Will the Greens sink Webb's campaign?

[Stinky The Clown]

I heard on WTOP news radio in DC tonight a story about the Green candidate for Senate in Virginia. They expect the woman to take about 2% of the vote.

I'm sorry, but why the fuck are they doing this? I feel like an asshole for having written more than once about trying to find common ground with Greens. Man of man was I wrong to have thought there were some redeeming values in the Green Party. First it was Florida in 2000, then that shit in Pennsylvania with Man Fucking Dog Ricky. Now its this.

Greens who may read this ..... don't even bother replying to this thread. You're not welcome.

If Webb loses to Allen by less than the vote totals for the Green candidate ........

[Captain Hilts]

1. Well, they've done it before....nt

[elocs]

16. They sure have

and I do not have the words to express my utter contempt for the Green Party. At least we know the Republicans are snakes, but the Greens put on this act of being noble when all they are is slime. If the choice to vote was between a Republican and a Green, and I had to vote, I would vote for the Republican and know I had done the right thing.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Why? Because they're Greens. What else would they do? n/t

[Eric J in MN]

3. I wish the Greens would select a candidate to support in the Democratic...

...primary (months in advance of the Democratic primary.) Then file for that candidate to run in the Democratic primary.

Running Green candidates in the general election hurts the environment.

[onenote]

4. I didn't even know the greens had a candidate in VA

It took some searching, but apparently its someone named Gail Parker. I have not seen a single sign, poster, ad, or any other reference to this candidate. I'd be shocked if she got even 1 percent of the vote. Heck, in 2000, Nader only got 2 percent in Virginia and he actually had name recognition and a semblance of a campaign. In 2004, Nader (albeit running as an independent,not a Green) dropped to only 1 percent.

At this point, its impossible to know how much impact -- and whether it would be decisive -- she'll make. I wish she wasn't running, but frankly, the less said about her, the less likely she gets any votes.

[usregimechange]

5. Reach out to them, deep down they would much prefer a blue

congress. Post this:

[WCGreen]

8. The Greens think they live in Europe.....

That we have a parlimentary form of government...

I know, I was drawn to the Green Party back in 1989...

All they want to do is make a statement...

It is useless for them to run candidates...

In Ohio, they fell into the Kucinich Camp, so that was a good thing...

Me, I left before the 1990 election and came back to the Democratic Party

[SouthernBelle82]

32. To me personally

I think the Green's need to get more involved and start locally and than go for the state. I think it's arrogant to come around every two to four years just thinking people are going to vote for you if you don't know them or anything. I do wish that more people were involved in our government so people can truly be represented in our government but you have to work at it. It worked that way with the successful party's in the past.

[WCGreen]

39. That is what I was trying to get them to do....

Run for city council in a few areas, build a base and then start to build a party...

But everyone wanted to be president....

[flyarm]

11. just try..and then ask us about the greens in Fla and how they have

destroyed our elections in fla!!

fly

[lcordero2]

6. Hate to tell you but

Those two percent wouldn't even set a foot outside their house or apartment in order to vote if it was between a Democrat and Republican.

Blaming them for what happened in Florida in 2000 isn't going to make friends either since Florida was a fraudulent event.

[earthside]

12. Ah, Ha! Someone Who Gets It!

What is it with this arrogant attitude that every progressive or left of center vote is owned by the Democratic Party?

It is the genuine truth -- 90 percent of people who register to vote as Greens would never vote for a candidate of the two major parties. I suspect this is equally true of Libertarians vis-a-vis the Republicans.

These small percentage points of support for third party candidates are just a part of the political dynamic -- always trying to scape goat them for one candidate or anothers loss is failing to take into account the diversity of opinion and feeling that runs across the political spectrum.

And, it is absolutely true about Florida in 2000. Al Gore got the most votes -- PERIOD. Bush cheated -- PERIOD. Why must some folks here always give Ralph Nader all this power over what happened in Florida is beyond me ... Gore won.

I am not a Nader fan in any way shape or form; I worked hard for Gore in 2000, and I believe that all the evidence is that he won that election. So, please stop giving Nader "credit" for what was a crime against America committed by the Bush mafia.

