On Why the Green Party is Such a Disgrace

[Mir]

I used to admire the Green Party as within its platform are many points with which I completely agree. However, it has now become an unworthy entity, only serving to help the repukes (actually taking money from them) and hurt the Dems, especially in a time so critical in this nation's history. This is a good piece on the shameful state of the Greens today.

Snip*

"The days when the Greens could push the Clinton-Gore Administration to the left are long gone, and the Party’s current national political strategy is confused. The extent of Green confusion is evident from its running a candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate race whose campaign is 100% funded by conservative Republicans, and by the Greens running a Connecticut Senate candidate whose only impact will be to take votes from Ned Lamont."

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Green_Party_s_Growth_Depends_on_Democrats_Taking_Power_3589.html

[bryant69]

1. Kind of agree

I mean, the Greens have a right to run. I'm not questioning that. The question is whether or not their actions will really help the causes they claim to be championing. Personally I don't see how they could.

Full disclosure - voted for Nadar in 2000.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[William Seger]

4. What Greens don't seem to understand is...

... that they'd have a far better chance of pushing the Democratic Party leftward than they do as a third party. That's just counter-productive. If they can't push the Democratic Party leftward based on the strength of their principles, then they can't hope to pick up more than disgruntled protest votes -- which just will never be enough to win elections.

[MadHound]

19. I think that your premise is false

Especially since most Greens are former Democrats who did indeed try to work within the party, and tried to push it towards the left. Well, that all got ignored, as did they, except come election time their loyalty and vote were absolutely demanded, yet they got nothing in return except to watch as the party continued to move further and further right, becoming ever more corporate friendly, thus leaving them behind.

So the logic went that if all the party wanted them for was their vote and contributions, both monetary and otherwise, yet didn't want to reward them for their loyalty, they would, and did go someplace else where they would be more appreciated.

Frankly, I don't blame them, and am seriously considering that option myself. While corporations, DLCers, centerists, conservatives and virtually everybody else under this big tent is at least thrown a bone, or the entire cow once in awhile for their loyalty and good work, we here on the left are not even acknowledged, and are regularly disowned. We exist in a pariah state, not wanted to be accepted as a full part of the party, but our loyalty, hard work, money and vote are demanded each and every election. Sorry, but that's fucked up. A party, any party has got to take care of its members, throw them a bone once in awhile reward them for their hard work. But apparently not for the left, not here in today's Democratic party, where liberal is a dirty word.

So I would suggest that if the Democratic party doesn't want to keep hemoragging members either to the Greens or to non-voters, they had better start rewarding those of us who have proven the most loyal, who have for years worked hard, been the feet in the street. Otherwise we'll just simply go elsewhere, and the party will be screwed.

[William Seger]

25. No, that's exactly the premise I was getting at:

Disgruntled protest voters, wishing to make a point that they don't appreciate being ignored. I didn't, by any means, intend to suggest that they don't have a point; all I'm saying is that while there are enough people who feel that way to damage the Democrats -- thus helping the Republicans -- but not enough to make a change in the political direction of the country. All I'm saying is that, if you can't persuade, cajole, or intimidate enough Democrats to change direction, then you really don't have much hope of becoming a viable third party, either.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Also an excellent comment.

Your point is EXACTLY why I have been vigorously posting on many of the threads concerning the Greens.

To get all pissy and in their faces calling them assholes, traitors, backstabbers, idiots, etc will do nothing more than validate their conclusion that the Dems offer them nothing. However, opening a dialog and airing differences would be highly productive.

[MadHound]

39. In other words if we can't change the party's direction

We're just supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote straight party ticket year in and year out, is that what you're saying? Sure seems like it. Sorry, but I don't do that for anybody, much less a party that is seemingly bent on ignoring my concerns and issues.

Besides, the Greens don't have to be a *viable* party in order to influence the Democrats. Let's look back at history and see how distincly non-viable parties can influence the majors.

Back in the day, FDR was fearing for his political life as his first election started getting closer. The economy wasn't picking up much despite his New Deal manuevers, and folks on the left, specifically the Socialist Party, were getting agitated, and were going to put up a presidential candidate, if for no other reason than as a spoiler in '36.

Fearing that spoiler role that the Socialists would play, FDR decided to do something to take the wind out of their sails. He nicked a couple of their planks that were near and dear to them, made them his own and passed them into law. Those Dems and independents who were thinking about voting Socislist were very grateful, and seeing that the Democratic party responded to them when they made a threat, well they came flocking back in droves, and FDR won his first re-election bid.

And it was a good thing that those Socialists agitated, otherwise FDR wouldn't have adapted his two signature pieces of legislation,which are still helping people today. That would be Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

So you see, third parties can have an effect in more ways than spoiling an election. They can actually force one of the main ones to move their way. And to expect people from third parties to simply shut up since they can't beat the rigged electoral deck that is stacked against them is denying millions of people a legitimate voice in their government.

Look friend, if you wish to stop worrying about the Greens, then do what FDR did. Adapt a couple of their big planks and make it the Democrats' own. You know, something like UHC, or publicly financed election campaigns. Oh, yeah, that's right, the Democrat's corporate masters would never allow such things to happen in this day and age. Oh well, I guess the Dems will have to continue about those spoilers until they finally learn their lesson.

[William Seger]

42. No, you're putting words in my mouth

No, I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about sitting down and shutting up. You don't have to convince me how frustrated you are with a lot of the current Democratic leadership; I am too. My point -- and this is the last time I'll make it -- is that regardless of how frustrating it is, Greens whould stand a much better chance of changing the political direction of the country by first changing the political direction of the Democratic Party rather than running third party candidates (or by sitting down and shutting up).

[MadHound]

45. And my point is

That many of us Greens, as former, very active Dems, have been there, done that, tried the whole "change from within" bit, and what have we got to show for it? *insert crickets chirping here*

Therefore, since we've obviously failed to change the direction of the Democratic party, what options are we left with? Continue to blindly pull the lever marked D in hopes that something will change? Sorry, but most of us don't blindly vote for anybody, and the only thing changing in the party is its ongoing rush to the right. So we could stay and continue to work our asses off, try to change the party from within, give mightily of ourselves, all in hopes of that big breakthrough that magically shifts the party back to the left? Sorry, but until corporate America releases its monetary stranglehold on the party, that isn't going to happen. And frankly we're tired of beating our heads against a brick wall in order to achieve nothing. So what's left? Either drop out of politics completely, which many, many millions have done, or redirect our enegies without, start supporting a party that actually might have a chance to change things, either directly or indirectly. For those of us who haven't given up all hope, that seems to be the preferable option.

So frankly, if the party is going to continue to ignore me, ignore my issues, what good is it? Frankly I'm looking at the next presidential election and shaking my head in despair. It looks increasingly like we're going to see a replay of the '68 election, pitting two warhawks against each other, all the while the vast majority of Democrats, much less the entire population, is against the war. What am I supposed to do? Shut up and compromise my core beliefs and pull the D lever, knowing that I am tacitly endorsing more death and war? Sorry, I will compromise on a lot of things, but that isn't one of them.

I have done my part, I have worked faithfully for the Dems from McGovern to Kerry and everybody in between. But frankly I'm drained. I see no progress in the party, only regression, a further drift towards the right. We on the left, once the base and backbone of the party, are now villified as nutcases, lunatics and worse, and this comes from members of our own party. Fuck it!! I don't need this kind of grief, this useless exercise in party politics that advances nothing good, but simply continues to consolidate our government under the two party/same corporate master system of governing. I've done my part, I've paid my dues, and it is high time that I started seeing some reward from that. And frankly, until I do I will be considering who I vote for quite carefully, and it probably won't be for a Dem. Now if the Dems come out strong against the war, or strong for UHC, or strong for publicly financed elections, then I'm in. But until something like that happens, fugitaboutit.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Excellent comment.

"Especially since most Greens are former Democrats who did indeed try to work within the party, and tried to push it towards the left. Well, that all got ignored, as did they, except come election time their loyalty and vote were absolutely demanded, yet they got nothing in return except to watch as the party continued to move further and further right, becoming ever more corporate friendly, thus leaving them behind. "

Couldn't agree more.

[William Seger]

31. Another way to put it:

Nader had the wrong idea -- leave the party -- while Dean and Lamont (and others) have the right idea -- change it from the inside. How relevant is Nader now?

[Buzz Clik]

36. Nader will be relevant as long as * is president.

I am major pissed off the Nader sunk Gore's run for president.

But, what did we learn? Ummmm .... nothing?

[MadHound]

40. First off, I don't think that Nader was ever in the party

And frankly using Nader as any kind of example is a strawman at best. The only thing that Nader represents is Nader.

Actually a better TPC to use as an example would be Ross Perot. After the '88 election of George the Elder, RW fundies didn't feel like they had been rewarded for their loyalty, votes, money and effort that they had expended putting and keeping Reagan in office. So they were pissed and looking to teach a lesson, and what did they do? In Bush's '92 election run, RW fundies turned out in overwhelming numbers to vote for. . .Perot! Threw the election to Clinton, and voila, RW fundies have been pandered to ever since.

And while I find it admirable that Dean and Lamont are still trying to work for change within the party, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to do so. I think that both Dean and Lamont's positions of power, wealth and influence shelter them from the day to day outrages that not just our government inflicts, but that the Democratic party inflicts. I'm pretty damn certain if they were just ordinary Democratic drone bees, like myself and millions of other Dems gone Green, they would be supremely pissed off too, and considering a switch in parties.

Sorry, but simultaneously demanding strict party loyalty without rewarding the people who exhibit it isn't a very good formula for attracting and more importantly retaining votes. Those of us on the left, while not very high in the monetary donation category, were and are the backbone of the party. We're the ones out in the streets, on the phones, in the crowds, doing all the dirty work, the heavy lifting that any major campaign requires. This has been the case year in, year out for decades now. Yet when it comes to the party distributing rewards in terms of issues addressed and bills passed, we're goddamn dead last, with very little or nothing to show for our effort. Well then, it looks like we're going to see how well the party does without us worker bees. Somehow I think that might just do the trick, because quite frankly I can't picture these upper middle class men in their Armeni suits or women in their Prada three inch heels marching in the streets or going door to door. Sure, they'll give money, and that's good. But grunt work isn't their cup o' tead.

So frankly, it's time for the Democratic party to shit or get off the pot. Either start rewarding those of us on the left by working for, and passing, some of our issues, or start finding other folks to do the heavy lifting. Because this whole business of demanding our loyalty and votes, and giving us nothing in return is getting old, and quite frankly we're not going to put up with it anymore.

[Sapphocrat]

43. Excellent posts.

Now, replace "liberal," "left," and "Green" with "gay," and you will have echoed exactly what many, many LGBTs are thinking, and saying: Gay and lesbian Democrats don't have a place at the table at all; we don't even have our own "kiddie table." We're "lucky" to be allowed to eat in the kitchen -- and it's always table scraps.

(No flames from the anti-Greens, please; I haven't voted Green in a national election yet, nor do I intend to. Just pay attention to the larger point.)


Edited to change subject line "Excellent post" to "Excellent posts."

[Zorra]

22. I agree. The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is energized,

it has grown, and it is pissed off.

The Greens could make a serious difference by merging with the Progressive Democrats right now.

[MrPrax]

2. Not really paying attention...

But in the Penn Senate race, aren't both party candidates' Pro-Life? Or is this just "green" propaganda?

If that's the case, then quite a few Prgressives are 'single issue' zealots on that one -- the reason being if a Democrat can't get that basic thing right, then they probably can't be trusted on a whole range of issues.

I would never knowingly vote for a Pro-Life candidate regardless of their party affliation under any circumstances...I think that's a common refrain.

[undeterred]

3. Think Green, Vote Blue

Their stated principles (which you can find on the internet) are wonderful.
If you listen to a Green all you will hear is Dem bashing though, so I stay away.

[InvisibleTouch]

13. I love that!

That would make a super bumper sticker. Think Green, Vote Blue! Mind if I borrow it?

[undeterred]

16. I will give credit to Bryan Kennedy- the candidate I volunteer for

He said it at the last event. He's running against James Sensenbrenner!

There are always Greens running, and they have something good to say, but they have no chance of winning, only of hurting the Democratic party. Most of them could run as Democrats and might even win in primaries - but unfortunately, there are "purity" issues. The Democratic party is corrupt.

[InvisibleTouch]

20. Cool...

I agree with your take on the Greens/Dems - ideologically we have a lot in common, and I've always thought we should be working together. But that would make sense, and would take some egos out of the picture. In other words, not likely to happen. :/

[Warpy]

5. I've been disgusted with them for a long time for a different reason

You see, there are the Greens, who have the largest organization, plus the New Party plus the Socialists plus the Labor Party plus dozens of other progressive splinter parties. Grown up party leaders would have long ago figured out how to form a coalition party of all these separate little parties and turned them into a progressive force to be reckoned with. Not the Greens, their leaders are happy with their tiny state fiefdoms.

The only reason to vote Green is as a protest vote when both candidates are disgustingly conservative and not worth a vote. Even then, the protest vote must be spent wisely.

I've spent my whole life trying to choose between the lesser of two weasels. No more.

[zeemike]

6. The question I have is why are you doing this?

It is a blanket indictment of all greens for that actions of one in Pennsylvania? Would you like us here at DU to purge all greens form the board?
Or is it to put Dems at odds with Greens? Why not do the same to the gay people by saying that they drove the RW to the polls? Or those who like guns because there position is the same as the RW?

[Mir]

7. Not a personal thing at all

I just find appalling that this party is accepting the support of conservative republicans. I find this to be completely unworthy of their own stated princples and ideas. I think Green, they have great ideas, but their party today - how they are conducting themselves - is rather unseemly in my poor opinion.

[zeemike]

12. No good can come from dissing other progressives

It would be fair to talk about Pennsylvania but blanket condemnation of all greens is only harmful and serves no good purpose for progressives to do that to each other.
And if Greens do that to Dems then shame on them, but that does not make it a positive thing.

[acmavm]

17. You call a party 'progressive' that would rather (because of

whatever pathetic reason they may make their 'stand' at any given moment in time) ensure that we are stuck under the criminals in power right now?

I gotta get a new dictionary. Progressive is NOT the word I'd sue

[Mir]

18. Yes I agree

about progressives as people; I certainly have no problem with the large number of Green party members and I'm not denouncing them in general, but rather the leadership of the party. How it is allowing itself, mainly by its acceptance of support from conservatives, to, in a sense, be turned into a tool of the latter against the Democrats is what really bothers me.

[natrat]

8. i think he's just saying thye green party is a scam these days nt

[LoZoccolo]

10. I ask that question of every Green Party member & candidate. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

37. Greens are helping Republicans everywhere

We need every single liberal/progressive vote to get the RW fundie nutbag party out of power!

This is an emergency situation and we need to pull out all the stops.

Those who would split the vote - Lieberman, Greens etc... need to look at the big picture and realize how horrific a Republican win in Nov. would be.

[Sapphocrat]

44. But, zeemike!

Why not do the same to the gay people by saying that they drove the RW to the polls?

But, my God, zeemike, they* did -- and do -- exactly that!

Trust me: There are those who love to blame gay people for losing both the '00 and '02 elections for the entire Democratic party -- and I expect that if things don't go well in the near future, they will blame us again this year and in 2008.

If it's not our fault that same-sex marriage that "drove the RW to the polls" (a wedge, btw, created by the RW, not by us), then it's our fault that 25% of self-identified gay and lesbian voters voted for * in 2000.

Never mind that 51% of everybody else voted for *; never mind that 81% of Florida's Cuban-Americans voted for *... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It was the damned gays who blew it for the entire party.

This comes up every single election. If you want links, I'll dig through the archives, but I'd rather not relive such a painful experience.

* "They" = Many Democrats -- some of them right here -- whose post-election grief overwhelmed any shred of intellect and fairness.

[zeemike]

53. Even if they did drive the fundies, so what

They are just going to have to get over it. We can't afford to start splitting us up out of fear that someone will get offended.
It should not matter what you think of gay marriage if you are a progressive and the gay person shares that point of view we should support each other and save our negative comments for the RW. After all they are the problem, not gay people or greens.
If you look carefully at the RW many of them are atheist but do they diss the fundies? No they support them at least with words and definitely with actions. And that is their strength.

[Sapphocrat]

54. No, I meant...

...many Democrats do accuse gay people of driving the RW to the polls. I didn't mean that we gay folks actually did!

Sorry for the confusion! We're actually in agreement -- but I wasn't being very clear.

Believe me, I am the very last person who believes gay people turned same-sex marriage into the wedge issue it's become. The very last! LOL

[Jed Dilligan]

9. I'm very, very glad the Green Party exists.

I don't like their strategy. They should be grabbing municipal and state assembly seats instead of competing for national positions.

I usually register as a Green and vote for Democrats. I wish there were more Greens I could vote for in city council and state assembly elections.

Bush has basically stuck me here with the Dems. If the Dem candidates get a little worse or the Repugs get a little better, I will probably go Green all the way. Though I still think it's a waste of money trying to get to Washington before we have a lot of localized power.

[Buzz Clik]

27. "Thank you, ladies and gents of the Green Party. Back of the bus, please."

I live in Indiana where the Green movement has no legs. Voting or not voting Green is not really an issue in my district. However, I still wish the Democrats here would make a clear separation between themselves and the GOP by openly and strongly supporting the key progressive issues.

[Jed Dilligan]

29. You don't think the Greens

could get one city council seat in Bloomington (for instance)?

That could be key to blocking local polluters.

And then maybe grabbing a couple of state assembly seats and scaring the crap out of your state Democratic party in the process.

I hate the two-party system and hope to see it disintegrate completely in my lifetime.

I consider myself a borderline Green and will stand squarely at the front of the bus until moderate-fascists beat me bloody and bodily eject me.

[Buzz Clik]

33. Bloomington certainly is a liberal community (mostly)

It's possible that Greens have a foothold there. However, I take little solace in the success of their platform at a local level when I live three hours away.

"I consider myself a borderline Green and will stand squarely at the front of the bus until moderate-fascists beat me bloody and bodily eject me."
Cool! I'm with you all the way. :hippie:

[Mir]

50. I was born and raised in B-ton

and there are more than a few Greens there (Nader came there to speak a year or two ago) but they aren't organized nor do they pose a threat to get any seats. And Bloomington is VERY liberal and not just for Indiana, we're talking coastal liberal. Try to cut down a tree there and you'll swing from it. It is utterly unfathomable that a repuke would ever be elected mayor there and they will probably never get a hold of the council. Christ, Indiana's richest man (Bill Cook) tried to build an apartment building some years ago and despite all his power and influence he was shot down and trampled under by the council simply because the building was too tall. If a town is that liberal and the Greens still can't get anywhere, it's a pretty good indicator of their impotence. They mostly sit around and talk about how much they hate the proposed I-69 highway. Good people, but politically hopeless.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

15. We can bring on a revolution without picking up a gun. That

thinking is so twentieth century. It's harder to do things peacefully I'll admit but the results will be more permanent. I'd say the anti-war movement symbolized by the Cindy Sheehan camp is a start. If we take back Congress from the conservatives, that is a second step. We have to start thinking in terms of liberals and conservatives, not parties. The party that is most likely to deliver your agenda is the one you vote for and in this case that would be the Democratic Party.

[LoZoccolo]

14. How to talk to a Naderite (I know it's not the same as a Green)

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Major Dem candidates take money from Repugs all the time.

Just check their donor lists.

[Annces]

23. Green's response on dirty money

"Let's not beat around the bush. Getting on the ballot with 99% dirty money is a bad thing to do. The GP of PA should have given it back and said, "No thanks, we would rather not get on the ballot than do it with the funding of racist, anti-working class war criminals."

But this raises the question, Should all dirty money be returned? Democratic Party hacks have often been heard oinking and squealing that this Green got so many hundreds of dollars or Ralph Nader got so many thousands of dollars from GOP or war-monger doners.

Meantime, the Democratic Party pockets tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from its own dirty money sources. Many of the same corporate criminals who finance the RP also finance the Democratic Party and the Dems accepts this as "part of politics." But will those who oink and grunt so vociferously at the Green Party please answer this question: If it is bad for a Green to accept $1000 of dirty money, would it not be 1000 times as bad for a Democrat to accept $100,000 of dirty money? "

http://www.greenparty.org/PA_funding.php

[Ignoramus]

24. "The green party" says PA Green isn't "the green party"

You can read what a group calling itself the green party says:

http://www.greenparty.org/PA_funding.php

As for me, I am a single issue voter. I'm against the extinction of the human race. Right now there are 2 pro-terror parties. I haven't really looked at the green party, but I most likely will not vote for a democrat from now on, because of the Lebanon situation and how even my relatively extremely progressive house member voted for praising the terror bombing of Lebanon. Also becoming aware of the 2004 democratic platform and it's decidedly anti-arab policy has made me realize that I can not vote for a party that is fundamentally aggressive and destructive.

Is there any position that democrats could take that would be so offensive to you that you would decide you have to cut your losses and decide that a longer harder more authentic path is the only way forward?

Obviously slaughtered people isn't offensive enough. For me, that is it. No more for me.

But, I'm sure there is something that would offend you enough. If democrats were all advocating cannibalism, you would not decide you should vote for them because it's better than then ebola dispersion+cannibalism party. There is a point where you have to decide that it's a lost cause.

Democrats are trapped by the current lobbying dynamic. Because people "think green but vote blue", democrats in government know that they don't have to worry about being held accountable. They know that they will get no pressure from the left if they still hold on to some tiny shred of something vaguely progressive in their policy. On the opposite side, they know that if they dare to even hint that they disagree with something the Israeli government does, that they will be pounded relentlessly by pro-Israel groups.

If you continue to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, the trend is moving closer and closer to fascism, because the fascist side moves extremely right and the moderates compromise on moving only somewhat right, then the process repeats and then it repeats, etc. Eventually, you end up where the fascists want you to be.

It is completely transparent that democrats' compromising is calculated, and it looks lame to the average person. Kerry was embarrassingly ridiculous, then he demonstrated the accusation that he would "roll over" in face of a challenge was true, by doing exactly that.

The right wing appears to be authentic to people that are fooled. Progressives need to be perceived as authentic and as standing for something by actually standing for it, as opposed to being patronizing. A long-term goal of progress, including losses in the mean time is the only way forward unfortunately. The hard authentic way is the only way forward. The short cuts aren't working.

[Buzz Clik]

26. The daily "hate the Greens" thread.

I look forward to them.

Dirty gd traitor bastards!

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. 20 mins hate is over for the day, proles! :-) n/t

[BlooInBloo]

32. What's more disgraceful is the people who CONTINUE....

... supporting the bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of the GOP called 'the green party'.

The national green party embraced the republican purchase of their PA branch. It's done - the green party is owned by the GOP. There is no excuse for anyone to suppose the green party, except insofar as they want to deliberately further the GOP's aims.

[Buzz Clik]

34. Ever ask yourself why previously loyal Dems have jumped ship?

It's not an easy answer.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Stupid, narcissistic, short-sighted, petulant, idealistic-beyond-reason...

... Some combination of those, plus a few more... I fail to perceive the difficulty in answering the question.

Doesn't matter though - what's important NOW is whether or not the holier-than-Democrat green party members can still pass off the con now that their GOP owners are a matter of public record.

The emperor-wanna-be is buck nekid.

[dkofos]

52. Yes it is

The party does nothing for the people.
It represents the monied interests.

Need more?

[warrens]

35. These people LIKE losing elections

They're mainly disgruntled types (hey, who isn't) who feel they have no stake in the system at all, that life would be better without the system. It's a valid feeling, but why bother voting at all if everyone is as bad as everyone else?

If they hand congress back to the Repukes, I will start treating my Green friends just like I treat my Repuke friends. As ex-friends.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Turn your back on a friend over the results of an election? How sad.

[martymar64]

48. Then give them a stake in the system

Don't just expect them to blindly vote for Dems and then ignore or disparage them and their issues the rest of the time. Earn their vote, quit expecting them to vote for someone that refuses to represent them.
It's also shitty of you to tell them "Vote our way or don't vote at all". If someone said that to me, they'd be spitting out teeth.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Oh, goodie!

Post # 4,892 about why Greens are the political boogy man. :eyes: This shit's such a waste of everyone's time.

[MadHound]

46. And funny, isn't it, how it shows up every two years like clockwork.

Amazing that sort of timing.:eyes:

[kitkatrose]

51. Oh, joy.

You know, if Democrats had something to energize people with, they wouldn't vote Green. If Democrats could/would distinguish themselves CLEARLY from Republicans or at least the right-sounding rhetoric, then people would vote for them. You know what the best solution is to the 'green problem' is? Absorb their issues, make them unnecessary, then you could do something other than bitch and wring your hands about the greens ruining elections.