some imaginary world where your vote actually matters.

I read here all the time stuff like "if kucinitch doesnt get nominated ill vote green"

well whopidifuckingdo thats great are you trying to blackmail us or something? the only thing voting green leads to is that youre practicly voting for bush.


No Its the green ppl tha has to see the light and understand that the US isnt ready for a third party, (atleast not a left one, i wouldnt mind a right one :D )

[Padraig18]

52. A Green vote is a * vote in 2004... n/t

[Cascadian]

62. Both should reach out to each other!

Group hug everyone!

:hug:


John

[Kamika]

67. Ill add something, if i thought it was realistic id vote green

Id LOVE the green party in power, and if that cant happen id LOVE kucinich, but im a realist. Im goingfor Dean all the way now, and if he doesnt get it ill vote for whomever gets it.

[Cascadian]

71. That's how I feel!

I like Kucinich too and I like his ideas, but I don't think he will get the nomination which is why I am supporting Dean. He has the best chance of winning in 2004.

John

[Downeast]

53. Solution to the Green/Democrat vote argument.

Have all the Democrats vote for the Green candidate. Problem solved, Bush is out of office.

[Kamika]

54. oh wow thats great

I see you have a well thought out , realistic plan.

Cudos to you Sir

[Booberdawg]

55. There is a target market for the idea you suggest

I've taken the liberty of providing a link for you. Why don't you run it by them. In the meantime, this is a Democratic forum, and a Green candidate will not be supported.

Green Party Forums and Discussion Groups

[Ardee]

95. thanks for the link, Im there!

n/t

[Q]

56. Ugh...another one of 'those' threads...

...where Dems set out to win the hearts and minds of the 'others'.

- Let's see here: the Democratic party has shit on their base...the poor and the working class...and now they're well on their way to alienating every third party on the face of the earth. Sounds like a formula for losing.

- I blame this petty shit on the conservatives in the party. They seem to think that votes should come their way without having to earn it.

- This is the same attitude they had in California. They STILL don't understand what went wrong...why SO many Democrats voted for Arnie instead of 'their' guys. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Of course...but don't expect the 'new' Dems to understand or listen.

[Iverson]

81. lesson to be learned?

Well, since you asked, I think that the lesson is this:

continuously shifting to the political right is natural, whereas even a temporary shift to the left will kill every baby on the planet.

I refuse to learn that lesson, but then again, I'm an intransigent extremist. Cheers.

[Cascadian]

89. Stands to reason.

If the Democrats are still liberal then I am a Communist. I guess there are some people out there who want to ignore the left and working class and poor. This is the reason why people are so disenchanted with the Democratic Party. Much of the leadership has ignored that reality. Fortunately, they still have people like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Jim McDermott, and Jay Inslee that still listen to those who are less fortunate and are not afraid to take on Bush.

John

[Ardee]

97. awwwright Q!

You have hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial hard head......a shame that most democrats here do not understand that they are being manipulated by those forces within their party that have brought them to such wrack and ruin..........the neo conservative vichy democrats are so much more a danger to democratic chances than ever was or will be the Greens and Nader.

[Cascadian]

101. Vichy Democrats.

That's a good one. I like that. I will have to remember that one!

John

[Cascadian]

64. Or vice versa.

I think the Greens can set aside their pride and support a Democratic candidate as well. Once they are in office if they do something we don't agree with. we can call B.S. on them. Right now is not the time for divisiveness.

John

[onebigbadwulf]

60. Greens + Democrats vs Repubs + Libertarians

I don't understand why the Dems and Greens don't work together to overpower the evil that is conservative.

1. The greens don't have any power when they work alone, BUT could weild amazing bargaining power if they joined dems in a liberal coalition.

2. The greens + dems >> repubs + libertarians

3. If dems continually defeat repubs, they will no longer be a party, thus leaving a hole for the greens to take.

4. In a perfect world, greens and dems would be the two political parties in america- and it's attainable ONLY if they learn to cooperate.

[maha]

63. It's up to the Greens

In the 2000 election Nader and the Greenies ripped into Dems more than the Pubs, leading some of us to suspect that Nader was secretly working for the Pubs.

If the Greens had simply expressed policy/philosophical differences with the Dems, or criticized individual Dems for dishonesty when criticism was due, there wouldn't be a problem. But the Greens went on a rampage against the Dems and poisoned the minds of their supporters against even listening to what Dems had to say.

And you want the Dems to make nice with you now?

Step One in joining forces if for the Greens to APOLOGIZE and say, well, we may not always agree with you, but we won't say you're just like the Republicans any more.

[hippywife]

69. And just how many adminstrations

do you expect them to sit on their hands while the Dems ignore their concerns and continue to drop the ball? The Dems can't seem to manage to keep it together on their own but they have no problem alienating the folks they need to oust Bush.

Like I've said before, haven't seen a better job of alienating your allies since Bush went to the U.N. :eyes:

[Kamika]

70. gah WHAT ALLIES?

youre not our allies youre a goddamm oppositional party, hellbent on keeping republicans in power

[hippywife]

79. First, I'm not

a registered Green. I am a registered Dem, formerly an Indie, but that could change with all the heavy-handed crap that goes on around here and the fact that people continue to praise Clinton and the Dem leadership. So you had your cushy job while he was in office and the economy was better but he was no better for the poor and disenfranchised of the world than the Republicans. NAFTA and welfare reform...now there are some proud Democratic doctrines, from a party that fought for the rights of women, minorities, and the poor.

Centrist Dems are their own worst enemies. They've diluted what this party once stood proudly for and now want to blame everyone else because they couldn't inspire their own electorate enough to get off their asses to vote with them.

[maha]

72. This is why people don't like Greenies.

"Like I've said before, haven't seen a better job of alienating your allies since Bush went to the U.N. :eyes:"

Since when are we "allies"? Greens sure didn't act like "allies" of the Dems in 2000.

Nader traveled the country howling lies and distortions about the Dem record. Nader wouldn't talk to anybody but Nader.

In 2000 I attempted polite dialogue with Greens on several occasions, and got nothing but insults and abuse from the Greens.

So now it really kills me that you whinybabies want to blame the Dems because there's bad blood.

The Green Party in Europe is a powerful force, I understand, but that won't be true of the Greens in America until the Greens recruit some adults.

[Iverson]

85. People like Greenies just fine.

It's apoplectic partisans with blinders on who have a hard time with Greenies.

"So now it really kills me that you whinybabies want to blame the Dems because there's bad blood."

I can see why you're so proud of that polite dialogue that you just threw in our face there, champ.

[maha]

92. With "allies" like you, the Dems don't need enemies. n/t

[hippywife]

112. And with enemies like you

the Dems don't need the Republicans.

[Q]

74. Apologize?

- Why ask the Greens or any other third party to 'apologize' when it was the Democrats who have failed to LEAD against the onslaught of Bush's* extremist agenda?

- I've heard this same damn argument for three years. There are many reasons Democrats continue to lose ground...but third parties are a very minor part of it. Democrats continue to ignore the real reasons for their loses at their own peril. I've seen more threads about Greens and Nader than about RWing dirty tricks or election fraud or illegal supreme court decisions.

- Democrats will continue to lose the support of third parties and their OWN base as long as they refuse to take a real close look at their own politics.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[jiacinto]

145. Calling people liars is a violation of DU rules

nt

[Iverson]

77. Look at the results of your efforts.

Hell, I'd settle for civil discussion, and once in a while I get it, whereas in other cases even good manners is too much to ask.

DU is further left than most places, and yet it is riddled with ignorant and arrogant discussants who demand that the Greens dissolve altogether, or at least come crawling back as supplicants, presumably for the purpose of supporting centrist enablers. You see it on this very thread.

If ordinary folk like us here have a hard time mustering a civil majority, just imagine what the relationship is like at the state and national level.

[charlie]

86. Hey, you can play Whack-a-Green too

It's easy and feels good, great for those dull moments when there's nothing better to do. Cheap too, only costs 2.5% of the electorate.

Bonus variation: In the next thread, complain about the price, demand a refund.

[maha]

93. I don't want the Greens to dissolve.

I want them to be honest. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Iverson]

99. Cascadian, I hope you're watching.

Yeah, I start out most of my frank and open exchanges by defining the other guy as untruthful by definition.

Good grief! Print out your last nasty crack and take it to someone to whose opinion you'll listen.

[Cascadian]

102. Debate and discussion are the hallmarks of Democracy.

If I went along with people who agreed with me all of the time or vice versa, then we would all be no different than the Republicans. People are bound to agree with me and bound to disagree with me. It's just the nature of the beast.

John

[maha]

106. If only Greenies practiced what you preached.

After the way Nader and the Greenies behaved in 2000, you're going to have to give the Dems a REASON to pay attention to you. Right now, I don't see one.

[Iverson]

110. yeah, better to work with Republicans, hunh?

You remember that sterling behavior about threatening Nader with arrest when he came to the debates with a ticket?

But no, some Green was rude to you in 2000, and we all suppose that no Democrat has ever invited equal and opposite attitude by being rude to a Green.

What a way to construct one's political outlook!

[John_H]

122. How about some of that Green honesty, Iverson?

Would Karl Rove rather the greens run a presidential candidate or not?

[Iverson]

186. have a heapin' helpin'

I do not base my politics upon what Karl Rove wants.

[Darranar]

96. I completely agree!

Though I'd personally prefer the Democrats being incorporated into the Green Party, and not the other way around, I understand that that is wishful thinking.

[mermaid]

103. And THAT Is Precisely WHY

The Greens shouldn't run someone for President!! We don't need an attacker on our left flank, okay?

[Iverson]

104. more than one road to Rome

It should be a simple matter to make it unnecessary through choice of nominee and policy, rather than to achieve it by hectoring Greens.

[lancemurdoch]

107. Why do people get so upset about Greens?

Every year, more and more of the Democratic base stops voting entirely because I suppose they don't feel the Democrats represent them any longer and it's not worth the effort to go vote for them. The percentage of these people is much higher than the Green voters - why do people froth at the mouth about the Greens, and then act like the voters alienated from the Democratic party are like lost little sheep that have to be brought back into the "new" DLC Democrat fold?

[Booberdawg]

108. I really have no interest in rattling the old bones of 2000

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

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

Someone in this thread suggested the solution to Green/Democrat vote argument would be for all the Democrats to vote Green. That was no doubt offered in sarcasm, however I have seen this same theme in various degrees and strains offered in all seriousness. Well excuse me all to hell, but this is a Democratic Party forum, not Green, and if anybody wants to promote the Green Party or Green candidates why don’t you go to their website to do it, and why the hell should I have to tolerate it here? Unless its about a Green candidate in a race in which there is not a Democratic candidate on the ticket, you are the opposition, and deserve the same consideration, understanding, and compromise due a Republican – NONE.

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

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

Linda

[Mairead]

142. " really don’t want to engage in any philosophical debates"

erm, so why are you posting in this thread, then?

[Booberdawg]

170. What about that didn't you understand?

The full test of the comment you refer to:

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

I stand by my statement. What does my position that I'm not interested in engaging in any philosophical debates regarding the Democratic vs. Green squabbling have to do with why I am posting in this thread? What is your point? The two concepts are mutually exclusive. My position on the matter is firm and so is yours. Debating the issue is a waste of time.

I’ll continue to post on any topic that behooves me. I’ll decide for myself what topics are worthy of constructive debate and what topics are best suited to simply state a position. I don’t need to offer a reason either way.

[John_H]

109. Uh-Oh. Time for yet another episode of.........

Math with Ralph. Here we go:

2.7 percent minus (the number of greens who will never vote anyhing but green) minus (the huge majority of greens who live in states we'll already win handily) minus (the number who live in states we'll already lose) minus (the number of moderates we'd lose in states we need to win if we adopted major elements of their platform) minus (the large numbers of ex-Greens smart enough to see all those green "no outlet" signs and have come home)

Ask yourself, Dems, is this number positive or negative?

Seems to me our stubborn friends of the not-so-loyal opposition need to think about reaching out to us before they align themselves with a party who has a little over a year to exist.

He'll, a lot of Green staffers are looking for jobs. I think probably they've done the math.

[Booberdawg]

111. Hey! I'm going to save that!

Mind if I steal that for future use?

[John_H]

119. My math is your math!

I forgot to challenge the Greens to fill in the numbers, but they never do it anyway.

[Padraig18]

120. I'm sick and tired...

... of being asked to grovel to a group of people who represent at MOST 2% of the likely voters next year while simultaneously being asked to IGNORE the 30-35% of those voters who self-identify as 'independent', or 'swing' voters.

The Greens need to reach out to US, and to present US with policy initiatives they think WE might find acceptable. The Greens are an opposition party, and it is up to THEM to offer an olive branch to US, the REAL Democrats.

Otherwise, piss on 'em!

[retyred]

113. Never Forget....Never Forgive

I am getting so sick and tired of certain Democrats that keep playing this blame game on Greens and people who voted for Nader in 2000, It is old news and there is no grounds to support the fact that Nader helped Bush win.

FYI: Denial is not a river in Africa





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

[Cascadian]

114. Oh please!

Give me a break! United we stand, divided we fall. Haven't you heard of that? Keep it up and you'll have Bush for another four years. And I don't want to hear that Nader helped Bush in 2004 if it does happen either!


John

[srubick]

117. Get over it

There is plenty of blame to go around. It is time to bring all of us with like minds together. The stakes are far greater than we imagine.
The Democratic leadership needs to open up to the liberal agenda and the greens need to bring their issues back to where the action is.
There are only two teams playing and you must be on the team to get to bat.

[Terwilliger]

126. Cascadian...please

the twits on this website have no interest in the Greens or anything that has to do with the Greens...so they go, so does the Democratic party...

More power to 'em...they're trying to shed their "big tent" of the leftist fat. No problem by me. The Democrats OBVIOUSLY know what they're doing.

[Cascadian]

127. Like lemmings to the sea.

Right off the cliff they go and the Republican sharks are at the bottom waiting for them.






John

[Terwilliger]

131. but at least they're cute and cuddly!

before they're slaughtered

[Scott Lee]

143. Question is, what is a Democrat these days?

You make some very good points. But the thing I've been asking myself for years now is, "what happened to my Democratic party"?

I look at the Democrats in Congress and the way they folded like a plastic chair in the vote to authorize force in Iraq. The Patriot acts, one and two. Where is the opposition? What is the driving ethos for being a "Democrat" today, other than being GOP lite?

The Greens, for all of their faults, are trying to draw a line in the sand. You may be pissed at them for what you perceive as ruining the 2000 vote, but ponder this - are they in fact doing this country and the Democrats a favor by forcing them to crystalize a rason d'etre again? Are the Greens being demonized because they are tapping into the real, sizable anger in this country over what the republican big government types and the warmongers are doing to us?

I once had a teacher that got me so angry over one lesson that I spit and cursed at him and told him I never wanted to talk to him again. What did he do that was so bad? He forced me to confront a problem, and to formulate a position. I didn't want to think it was a problem. I wanted to cruise along in la-la land like nothing was wrong. Well as a good teacher, he would have none of that and risked my temper and possible loss of contact in order to get me to grow. And that's what I did. I am better because of nearly coming to blows with this man.

Is that the favor that the Greens are doing to the Democrats and our nation as well? I think so. Make a choice. Crystalize your positions and be clear as a spring day about your convictions and your vision. Don't fold in the halls of power just to save face or your own career ass.

KNOW IT, SAY IT. Do that and I'd wager that the Greens and Democrats will coalesce into something amazing to fight the dark night that envelopes our nation.

[Padraig18]

144. How quickly we forget

We forget the petty, spiteful Green candidacy in the Minnesota senate race in 2002, where the Greens ran against the late Paul Wellstone. We forget the Green's decision in 2002 to run a candidate for Governor in Massachusetts, thereby denying us a chance to break the 12 year-long Repuke stranglehold on the governorship. We are encouraged to play "let's pretend" math with what happened in the 2000 Presidential race.

I'm reminded of the story of the man who warmed the half-frozen snake inside his jacket and was bitten for his efforts; the snake scoffed at the man's outrage by saying, "You knew what I was when you picked me up." Reading the various Green 'spins' in this thread does nothing but remind me why I am always seized by the urge to scream "Run for your lives!" whenever anyone mentions an alliance with the Greens in 2004.

[Terwilliger]

162. some counterpoint to your lunacy

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

Clinton's 1992 scramble away from DLC language came as no surprise. He can read a public opinion survey as well as the next politician. As Democratic pollster and Clinton confidant Stanley Greenberg noted several years ago, the President's approval numbers did not begin to rise "until he rejected the advice of conservatives of the party" and began to adopt populist and distinctly non-DLC rhetoric on issues ranging from tax policy to protecting Social Security.


http://www.fair.org/articles/compromised-commission.html

As the debate over debates heats up, the Bush campaign is balking at participation in the events proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Bush's concerns revolve around format and venues. But few journalists covering this story have looked into the legitimate questions about the Commission, especially whether the CPD is independent enough to decide which candidates get to participate.

The following timeline reveals a history of politicking, insider-dealing and exclusion camouflaged behind "nonpartisan" rhetoric. Journalists should ask the TV networks why they are ceding authority to decide whether Democrats and Republicans face competition to a Commission so beholden to the two major parties.

Debates are crucial to the functioning of a democracy. Recent history shows that third-party candidates bring fresh issues and viewpoints to debates, as well as new viewers and voters. Shouldn't decisions about who participates in debates be made by journalists and genuinely nonpartisan civic organizations -- not by the two most powerful parties themselves?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES


1985: DEBATES OR "JOINT APPEARANCES"
The origins of the CPD can be traced to 1985 discussions between the national chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, which led to an agreement to cooperate in the production of "nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the two major political parties…. It is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic Committees." (Joint Memorandum of Agreement on Presidential Candidate Joint Appearances, 11/26/85)

http://prorev.com/greenpages.htm

The Democrats might have had more luck with the Greens had they not spend the past three years scolding, dissing, and attempting to eradicate them. The Greens are the only constituency in America whom the Democrats believe they can convince by insult. I have frequently told censorious Democratic friends that if they want my support they need to treat me at least as well as a soccer mom or a corporate lobbyist. They look befuddled, unable to comprehend why someone they chased out of their party doesn't want to beg readmittance.

They believe, along with the media, that the Greens are just wayward Democrats. In fact, the dominant paradigm of the Democratic Party is far closer to that of the Republicans that that of the Greens. Further, the Democrats have spent the last decade in a masochistic effort to convince people that they were really just nicer Republicans, expanding the prison population and undermining social democracy to prove it. They should not be surprised if those whom they convinced included many Greens.

In the alternative, over the past three years, the Democrats could have instituted instant runoff voting in jurisdictions they control (thus eliminating the sort of mess they ran into in Florida). They could have relaxed ballot access laws so that Greens don't have to run for president just to have a line. And they could have even, European fusion style, offered the Greens state and national cabinet posts should they win office.

None of that happen(ed). Instead, when John Eder won a seat in the Maine state legislature, the Democrats not only redistricted him five months later but tried to increase substantially the difficulty for the Greens to get on the ballot at all. This sort of disreputable behavior is well known throughout the Green Party - Eder was a speaker at the conference - and is taken as a sign of the dangers of dealing with the Democrats.

[Padraig18]

163. What part of 'opposition party' is unclear to you? n/t

[Terwilliger]

165. what opposition party?

[Padraig18]

171. The Greens, of course. n/t

[Cascadian]

172. I guess anybody on the left can be a Green

Does that mean Kucinich is too?

BTW, what is somebody like you supporting such a "lefty" like Dean?

John

[Terwilliger]

173. So, you admit the Greens are an opposition party...

and Democrats are in federation with Republicans...

YEP! You're right.

[Mairead]

146. It always puzzled me why the 'centrist Democrats'

don't join the Republican party and try to move it to the left. I mean, they'd pass unnoticed as 'Rockefeller Republicans'.

And then one day I asked myself 'who would want to move the Dems to the right instead of the GOP to the left?'

[F.Gordon]

149. Your Olive Branch is wilting

It was a noble effort though.

In the future if you REALLY want to work with the Democrats I'd suggest not started out your post by saying; I am getting so sick and tired of certain Democrats that keep playing this blame game on Greens This sets up your Olive Branch as more of a Trojan Horse.

I'll concede that Gore didn't lose because of the Greens. My own take is that he ran as a challenger to his own incumbency. He basically ran "against himself". But what will you concede?

Even in the 2002 elections I'm aware of at least one Congressional Race that the Greens gave to the Republicans. I'm still very cynical of just how sincere the Greens are.

Do you really want to set aside differences when you ask the Democrats to admit that "they were wrong"....but you won't admit to anything? So I'm wrong and you're right?? Is that your Olive Branch? Who's being short-sighted and arrogant here?

[Padraig18]

154. What about the Greens running against Paul Wellstone?

PAUL WELLSTONE, ffs! :wtf: I don't trust the Greens any further than I can throw them, given their past track record as regards the Democratic Party!

[Cascadian]

156. Someplace, somewhere in D.C.....

Karl Rove is looking at DU and just laughing to himself. This division is so unecessary. It just proves our own weakness. We can disagree on a lot of things but attacking each other is so ridiculous.

John

[F.Gordon]

164. John, I'm not attacking you

I agree, this division is unneccessary and I truly believe that YOU are sincere in your intentions to work with the Democrats to remove the cancer growing in the White House.

But.....you need to understand that a lot of Democrats, myself included, have little faith that the Green Party as a whole will do the right thing in 2004. They have done nothing since 2000 that would lead be to believe otherwise. (see Wellstone post above)

[Terwilliger]

174. and Democrats have proven Nader over and over again

but hey! no honesty there, right?

[MrPrax]

157. Hilarious...

Most of the Demos want to 'reach' out to the Greens...
Why don't they try to reach out to the working classes, african-americans, latins and minorities as well...
Instead of cynically taking those constituencies for granted...

Dems will be in trouble if they don't start developing some Third Way--but a reasonable Second One

[Orangeone]

175. what it boils down to

Is isn't it better to have a centrist Democrat than Bush? Maybe some people think teaching the Democrats a "lesson" was a good thing, but some people can't afford that luxury. It's the poor people who have to suffer because their programs are cut due to Bush's policies.

Why don't Greens try to build their party from the bottom up? Really they should do the hard work and try to win more local elections first instead of shooting for Governor or President. The Greens in Europe didn't just start out at the top.

[Mairead]

178. why don't the 'centrists' vote left, instead?

Why is it that the left must always do the 'compromising'? hmmmmm?

[Terwilliger]

179. because those that don't want folks to `vote left'

would rather vote for Bush than a real liberal

[Cascadian]

189. Therefore they really are Republicans!

If that is so then they should get the hell out of the Democratic Party.


John

[JVS]

188. Europe is not a single country. Please tell the story about the rise of..

some of the European Green parties.