[paulk]

24. How's it going in CO 7, Dave?

http://www.earthside.com/davechandler/

[alfredo]

7. Come election day, many of those Green Votes will go

to the Dem candidate. One issue or third party candidates usually fade by election day.

[Bitwit1234]

9. Have to paid by Republicans

How can a person run for an office knowing full well they won't get 1/1000 of the vote. Knowing they might knock a viable candidate out of office. It just goes to show that these people are egomaniac. And they say the same thing is happening in Maryland. That the Green Party is going to siphon votes from Cardin. But I cannot believe that black people could dirty their name by voting for such a crook as Steele just because he is black.

I thought they were smarter than that. But I guess they are wrong.

[flyarm]

10. Thank you ..well said!!!

and as if anyone should have any doubt about what the Greens are doing..just take a look at this..

from my files..fly


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html

Ralph Nader Accepts Campaign Contributions from Funders of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

October 6, 2004

snip:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.

snip:
Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.


snip:

Robert Brandon, a former Nader associate, public interest attorney and co-founder of UP for Victory said, “Now we learn that Bush, through his proxies, is funding Nader’s campaign. If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

Altogether, UP for Victory research has documented over $100,000 in cash and known in-kind contributions to Nader by GOP donors and consultants. This does not count the unreported in-kind contributions made by the GOP in circulating his ballot petitions in many states.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

a blast from the past!!..............

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/27/153246/995


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7954

Nader's Dubious Raiders
Exclusive: Ralph's Arizona ballot tactics are worse than this week's Democratic lawsuit alleges. Some petitions piggybacked on a reactionary anti-immigrant initiative -- and others were paid for by a former executive director of the state GOP.
By Max Blumenthal
Web Exclusive: 06.25.04



snip:
After four decades of tireless crusading for consumer's rights and against corporate influence over government, Ralph Nader has developed an unblemished luster of integrity. However, as Nader forges ahead with his long-shot, independent presidential candidacy in an especially heated election season, he appears to be shedding the conviction that has formed the core of his politics for so long in favor of political expediency.

In its effort to get on the ballot in the key battleground state of Arizona, the Prospect has learned, the Nader campaign hired a petition company that is also gathering signatures for a draconian anti-immigrant initiative pushed by right-wing elements in the state. The initiative, called Protect Arizona Now (PAN), would restrict access to public services by undocumented immigrants.

In addition, according to several sources, the Nader campaign was assisted in its petition drive by an unlikely figure: the ultra-conservative former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, Nathan Sproul. Sources say Sproul -- who is also spearheading an initiative to block public funding from political campaigns in the state -- made payments to the petition contractors working on his public-funding initiative to gather signatures for Nader as well.

Moreover, according to several sources, the signature-gathering drive for PAN is mostly funded by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a Washington-based anti-immigrant group that has spent tens of millions in the last two decades to roll back the rights of both legal and illegal immigrants living in the United States.

[MadHound]

20. Umm, that's from the '04 election campaign.

When Nader was running as an *independent*, not a Green. Cobb was the Green candidate in '04, so what do these Nader articles have to do with the Greens? Oh, yeah, I forgot, somehow people have gotten the idea that anything having to do with Nader is automatically a Green issue:eyes:

Get your shit straight before you start to smear it.

[flyarm]

40. ahhh if you chose to remember or not..Nader began 2004 camp.as a green..he lost the bid in

the green convention!

talk about smearing stuff...

yes Nader began his campaign as a Green... and was taking rethug money before the green convention when he was turned away by the greens..!

better know your stuff..i do!

fly

[MadHound]

41. No, apparently you don't know your stuff

<http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/nader/nader122203ltr.html>

Read the Nader letter at the above link. Note the words, more importantly, note the date. That was before any campaigning was begun by the Greens or Nader. Nader severed all ties long before the campaign season began.

Next time do some research before trying to slam somebody who knows what they're talking about, it will save you from having to wipe off that stuff smeared all over your face.

[Frances]

13. I have more respect for the fundies

than I have for the Greens

[greenman3610]

14. they're Greens. It's what they do.

[Tiggeroshii]

37. And some are damn proud of it!

n/t

[oasis]

15. Hopefully they have learned their lesson.(n/t)

[MadHound]

17. The Greens are doing this because it is their constitutionally guaranteed

Right. They're doing this because they, like so many other people, are sick and fucking tired of the two party, same corporate master system of government that we're living under. They're doing this in an effort to bring about change. They're doing this because the Democratic party has long ago abandoned those of us on the left, leaving us without a voice or a platform to push our issues forward.

As far as the '00 election goes, it wasn't the Greens who cost Gore the election. Gore shot himself in the foot with his stance on offshore drilling, pissing off 600,000 registered Dems and self described liberals to the point where they voted for Bush(Hightower, Palast). And during the recount fiasco, Greg Palast handed Gore the entire Votescam issue on a silver platter, names, dates, crimes. Yet rather than sparing us all from Bush and coming forward on this issue, Gore sat on it, and lost. Oh, and there were those two little matters of the Supreme Court, and the fact that the final count, months after concession, showed that Gore actually won.

As far as Santorum goes, let's take a look at who the Democrats take millions from. GE, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, over the past ten years these and other defense contractors have pumped more than a billion dollars into Democratic coffers. Hmm, wonder if that has anything to do with Dems' initial and ongoing support of the war:think:

The Greens at least have the excuse that they're poor, they're being systemiatically shut out of the election process by both major parties, they need to get money and exposure wherever they can. What's the Dems' excuse. Oh, yeah, greed:eyes:

The Greens have every right to run, and I support their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run. If the Dems want to negate the Greens, then goddamn it, start paying attention to the left in this country, take up one or two of our issues. You do that, and you won't have to worry about the Greens, for the most part leftists are just as pragmatic as anybody else. But the longer you continue to move to the right, and shut our leftist issues while still demanding our lockstep vote, well you're going to have to deal with the Greens. Get over it, what, are you so unAmerican that you wish to deprive people of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for office?

[Vidar]

18. Well said.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Greens asserted that there was 'no difference' between Dems and Reps.

Well, if they haven't figured out the difference by now...

[MadHound]

21. Actually most well known, non-partisan political analysts think that

There is really only five percent or less difference in the actions taken between any given Dem or 'Pug. Looking at the Iraq war support, Patriot Act support, the lack of any real defense against the MCA, and numerous other issues over the past few years, I would say that they're right.

[karynnj]

26. Link please?

On each of the things you mention there were real substanitive differences between the parties. Any "well known non-partisan" "expert" who things otherwise likely has an agenda.

On Iraq war support, there were almost NO Republicans speaking or voting against it. Many Democrats voted against even giving Bush the authority he asked for and/or spoke out against it. It was also the Democrats who have for years asked for a course change. Until last month, Republican opponents were few and marginalized.

On the Patriot act, it was Democrats who fought for substanitive changes - getting some but not all of them. The new bill is better than the old and the Democrats including Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin (more that I don't remember) already introduced an amendment to fix the additional problems, that they said they would push when the climate changed enough for it to have a chance. (There were important provisions in the Patriot ACt that would needed to be there.)

On the MCA, look at the votes - the Republicans (except Chaffee) all voted for it. 32 Democrats (in the Senate) voted against it. Leahy, Dodd Kerry, and Kennedy were all amazing in their speeches rejecting it. Kerry was the voice against it that I hear on talk shows. A Democratic Senate would not have passed this. Had Kerry won in 2004, there would be no discussion of torture - beyond the US being against it. Gore, had he been innaugerated would not condone torture. Maybe if the Greens would have SEEN the real difference between Gore and Bush - the world would have moved in a very different direction.

These differences aren't insignificant.

[MadHound]

28. I would suggest that you go read some

Zinn, Chomsky, Hightower and Phillips, then get back to me.

As far as the IWR, a majority of Dem Senators, and large minority of Dem Congressmen voted for the war. Ever since, there has been majorities of Dems in both houses that keep voting to fund this illegal, immoral war.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, frankly the Dems did very little. The changes that they made were cosmetic, not substantial, and to call what passed "better" than what was proposed, well, that's like calling fifty lashes better than fifty one:shrug: One lone Democratic Senator, Feingold, voted against the act, and only 62 voted against it in the House. During the renewal earlier this year, only 11 Dems in the Senate voted against it, though there was a slight majority of Dems who voted against it in the House.

But frankly, with both the Patriot Act, the MCA, the Alito nomination, the Dems failed to pull out all the stops in stopping this erosion of our Constitution and country. These aren't like other bills, these are aborations that strike at the heart of our government and society. Every effort was required, filibuster, refusing a quorum, taking to the bully pulpit, shutting down the government if need be, to stop these dire threats to our society. Instead, the Dems gave some speeches, cast their votes, and went home secure in the knowledge that their wealth and power will protect them from the excesses that these laws unleash. Leaving us, the common citizen, vunerable to all manner of horrors, with no legal remedy to fall back on.

Sorry, but your arguement doesn't fly.

[1932]

22. The people who vote for the green candidate probably wouldn't vote for

anyone if the Green party candidate weren't in the race. Everyone knows how close this is. Do you really think that anyone saying they'd vote Green now would vote for Webb?

[Zynx]

23. Greens would rather remove their own liver than win an election.

[skipos]

25. They are trying to help Lieberman defeat Lamont in CT, why wouldn't they

try to help Allen defeat Webb? It is in their name.

Getting
Republicans
Elected
Every
November

[FreeStateDemocrat]

33. You right, how does the environment benefit from pukes being elected?

[dajoki]

27. They tried that in PA also...

funded by pRicky and the thugs. the courts ruled too many invalid signatures and took him off the ballot.

[BootinUp]

29. 2 percent? Geez that seems awful high

in these partisan times. I'll be surprised if the green gets over .5 percent. I share your disdain.

[Armstead]

30. I have mixed feelings about the Greens

I do believe that this country needs progressive political organizations that espouse the views of Greens, and that pulls the overall political spectrum to the left.I defended them in the aftermath of 2000, because they did highliught how corporate the Democratic Partyt had become.

And frankly, I believe the Democratic Party has lost touch with the people. Not just "leftists" but the very people and principles it is supposed to stand for. Rather than the party of the people, it has become GOP lite, representing the elite and pushing a kinder and gentler version of the Corporate Agenda.

However, in terms of their tactics, I'm beginning to think that the Greens are full of shit.

If the Greens contribute to sending a George Allen back to the Senate, then that is an example of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Unfortunately, they're also cugting off everyone else's nose in the process.

I would much rather see them take on a role like Move On, which is to serve as both a support group for the Democrats against the Republicans, and a pressure group to force the Democratic Establishment to pay attention to its responsibility to represent liberal/progressive values and policies.

The GOP is too big and too dangerous -- and the political power is too evenly divided -- to allow the balance to remain on the side of the GOP.

Therefore, the Greens should use different tactics, such as running or supporting progressive candidates in the primaries, but supporting whatever Democratic candidate runs against a Republican.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I spoke about that very thing ......

..... here: A trip to PollyannaVille ..... and a suggestion to the Greens

[TheVirginian]

34. Gail Parker is a non-entity.

95% of the people who indicate that they would vote for Parker when polled about it first heard her name from the pollster asking the question. 90% of voters in Virginia will read her name for the first time when its printed on the ballot. Unlike other third-party candidates this cycle, Parker has made no impact on the race. She is an entirely uncontroversial candidate, running on a non-controversial platform focusing on local issues in Northern Virginia. The only votes she's recieving are from people who wouldn't vote for Webb or Allen in the first place.

[TheVirginian]

35. Also, Parker is an Independent Green (IG), not a Green party candidate (G).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28United_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Green_Party_of_Virginia

[FreeStateDemocrat]

36. Green running to help re-puke Steele win in Maryand.

Zeese Campaign Admits They're Running to Help Republican Michael Steele.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=157x4096

[Le Taz Hot]

38. I know I know!

Let's demonize them and make them the boogie man and insult their millions of supporters. Then we can post 486,395 different topics all variations on the aforementioned theme just to make it REALLY sink in. That'll learn those damned independent thinkers! :eyes: