You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #47: The big question for the Greens [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. The big question for the Greens
Welcome to DU, and thanks for maintaining civility while presenting a defense of the Green Party. Perhaps you can tackle the tough question that I've never seen any Green deal with satisfactorily.

You write: All we Greens have ever wanted was a voice in the political process.

You have a voice. It's called "primaries". Reformers struggled for decades to end the party bosses' control over nominations, and to give that power to the people. The Greens act as if that radical change in the political system had never occurred.

Sure, it can be hard to win a primary. But it's inconsistent for Greens to disdain a primary for that reason, and then run a hopeless race in the general election. Usually, if you had the votes to win in the general, you could win the primary. Progressive candidates have won primaries, such as Carol Moseley Braun's victory over incumbent Senator Alan Dixon in 1992. Even when they don't win, they can have their voice and spread their message. The Ned Lamont campaign might unseat Joe Lieberman but, even failing that, will have provided an effective vehicle for anti-war voters.

So, why should progressives support Green Party candidates, when they could devote their time and energy to good candidates in the Democratic primary? A focus on primaries has the advantage of not dividing the progressive vote and possibly handing the election to a conservative. We here in New York elected the repulsive Al D'Amato, who won with a minority of the votes, because of that kind of divisiveness (although the culprit there was our now-blessedly-extinct "Liberal" Party, not the Greens).

In passing, I'll respond to another of your comments: As for this notion Dems have about us being crazy people who would take out anyone just to get their 5%, it's absolute rubbish to put it nicely. I'd gladly vote for any Democrat that would make this country better.... I disagree with things the Democrats do, but I also cheer them when they have shown themselves to be the opposition party they claim to be.

The Green Party ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. It's that kind of lunacy that gives a lot of credence to the charge that you deride as "rubbish".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC