Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKIN GREENS ON THESE MOTHERFUCKIN BALLOTS!

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
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:31 PM
Original message
Poll question: I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKIN GREENS ON THESE MOTHERFUCKIN BALLOTS!
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 02:44 PM by LoZoccolo


How about you?

http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17055412&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

EDIT: I made the answers less loaded, so Green Republican enablers can see they'd lose a fair fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think this will be locked....
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Constitution Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
211. Whoever posted this needs to get a life. Bush is the enemy
The Greens voted for Kerry and are responsible for the truth coming out about Kerry winning Ohio. Kerry and the Democrats owe the Greens a lot. I'm getting really sick of the DLC trying to destroy people who are on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Green Party: a vehicle for rich liberals to feel good about themselves
Because they are not the ones who have to suffer from Republican policies in a substantive way. For example, if R v. W is overturned, these folks can just hop a plane and fly off to a state or country where abortion remains legal.

Barbara Ehrenreich (a Florida Nader voter) sells more of her doom and gloom books with Bush in the White House than if a Democrat was president. She also got some nice tax cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
81. What I really didn't care much for were the Greens at some of the
peace rallies not long ago who were promoting some other candidate for statewide office when Gray Davis was under seige by the schwarzengroper people, and they had this tiresome robotic talking point for everything - "it's important to SEND A MESSAGE to (fill in the blank here)."

OH YEAH???

Well "SEND A MESSAGE" straight to Hell!

The only "message" you're sending in a tight race between a Democrat and a republi-CON is that you're gonna effectively TAKE AWAY VOTES the Democrat could use to BEAT the republi-CON, and hand the victory to the republi-CON neither the Dems NOR the Greens can stomach.

What was even more nauseating was how I could NOT get through to these people. They thought it was far more important to split the liberal/progressive vote on some marginal candidate who had NO realistic chance of winning - only spoiling an otherwise possible victory for a Democrat. As long as we have ONLY TWO realistic, major, mainstream political parties pitted against each other, then we just have to cope with, and make the most of, limited options - and be okay with it. Which means it's gotta be either the bad guys OR us. There is NO ROOM for any of this "send a message" crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmike27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #81
127. Greens
The best way for democratic voters to compete with Greens is to continue to pull the party back to the left. To do that, we need to vote for candidates who actually care about labor, and the working poor, as well as the non-working poor. With the issues swinging back to the left there will be no need for a Green Party.

Vote for yourself, not who the corporate media tells you to. (Howard Dean, remember what they did to him? And most of you bought it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #127
224. Actually Nader and Greens didn't like Dean either
Ralph Nader said that the only prospective Democratic nominee that would have caused him to withdraw was Dennis Kucinich. Nor is there any indication that the Greens would have stood down if Dean was the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. from the PA thread that wastes our time whining about Greens
yes, we all understand that some people just hate those stupid Greens ... everyone is entitled to their own opinions ...

the question is, what do you do about "those stupid Greens"???

you could, let's say, insult them ... i'll bet you could come up with a really, really, really long list of great insults ... you could probably make a great case about how damaging they are ... if you had enough power, some of you might even make it a crime to vote for a third party ... or maybe you would just ban third parties all together ... that would certainly solve the problem you're having with "those stupid Greens" ...

as a Democrat, it is certainly disturbing to see the Green vote match the current polling difference between Casey and Santorum ... there's gold in them thar hills ...

what did the Democratic Party expect the reaction from "those stupid Greens" to be when they chose an anti-choice candidate? not what reaction did you want the Greens to have but what reaction did you expect them to have? all this hand wringing about Greens, whether you think they're right or wrong, does absolutely nothing ... it's just noise ... scream all you want to but it is nothing but noise ...

Democrats need a different and more effective approach to Green, and other, third party voters ... if you want to view them as so weak and ineffective that you don't need their paltry support, that's fine ... but don't come around at election time whining about needing that paltry support ... the way to earn Green votes is to earn Green votes ... screaming into the wind is DOA ... the Democrats went with an anti-choice candidate ... when they did, they made a political calculation ... they thought Casey could win; perhaps he will ... but to be oh-so-shocked now that "those stupid Greens" would not "help out Democrats" who are running an anti-choice candidate is beyond ridiculous ...

there's an old zen parable that says "if you don't have room in your living room for an elephant, don't make friends with the elephant trainer" ... Casey is the elephant trainer; and "those stupid Greens" are the elephant in your living room ...

OK, go back to your screaming now ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Hmmm
"as a Democrat, it is certainly disturbing to see the Green vote match the current polling difference between Casey and Santorum ..."

Well I consider a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Democrat to be no better than a Republican anyway so I can understand support for the Green candidate. I probably would be taking a hard look at the alternative at Casey if I lived in PA also. I am not a Green by any means but I don't need another Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller in office so when we get more progressive from within he can side with Republicans and bitch about us taking his party away from him.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. "I can understand support for the Green candidate"
that is exactly the point i was making ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Casey is not Anti-Gay Marriage, he would not support the Federal
Ammendment.

I would appreciate if you do a bit of research on the topic before making assumptions

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bob_Casey_Civil_Rights.htm

No constitutional ban on gay marriage; civil unions ok
Q: What about gay marriage?
A: I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't support a constitutional amendment banning it. That would be tremendously divisive. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.



He is not the perfect defender for Gay Rights, as you can read with the rest of the link that I posted. However, if you compare that to 'Man-On-Dog' who wants to peak in our windows to ensure we are doing anything Kinky - there is a world of difference
'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. Wait he is still anti-gay marriage...
Even if he doesn't support a constitutional ban and supports unions he clearly states, "I don't support gay marriage". Not to mention this:

"I support the Defense of Marriage Act and a number of states have passed similar measures."

Oh and this "Opposes legalization of same-sex marriage "

I don't think that makes my statement factually incorrect at all. His tolerance of civil unions isn't excessively appealing. Then you see these:

from http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Casey.htm


  • Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. (Dec 2005), Opposes Woman's Right to Abortion. (Nov 2004)
  • No embryonic stem cell research; adult research ok. (Jul 2005)
  • Keep the death penalty. (Nov 2004)
  • Supports teaching "abstinence plus" in schools. (Oct 2005)
  • Posting Ten Commandments in government buildings ok. (Apr 2005)
  • Lobbyist money ok if it has no impact on your vote. (Apr 2006)
  • PATRIOT Act is vital law in war on terror. (Apr 2006)
  • Don't censure Bush for domestic spying. (Mar 2006)



Casey comes off way too DLC-like from my readings of many of his positions. I'm glad I don't have to vote for him.

Rp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. So then you're ok with Santorum?
Seriously - greens will not win this race, only feasibly affect the outcome.

Pennsylvania had a primary with two other candidates - Casey won

I understand voting your conscious, hell I'm wrestling with it right now after finding out my very own senator is supporting Lieberman in the general election.

But there are only two choices in Pennsylvania: Casey or Santorum
Third Party vote will do nothing but enable a Santorum win.

This is Rick Santorum - want me to post his stances on the issues?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Casey is not that horrible
And trust me, I know why they picked Casey.

Simple: The guy has gotten more votes statewide than another other statewide candidate ever. And that was with an opponent. Casey has the name recognition and extremely popular in the Pittburgh area where Santorum can still be competitive.

And they know that Casey would never be a lifer in the senate. Senate is not Bob Casey's dream job - he wants to be governor just like dad.

I would really like to think that Casey would server at least one term if elected but I would not be suprised if Casey doesn't run for governor in 2010 (and probably end up picking his replacement).

Santorum is a disgusting slime of human existance who has such horrible views on how this country is run that the guy must be stopped.

Pennsylvania had a primary and Casey was picked. The man is as popular as a person can get in a state notorious for having anti-choice democrats and pro-choice republicans (Ridge & Specter are both pro-choice for the most part).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. Who's your senator, Lynne?
nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
89. Ugh, Tom Carper
:cry:

I take it personally because I had to go through two Santorum campaigns back when I lived in Pennsylvania.

As for Carper, I was pretty ok with his service until he endorsed Lieberman a few days ago (I actually like Joe Biden and knew he would support Lamont). Unfortunately we have no chance of getting opposition against Carper. As much as I would love to just not vote for Carper, you never can tell what's happening with your votes, so I'll vote for the guy with a bit of a grimace on my face
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. Who controls Congress isn't that important, huh?
If seeing what Republican control of all branches of Government does to the entire friggin Country isn't enough to get someone to vote for the Democrats then they are blind.

It should be perfectly clear that the most important vote any of these politicians make is who they vote for re control of Congress.

Casey is a vote for Reid for Majority Leader. A vote for the Green Candidate is a vote for continuing Republican control. I can't believe that is so hard to get or seems that unimportant.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. That's very true, and I share
that frustration over the seeming inability of third-party voters such as the Greens to see that, and I well know what it has cost the country. HOWEVER, again, we do not have the right to demand that people vote in a certain way. No candidate is "owed" votes simply by virtue of his or her party affiliation. People have the right to choices and they have the right to vote their choices. That is one of the main tenets of democracy.

Yes, it sometimes means that terrible, harmful candidates will be elected, unfortunately. But it's the epitome of fascism to deny a party access to the ballot, and its voters a choice in voting, just because you don't like the party and/or are afraid of their votes.

We can't complain about repuke voter intimidation and vote suppression and election fraud, and then turn around and want to deny access parties access to the ballot because we don't like them and/or don't want people to vote for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. I think very lowly of Reid personally...
Don't get me wrong, I know what is at stake and would vote for Casey... but I could see looking at the Green Candidate and even voting for him if he/she was within striking distance if he/she better representated my views and values than this guy who is closer to the Republicans on a lot of things than even most Dems.

The Green would caucus with us. This is all moot because I don't live in PA and I would vote for the Democrat in this case anyway since the Green is way out of this, but only an irrational person would say:

"Yeah I know the Green represents me much better and is completely in this race but I will vote for the DLC Democrat who represents Republicans more than me just because he has a D next to his name".

Obviously the Green isn't in this race but I am making the case under hypotheticals why someone could look at a Green.

And don't confuse me with a Green. I went after them hard after the Nader vote in 2000 and when I worked for Kerry in '04 I was pretty solid against their criticisms of him on here then also. I am just saying, hypothetically, you can make a case for considering a Green Candidate under the right circumstances with some of these DLC schmucks that Al From and Chuck Schumer end up supporting with their money.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. But the Green won't win
This is a two party system and it FUCKING SUCKS. The only way a 3rd party candidate can win is if there is no Democrat (ie Bernie Sanders, a lifetime independant candidate who started out as Mayor and worked his way up the chain) or the Independant has strong support & name recognition from both parties (ie Joe Lieberman).

Green will not win

They won't

They won't even get more than 1-5% of the votes

And after living through 2 campaigns with Rick Santorum I can tell you this - he is the dirtiest, motherfucking slime candidate who will stoop to any low out there and even LOWER the bar on lowness in order to slime his opponent to death. That's how Santorum wins even when he's unpopular in Pennsylvania. He did his first US House opponent, he did it with Wolfford and he did it with Klink. And trust me, he will do it Casey.

The choices we have are Casey or Santorum. And if you're voting Green, you're buying into the candidate that would have never gotten on the ticket if Santorum didn't contribute over $100k to pay for signature gathers (who faked them) and probably the candidate's legal fees to defend them

Santorum didn't help any other candidate even though the COnstitution and Libertarian parties also tried to field candidates.

We need to fix the fucking broken system that sucks beyond belief. But we will NOT fix it if we give Rick Santorum six more years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. Thankfully I am not voting in this race
because I am not from PA. :)

I was making a symbollic point that some Greens deserve consideration... but I weighted it by stating that it depended on their poll position.

I dislike Casey, not as much as Santorum obviously but there should have been a better choice and a solid primary between Democratic opponents for Santorum. It seems as if the DLC got their handpicked opponent through right away. Yuck.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #56
86. They do deserve consideration and so do the Libertarians & Constitution
parties.

Rumor has it that the Greens are going to the judge in order to reduce the number of signatures required down to 15k instead of 67k. If this happens, I hope that both the Libertarians & Constitution parties are able to submit their signatures and get their consideration for on the ballot.

What happened in PA is clearly one of the 3rd parties received special treatment in order to get them on the ballot; whereas, the other two major 3rd Parties did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
58. A pro-life, anti-gay marriage Democrat could well be the deciding vote
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:07 PM by pnwmom
that gives the Democrats control of the House or Senate, and all of the Chairmanships, and subpoena power.

In that respect, voting for ANY Democrat is infinitely preferable to throwing away a vote on a Green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Read the thread
I never said to throw away a vote on a Green. I am talking about when a Green is competitive in a race and your choice is between a Green who is close to your views or a DLC Democrat. Obviously that is not the case in this race. I personally do not like Casey but in this situation I would vote for him. I do think though it is valid to have reluctance in supporting someone who is barely a Democrat.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Which race are you talking about where a Green could beat a Democrat?
As opposed to just helping the Republican win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. My argument was based on a hypothetical
Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
90. Do you comprehend "control of the Senate"?
Anyway, Casey is far better than Santorum, if you actually look at his real positions and not the whines of the republican-enablers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
51. Hilarious to see what the antiDLC leader is all about
The person for whom actual Democrats aren't Democratic enough, trying to prop up a bunch of Republican sock-puppets....

"don't come around at election time whining about needing that paltry suppor"
Fuck that noise...let's see about keeping the asswipes from ratfucking the elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. This topic is disgusting on many, many levels.
First of all, I'm not a prude by any stretch but was in absolutely necessary to includes TWO MF's in your subject line?

Secondly, greens have the right to run for office just as anyone else does. This is a democracy, remember? I'm absolutely STUCK in Central CA District 19 with a Senator I hate (Feinstein) and I've now been given some nutcase sacrifice congressional Democrat who won't make a committment on anything except that he believes the gay marriage question should be left up the the states (arrrgggghhhh!!!!!). Under those circumstances, yeah, I'm looking real hard at the Greens and everyone else.

Thirdly, your poll is a push poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohMunich99 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
32. It's a parody on "Snakes on a Plane"
Do a google search. You'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
65. Whatever your problem is with Feinstein, every single Democratic
Senator puts us that much closer to regaining control of the Senate, and all its chairmanships, and subpoena power. Voting for a Green is just another way to vote for keeping the Republicans in power.

Is that what you want? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #65
130. Because it's my vote
and I can do with it what I please. Besides, Feinstein is in no danger of losing her seat so one vote for someone other than a DINO who voted for the war, the bankruptcy bill, confirmation for Alito, ad nauseum isn't going to shift the balance of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #130
210. What if it was a close race? Would you vote to keep out the Repub,
even if it meant voting for her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #210
223. If it's a close race then I'd still vote for the Green's Todd Chretien!
Edited on Fri Aug-18-06 01:49 AM by calipendence
The Republican running against her is a joke, much like the Republican who was supposed to run against Lieberman was a joke BY DESIGN from the corporatists that want to have their folks in as Dems too, when they know a Repubican runing instead would lose against a TRUE Democrat. That's what the DLC is used for by the Corporatists...

And while we're at it, Feinstein is enabling the Republicans to help Arnold Schwarzenegger win when she doesn't fire her campaign co-chair (Angela Bradstreet) who has not only made a big deal to the press about voting for Schwarzenneger against Angelides for our governor slot, but who's actually ALSO a co-chair of Arnold's "bipartisan" campaign committee too!

Check it out!

Look down the page on the left column on http://www.cbmlaw.com/bios/abradstreet.asp

Community Activities

Statewide co-chair, Senator Dianne Feinsteins re-election campaign (Current)

Co-chair, Statewide Bipartisan Leadership Team for Governor Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign (Current)


Then check out the comments from this page:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/11/BAGRGKGJPF1.DTL&hw=Angela+Bradstreet&sn=001&sc=1000

Several of the big contributors contacted for this report declined comment. But some who agreed to talk said they had shifted their support to the governor because of his policies and because of Angelides' plans to raise taxes to pay for education and other state services.

"A number of my Democratic friends, who have raised lots of money for Democrats, have said they cannot support Phil," said Angela Bradstreet, a well known San Francisco attorney and co-chair of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's re-election campaign. "This is the first time I can remember it being so pronounced."

Bradstreet, a Democrat who said she is voting for Schwarzenegger, argued that the governor has re-established himself as a moderate who has shown strong leadership on economic issues.

"Quite frankly, I'm also sick and tired of paying taxes," she said. "And that's Angelides' solution -- raising taxes."


Now at least Chretien isn't letting his staff help Schwarzenegger get elected, is he? I don't think that sort of behavior from DiFi's campaign should be supported, and I WON'T unless she FIRES Bradstreet IMMEDIATELY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not a very "democratic" sentiment. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Neither is terrorism, which is what the PA Green Party is engaging in. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. WOW...You use the term as loosely as the republicans do.
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 02:53 PM by lojasmo
Butter your toast on the wrong side?...terrorism

Get less than 50 MPG?....terrorism

Etc...Etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Continuing to prop up Republicans after they drowned 1000s of people?
Yeah, that's terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
208. Your burden of proof is not met.
This is a case of REPUBLICANS propping up the GREEN campaign...not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #208
209. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
"Gee, all these Republicans keep sending us money, and we threw the 2000 election...nah, we're not propping up Republicans."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
72. What is anti-Democratic about making sure that every signature is valid?
As opposed to letting Republicans (or anyone else) fill the petitions with false signatures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. Just a question --
What is your opinion of parliamentary democracies; the type that most other "democratic" nations have? Do you feel they are wrong or more ineffective than our system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. As long as they are a figment of third-party voters' imaginations...
...I would say they are more ineffective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiviaOlivia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
182. Where were you when
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 06:34 PM by LiviaOlivia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. We have a two party system whether we like it or not
I would love a parliamentary system or perhaps a run-off election for when no candidate gets 50%.

But this is what we have right now. We need to figure out how to fight the system and get better candidates elected. Bob Casey is NOT Rick Santorum on so many fricking levels it disgusts me when I see people post it here like they're ok with another 6 years of Rick just to not have Casey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is what I have to say about this issue....


and that's all I'm gonna say about that issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. Cracks me up that a hard line DCL'er
would call the Greens Republican enablers.

LOL.

It just goes to show how woefully out of touch they are- and how little they know about political dynamics.

Don't like the Greens? Try standing up for traditional Democratic values and you'll take all the impetus out of their campaigns- while exposing far right policies for what they are (hint: among other they're VERY unpopular) and create a contrast that all the voters can see.

Nope- that's to hard- it requires integrity.

Easier just to lash out impudently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. I have no problem with them being there if they are legitimate.
But these guys in PA are completely illegitimate, funded and manned by Republicans who only want to skew the election. The Greens could never get on the ballot by themselves here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
18. Green Party voters are not Democratic Party voters
Someone needs to send a message to the people throwing up these red flags. The Greens are on a completely differnt angle when it comes to politics than the Democrats are. The bulk of people that vote for Green candidates are folks that most likely wouldn't have voted for either Republican or Democratic party candidates to begin with.

The strategy for going after voters are completely different as well. Where the Republicans and Democrats fish in the same pond for voters, Greens go out and fish in other ponds.

These threads to constantly pop up on this board complaining about Greens are a waste of time. The idea that they steal votes is nothing more than a metaphorical fear meant to hide the real problems in the 2000 elections; The purging of voter roles by Katherine Harris and the Senate sitting on their haunches doing nothing about it.

If Democrats want to solve the problems created by Bush, it's time some started acting like it. Hiding behind metaphorical fears, like Greens stealing Democratic party votes, only furthers the Republican agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. So what are independant voters and Single Issue Voters
:shrug:

But you're right, true Greens will vote Green and nothing else, but that doesn't mean that there aren't independants and other types of voters out there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Indie voters
Generally hop back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. It takes a little more issue awareness of Social and Economic Justice to really get down with the Greens. Yet Independant voters that bounce back and forth aren't really Democrats either.

That seems to be the problem with this party. They spend more time trying to haggle with those voters than they do with those that don't vote. Wonder why that is?

Those voters don't vote becuase of corporate interests influence on the two party system. They see voting as a worthless exercise and no matter what, things will only get worse. Democrats over the years don't seem to have much interest in courting them or appealing to them. It's the same pool of voters that they bounce back and forth between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
202. I know several Greens but I guess they aren't True Greens
Many contested offices don't have any qualified Green candidates, and the Greens I know don't always vote Green even when they can. For example, a Green couple I know both voted for Senator Kerry in the 2004 election because they knew it was going to be close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. WRONG.
3/4 of the 2000 Nader voters repented and did not vote for him in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. ?
Are you of the opinion that the party Reps are owed those votes?

Ever ask any of those voters what they think of you blaming them for Gores loss? You can ask me as I did vote for Nader in 2000. Didnt effect the outcome in MA anymore than it did in FL.

Your response does little to address the points I made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
54. And they did that because they were sincere anti-fascists
and progressives, while people like YOU did nothing to make them welcome here.

And while those of YOUR wing of the party continue to bash progressives and idealists.

It's time to give up the "everybody HAS to vote DEM but nobody has the right to expect anything from the Dems in exchange for their votes" meme.

Try listening, try dialogue, try, maybe, admitting that DLC arrogance is a major part of the reason that the Greens emerged.

Left-bashing, triangulation "distancing"...none of it WORKS anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. So, I guess your anger says you'd rather that Greens just gave up
and stopped voting and participating at all....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Personally (and I know you didn't ask me...)
I would love to see the Greens become more of a think-tank, lobbying group, or public info group a la NARAL or NOW, for example. I'd like them to influence politics that way -- influencing the party from the grassroots upward by persuading people to their ideas, and then influencing the party politicians by showing them that their constituents support these positions.

I think that would be more effective... imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. s'ok.... I'm open to ideas from all, especially when presented without
the attacks! :)

Thank you for your input...

Yes, I see your point. I've never been a member, but it seems to me that this is quite a bit of what they do. I know there is a LOT of grassroots organizing, and I certainly respect them for that.

What I'm saying is that we can choose to see them as adversaries, and try to "beat" them... or we can see them as friends who are working for much the same goals, and do some friendly collaborating.

I'm guessing they formed another party out of frustration with not being heard. Many of us can relate to that frustration. That alone gives a basis for having something in common that gives us a way to work together.

It's our choice. Personally, :), I prefer the strategy of Martin Luther King, to the "strategy" of seeing others as enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. As for being adversaries and "beating" them
I think it's fair that if the Greens as a party run in opposition to Democrats, they've made themselves adversaries. And it follows that for the Democrat to beat the Republican, they'll have to beat the Green party candidate, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
98. What bothers me
is that the Greens are taking Repub money when they know damn well why the repubs are giving it to them. It would seem to me that if the Green Party wants to be taken seriously and seen as a party of character and morals, they wouldn't take 'help' from repubs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #98
133. Good point.
I think it would behoove everyone to consider it, and to question why Republicans would do that, and to ponder the implications of the answer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
180. How 'bout entertaining this possibility.....
Do you think there's a possibility that they DID try to work within the Dem Party, and got tired of being ignored?? Have you ever felt that, yourself?

Do you think it's possible that maybe the Dems they were involved with in their localities MADE them the adversaries??

Some of us have experienced that. Some of us know what it's like to have been pressured to stop being active in the party. I wrote in a post a couple of days ago that a friend and I discovered that we had both experienced the same thing many years ago, and gave up trying to be active in the Dem party, and both of us had been very active all our lives. Turns out we both had that experience at the same time, and just happened to be at the time that the DLC was taking over power in our state, and pushing people away.

As I said earlier, there is much in common with the Greens and the Dems. To now just vilify them and push them away and create an adversarial situation will do NOTHING but create problems in the future. We need *all* progressives!

I can't, and WON'T!, scream out some fiat as has been done here, but I'm asking you to look at it from their side, be willing to talk with Greens and listen to what they have to say, and understand some of why they are working for change in their own way. Creating understanding will only help us in the future. Vilifying them and pushing them further away is shooting ourselves in the foot. Your decision, as I said, I won't use the same tactics with you that I see/hear being used against the Greens.

I just ask you to give it some thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
53. they are not "friends working toward the same goals"
If they were they wouldn't have run a candidate in Colorado's 7th district race in 2002. Bob Beauprez (R) won that contest by 121 votes. The Green candidate got 3,000 votes. If they had the same goals as us they would have encouraged their members to vote for the Democrat, in what was shaping up to be a close race.

They ran a candidate up in your district (4th, Ft. Collins), who got 4% of the vote in 2004. Marylin Musgrave (R) got only 52% up there, if the race had been two percentage points closer, the Greens, once again could have made a difference. As far as I know, they're planning on running candidates in both of these races in 2006.

If you have the ability to help get a Democrat elected, especially against a candidate as reprehensible as Ms. Musgrave, but choose not to, how can you be on "our" side?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
75. Let's not forget them trying to knock off Wellstone, either
As you point out, they're neither friends nor working toward the same goals. They're either well intenitioned imbeciles, or corrupt sock-puppets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. they even ran a candidate against Diana DeGette here in
Denver - one of the most "progressive" members of the House.

Eight years ago the Green Party had potential - maybe not to win elections - but as some sort of think tank or policy institute - a real counter to the DLC that many on the left seem to hate so much. Instead, they pissed it all away on vanity campaigns or the usual lefty single issue squabbling.

Love or hate the DLC - at least they understand that you can't play football with eleven quarterbacks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #80
134. That's a good point, too!!
Imagine if the DLC ran separate "Independent DLC" candidates against Democratic nominees?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #134
212. Isn't that what Lieberman's doing?
The DLC may not supporting his run (altho some DLC members are), but essentially an "independent DLC candidate" is precisely what Lieberman is. And if there were a stronger Repub in CT, he'd probably win because of it. And I don't doubt that Lieberman would run anyway.

To tell the truth, I don't really see much difference between Holy Joe and the Green guy running against Casey. They're both doing it because they think they and their almighty principles are more important than the common good in the real world. It really comes down to ego and self-righteousness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #212
218. the difference is that Lieberman has a chance to win
a really good chance

that's a huge difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
139. What would be most effective of ALL
Would be a combined Dem-Green campaign for electoral reform(especially Instant Runoff Voting and the abolition or proportionalization of the Electoral College).

There's no reason those of us in the Democratic party should be wedded to the existing electoral system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. That would also be important, yes
And I have to hand it to the Greens for their efforts in Ohio, to verify the election.

However, I think it'd be important to drag Republicans into this, too. Put them on the spot to come out for fair, verifiable elections. If you listen to the latest Clarkcast, it's mentioned that the GOP's game plan calls for accusations that the Dems aren't playing fair in voting processes -- which would be typical (charge the opponent with their own schemes, weaknesses, flaws, etc.). I think it'd be great to get out in front of that by building the bandwagon ourselves and pushing the GOP onto it.

Having said that, it's a different issue than the one at hand in this thread...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
34. What? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
52. Give up being a GOP dirty trick?
Sounds damn good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #52
203. Says one of the greatest black propagandists on the board
Oh, wait a minute. You're not on the board any more.

Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #203
217. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. I wish there were some ultra-rightwing, non-GOP party to split their vote
but it's hard to imagine any group more rightwing than they already are!!

Maybe a group whose platform is outspokenly calling for the ten commandments in all public buildings including schools, for a federal amendment outlawing abortion as murder, for mandatory counseling to "cure" homosexuality, for even easier access to guns including assault weapons, for a federal program of embryonic adoption, etc....

I'd contribute!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
228. What's an "assault weapon?"
Has anyone ever come up with an actual definition of the term? I'm wagering they hadn't - we're still having trouble coming up with a universal definition for the word "planet."

If it only fires one shot with each squeeze of the trigger, this is a non-issue. The 1994 ban should be left in the dustbin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. hey . . . it's a free country . . .
(wait a minute) . . .

okay, maybe it's not a free country . . . but anyone who can get the signatures has a right to be on the ballot . . . one of the few rights they haven't trashed . . . yet . . .

if the Dems don't want opposition from the Greens, they should adopt some of the Green positions . . . or at least show some evidence of moving in that direction . . . you know -- populism, environmentalism, peace, stuff like that . . .

but no-o-o-o-o-o-o! . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. (Loud, annoying buzzer) "I'm sorry, your answer is too logical"
IN the 60's, Martin Luther King and others advocated listening to one's adversaries, and working to make them into a friend, rather than fighting as adversaries.

Some of us are just throwbacks, I guess.

:hi: :hippie: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. Unbelievable. Because you don't like
a particular party, you want to remove them from access to the ballot and their voters access to free choice? And you call yourself progressive? Unbelievable.

There are a lot of winger parties I don't like, but it would be totally wrong to work to remove them from the ballot. That is what you would expect in fascist countries and not from supposed progressives. Then again, your man LieberBush doesn't believe in respecting the will and wishes of the voters, so I suppose this is no surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. Makes sense to challenge the signatures though, doesn't it?
Especially when there's obvious GOP support ...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Oh, sure, if you have legitimate reason
to believe that fraud and/or deception is involved, as is the case in PA. However, if there's no reason to suspect fraud or other problems, then continually challenging signatures becomes harassment and intimidation tactics, which is not what we should be involved in. That's more like what the repubs did in 2000 and 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
77. Geeze, I have doubts about the entire Green party
and the fact that they got caught in PA only confirms what I think about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. no wrong..i call myself someone calling out greens who deliberately
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:25 PM by flyarm
are working as operatives for the republican party..who are doing anything and everything against the so called values the greens have..( or what you tell us your values are are they as you tell us??)) ..if you as a green can not stand for your professed values..don't bitch when we call you out for supporting people who work against your SO CALLED VALUES...

do you have those values or do you not Greens??

if you have, so called green values, how can you make excuses for the very people selling out your values?????? and being used as operatives for the republican party who does nothing but shit on the so called green values??

which is it??

you can not have it both ways..

make up your minds..are you greens??? or republicans shitting on our environment, and our air and our waterways...our oceans and our land ..that is the republican value..are you a republican or a green..make up your damn minds!!

but do not expect me not to call you out, when you defend the indefensible..

i am a dem..and i do not support lieberman...he does not support my values as a dem..i am not afraid to say it out loud..my values are not for sale!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
28. I think the "N" in "MOTHERFUCKIN" should be followed by an
apostrophe indicating the acknowledged absence of the letter "G."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
57. Correct. Very agile catch, anotheryellowdog. It's pointless to even
consider addressing the topic at hand unless the OP is willing to change the mechanics and grammar to accord with proper written English.

I call on the OP to admit this grievous error before the dialogue proceeds.

Thank you and God Bless America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Ha ha!
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Hey there, anotheryellowdog. I sure like that Dean image there in
your sig field.

Dr. Dean is helping this party & I'm really satisfied with the goals he's set for us, and willing to help him reach them.

'Hope all's well your way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #76
101. Yes, thanks. I agree.
Howard is a great and powerful asset for us. Here's to you, Dr. Dean! :toast: You are greatly appreciated.

Take care, Old Crusoe! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
35. They are a stealth Republican ploy. This has nothing to do with democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. Look. If Joe Lieberman wants to wrestle crocodiles in his golden years,
what business is it of mine?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
44. In a binary poll about this narrow issue, I would vote to exclude them
I tried to word that carefully so it would express my opinion and fit as a post title.

Just the other day many flamed me for starting a thread reaching out to Greens. I happen to think we have more in common than we have differences. Even knowing this little ballot plot and about the republican funding of their efforts, I continue to think that.

That said, as a DEMOCRAT, I would like to see us fight this particular effort tooth and nail, hammer and tong. The tactic is CLEARLY one that is aimed to hurt the DEMOCRAT in favor of the Republican.

I'm a nice guy and very tolerant of other views ...... but this shit isn't about 'views' ..... its hard ball dirty tricks. And it has to be stopped NOW.

In that thread in which some chose to flame me, I made it clear that my personal bitch is not with Greens, per se, but with some of their candidates .... and in particular one St Ralph.

This is strike two ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
45. Democracy a problem?
No one would be complaining if it were Libertarians splitting Republican votes.

It is what it is. They have every right to run. And the Republicans can fund them if they like, though I do think when donations are accepted like that, it diminishes the one accepting it. That was my position on Nader. He had the right to run, but my view was never the same on him when he took Smear vet money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
47. There should be a major effort to keep Green candidates off the ballots
when it's OBVIOUSLY a put-up job, as in PA. But the party can't win without engaging genuine green and progressive voters, so we need to start some approach that's less stupid and aggressive than "Death to the Green Party". How about, y'know, maybe dialogue and a lot less arrogance? How about backing those in our party who want the party run from the bottom up instead of by the elitists and the lobbyists? How about making it a DEMOCRATIC party again? That'll do more than anything else to end the Green Menace.

That and we should be backing electoral reform so people aren't forced to torture themselves over the spoiler thing anymore.

There wouldn't have been a Green Party if our leadership hadn't actively demonized progressives in OUR party. We ended up gaining nothing lasting from all the bashing.

(BTW, I now hate the GOP AND Ralph with equal fervor. Nader raised issues that nobody else was raising, but he went way the hell off the rail and now sounds like his own one man sect.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. NADER WAS A REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE!
from my files..fly


http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ralph_Nader_Principles_+_Values.htm


snip:

Republicans help get Nader on state ballots
In Michigan, after Nader volunteers had collected only 5,000 of the 30,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, Michigan's Republican Party came to the rescue with 43,000 Nader signatures. A Nader campaign spokesman initially said that the campaign would not accept the GOP's help: "We won't take any signatures from them." But the campaign later said they would accept the "independent" ballot line provided by the Republican signatures in case they fail to get the Reform Party nomination: "We have to get on the ballot somehow," said the spokesman.
In Oregon, another swing state, Republicans enlisted the Oregon Family Council and the Citizens for a Sound Economy to recruit rightwingers to sign Nader's ballot petition. The CSE's phone script asking Republicans to put Nader on the ballot explained the need to "pull some very crucial votes from John Kerry." Nader's Oregon coordinator said he saw nothing wrong with rightwing help: "It's a free country. People do things in their own interest."

Source: Jeff Cohen, "AlterNet" blog Jul 20, 2004

Ad: Nader helped by Republican donors
AD ANNOUNCER: Right-wing Republicans will do anything to stay in power. Remember Florida and the 2000 election? Well, the same right-wing Republicans that are anti-choice and anti-environment are suddenly pro-Nader! Bush donors are pouring tens of thousands of dollars into Nader's campaign. Why? Because the right wing knows that helping Ralph Nader helps George Bush....After all the good he's done, Ralph Nader's legacy could be reduced to four more years of George Bush. Mr. Nader, declare your independence from the right-wing extremists.
ANALYSIS: TheNaderFactor.com-an anti-Nader groupstaffed by former Dean, Clark, and Gephardt campaigners-released a radio ad saying Nader is getting help from Republicans in hopes of stripping votes away from Kerry. The ad's use of the terms "right wing" and "extremist" are debatable. But it is well documented that some Republican-leaning groups have worked for Nader, and that a few wealthy Republican donors have given money to the Nader campaign.

Source: Ad-Watch analysis by Fact Check.org Jul 14, 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. nader wasn't just a sell out ..he was a bought out! links here
from my files:

Naders sell out in 2004


on edit: here is one story that the link works from my files..and a couple others that links may or may not work ..

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 Naders 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 Naders 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 Naders 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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sorry the following the link no longer works..but i will excerpt it here
from Boston globe online..
if you want search the archive..

BREAKING: Bush Finance Honcho Donated to Nader
The Associated Press

Thursday 12 August 2004

BOSTON - Ralph Nader has found an unexpected friend in Massachusetts.

Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard Egan, the Bush campaign's finance chairman in John Kerry's home state, has personally contributed the maximum amount allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's presidential campaign.

Egan's son John and daughter in law have each also "maxed out," bringing the family's total to $6,000.


Bush backers are hoping Nader will siphon enough votes from Kerry to tip the election to President Bush.
The co-founder of data storage giant EMC Corp. and Bush's former ambassador to Ireland, Egan is legendary in Republican circles for his ability to collect hundreds of thousands in campaign dollars.
He's a member of an elite group of Bush fund-raisers known as "Rangers" -- those who have helped raised more than $200,000 for the campaign. Egan's two sons are also Rangers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/...

Republicans Helping Nader to Help Themselves
By Brian Faler
Washington Post

Monday 19 July 2004

The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state's November ballot.

Of course, this is not really about helping Nader. It is all about helping President Bush and hurting Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's campaign in a closely contested state.

The Michigan GOP denies that, of course. Matt Davis, a spokesman for the group, said it was merely concerned about third-party candidates being left off the ballot. He could not name, however, another third-party or independent candidate his party has helped.

Nader may need the Republican signatures. He has been endorsed by the Reform Party and had planned to use its line on the Michigan ballot. But a dispute over who runs the party's state chapter - and which candidate it supports - has thrown that into question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. In 2004, Ralph just lost it. He even screwed the Greens.
There was a need for a progressive alternative to the DLC, and Ralph destroyed the chances for that that year. He should have campaigned for Kucinich in the primaries but his head wouldn't fit inside his fuel-effecient car anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. This IS conspiracy junk!!!
But, to go along with your thinking;

If I was a Republican, the only reason I would want Nader on the Ballot would be because it makes it easier to rig election and purge voters. Considering the time too many in the party put in to complaining about it.

Like I stated above, it's nothing more than a metaphorical fear and the real bastard get away with murder. Of course there are plenty that won'y say squat about Republican voter purge techniques because it "sounds like sour grapes". Republicans have done a great job of moving that target to Nader and many are willing to go along with it.

Makes you wonder how we wound up with a false center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. i am a fla voter..tell me all about junk...but nader took 95,000+
votes in 2000 that he knew he couldn't win..and he was begged to go run in states that were not so close..nader put * in office with the help of the supreme court...

you can say whatever you want..but i as a floridian..know he stole my state for *..

let it happen in your state..,then call me about it..

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. I guess taking Harris to task
would solve nothing.

It was Nader that purged those voter roles (sarcasm).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. harris would not have been a factor ..without nader! n/t
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 05:13 PM by flyarm
what came first the chicken or the egg..nader came first..get that straight!! the greens and nader came first1

harris was stage two after nader's stage 1 of the republican/green steal of fla!

the good green people were conned...by the scum bag nader!

and most know it now!

now is too late..we are on the doorstep of a fascist state..and have lost our liberites because of nader and little lord pissy pants..

and many greens are still being played and used and they are fucking this nation by their ignorance!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #73
105. yeah? then what about the 300,000 REGISTERED...
...DEMOCRATS in Florida who, according to the exit polls, VOTED FOR BUSH in E2K? The day any Nader-bashing DU'er can reasonably explain why 94K+, not-necessarily-Democrats who voted for Nader threw the election to Bush, and 300K REGISTERED DEMOCRATS for voted for Bush didn't, is the day i'll take all this gratuitous Green-baiting seriously. Which will probably be the day after pigs learn to fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #105
148. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #148
152. "the RIGHT????"
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. I see "The left" all over this thread.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #153
161. I do not see this at ALL as a "right/left" issue.
Democrats can be opposed from the "left," and opposed from the "right."

And then there's opposition from the "left" that's fueled by the "right."

In all cases, it's opposition to Democrats and our party's potential, no matter WHERE you stand within the tent. We all have reasons for being Democrats, and whatever those reasons are, they are also the reasons for supporting the party and our candidates, rather than weakening it/them to make a point, with NO positive effect on ANY of the issues we care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #105
154. The tallied result was a difference of less than 600 votes.
Knowing it was close -- not only in Florida, but in other states as well -- if Nader really cared about the issues he claims to hold dear, it makes no sense to me that he did anything other than urge his followers to vote for Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. I know Greens who wanted Bush to win
maybe that's not the same as voting "for" a Republican...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. That's absurd
If a Green wanted Bush to win, they'd have voted FOR Bush.

Your using anecdotal evidence combined with screwy logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. 'twas on this very board.
They wanted to wreck the country so bad that people would run to the "progressives" for help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #61
83. the "screwy logic" came from the Green


She hoped that Bush would make things so bad that people would turn to the Green Party.

Yes, that is pretty fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. Maybe there were a few, but I believe that the majority of Greens
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:15 PM by Zorra
actually voted for John Kerry and other Democrats in the 2004 election.

Greens are just as concerned about the fascist takeover of the US as progressive Democrats are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #68
87. if they are just as concerned about the fascist takeover of
America - they choose a strange way to show it.

Since I think we'll agree that the Republicans are the ones in control right now - and therefore most responsible for that takeover - I don't see how running candidates in close races that might allow the Republicans to maintain that control qualifies as "concern".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wolf Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #68
111. I count my white ass as one
of those very Greens that voted for Kerry as well as for Reid and many other Democrats in 2004. It was also campaigned by our Presidential nominee in swing states to vote for Kerry. I despise the road we're going down to as a nation. We're chopping our head off in the middle of woods and thinking someone will hear us scream just before it hits the ground! I want change, but I won't sacrifice the great jewel of this fucking Republic to make sure it happens. The problem is that too many of us in this Party are more than willing to do exactly that. If that takes voting for Dems that can get us off the edge of the cliff, that's what I'm gonna do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #111
176. Welcome, The Wolf
I'm with you. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
78. Wow....this sums up the anti-DLCers....
The Democrats in the DLC are unacceptable, but a bunch of corrupt sockpuppets actually working for the GOP are just ducky-wucky.

"Greens are not our enemies."
Fuck that noise. If they're all that, let them become Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #78
93. This crap about the Greens working for the GOP is corporatist bullshit.
The Corporatists' worst fear is that Greens will re-join the Democratic party. If the Greens rejoined the Democratic Party, the DLC would become insignificant. Yes, the Greens should become Democrats again. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I love it!

So now it seems that corporatists are waging a propaganda campaign to paint Greens as our enemies in order to pit Democrats against Greens, rather than Democrats and Greens against republicans?

How transparent and predictable is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Wait a second, what are you talking about?
The Corporatists' worst fear is that Greens will re-join the Democratic party.

Right, that's why they give all this money to the Greens to stay separate and run against Democrats.

If the Greens rejoined the Democratic Party, the DLC would become insignificant.

And they haven't done that yet because...?

So now it seems that corporatists are waging a propaganda campaign to paint Greens as our enemies in order to pit Democrats against Greens, rather than Democrats and Greens against republicans?

It doesn't just seem, but it's been verified that the Republicans have been funding the Green senate race in Philidelphia. The Greens are 100% responsible for their own existance as a party and their own runs against Democrats, and could stop the scorn heaped upon them in a moment's notice.

This is silly anyways, silly to argue against a silly argument like this one you bring up. It's been demonstrated what a Green candidate can do to a race in the 2000 presidential elections; the only people denying that just don't want to acknowledge that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #93
100. You Do Realize, Ma'am, Do You Not
That you have just openly acknowledged the Greens work to the benefit of the Republicans, and against any breaking of the hold of the most reactionary elements of our polity on the national government?

It is the Greens who have set themselves up as the enemies of the Democratic Party, and the Republicans and their backers who reap the benefit, and also in large part finance the Greens' efforts. No thorough-going Leninist would have the slightest difficulty in stating the Greens are simply agents in fascist pay, for gauged by objective effect, that it precisely what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #78
108. .
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #78
159. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
59. phhhhhtt
:spray: :rofl:

chill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
79. It doesn't matter what you think of the Green Party ...
it has a right to exist.

But we need to go after illegal GOP tactics, including fraud in getting ballot status for Green Party candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
84. I despise Green Party candidates. I know, technically they have
the right to run for office if they want, but let's face it; they don't want to hold office they just want to run, lose, and make a lot of money in the process. The majority of people voting for them don't even know what the fuck they stand for. A vote for them is a vote for republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. So, what do they stand for?
Maybe you could tell us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
91. and now a word from the constructive dialogue camp...
:D

More seriously, what do you expect to achieve with this that six years of vitriol towards the Greens hasn't accomplished?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrushTheDLC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
92. Absolutely! Let's remove all third party candidates from every ballot.
...starting in Connecticut!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zcflint09 Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
94. AMEN! The Greens are TOOLS OF THE GOP
No matter what thier positions are on social issues, these pricks are undermining the Democratic Party. By accepting Santorum funds in PA they are willingly giving an advantage to the Republican Party so they have some press and cash. They know why they are being used but are okay with it--as far as I'm concerned--that whole party is filth.

DEMOCRATIC Underground is where DEMOCRATS are supported--and ANY vote for a Green is a vote for the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eccles12 Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #94
102. With that in mind, you might really want to check where the money
comes from. It wouldn't be the first time that powerbrokers played all sides of the fence to cover all bases so that no matter who wins, the powerbrokers (neocons) win. For example, Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
95. Shit, Inspect Every One Of Those Fuckers Signatures. That Stupid Fuck Is
just going help Santorum stay competitive in the race. God I can't stand the fuckin greens running against Dems this November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
96. IRV.
Then it not only doesn't matter, it'll strengthen democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemonium Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #96
205. add to that proportional representation
and holy Democracy bat man, the people might find a voice again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
99. What's going on in PA is criminal n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
103. I understood what you were trying for with your Lamont/Lieberman
stance before and I understand now. This time however I think we agree, yet perhaps from philosophical standpoints.

The greens are no further left than my left hand can reach from me at the moment. It feels good to support some such candidate, as I have done in my youth, however what I have found is that Greens are no less opportunistic bastards than the rest. So, my vehicle for change remains squarely within a legitimized political party.

That being said if this were a multiparty system...coalitions...well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
104. I believe in a nonpartisan primary..
there are allot of things I dislike about Louisiana politics. One of the things I like about it..the primaries in that state are on November 7, the runoff election is only a month later. This allows Greens, Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans to be on the same ballot. If nobody gets a majority, then the two candidates who win the greatest amount of votes are on the runoff ballot. Usually that is a Democrat and a Republican.

How does one of them win the runoff? only by winning enough votes from those who lost the primary. Greens can run a candidate in this state, but their votes still count..even if the Green candidate doesn't get on the runoff ballot! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
106. GREEN DEVIL GONNA GET YA!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. What is your opinion of the Green Party run for Senate in Pennsyvania? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #107
147. If they followed the law, who cares., Bill Clinton sure never worried
about votes outside the 2 main parties.


Somehow Bill was able to defeat the Green Devil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #106
109. What About Party Loyalty, Mr. McGrath?
Surely that is still in style....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrushTheDLC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #109
115. What about the party being loyal to us, Mr. Magistrate?
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be in style recently. The reason the Green party is gaining success these days is not covert Republican funding, but rather pissed off ex-Democrats who are tired of the overt Republican hijacking and corporatization of the Democratic party. The Green party is looking more attractive to those who would otherwise stay home and not vote at all, and instead of realizing that fact, the DLC and some others on the right edge of the party put all their efforts into the 10% of the "Mushy Middle" who can't even make up their minds whether or not the last 6 years have been an unprecedented disaster for this country.

I've heard the word "insanity" defined as "doing the same things repeatedly and expecting different results". So I ask, how long do we allow this insanity to continue and lose everything this party used to stand for, while our natural base looks elsewhere?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #115
123. The Party, Sir
Is loyal to the mass of its membership. The difficulty is that some persons seem to feel that if every action and position of the Party is not precisely identical to their own views, then the Party is not standing by its "base", or whatever the phrase du jour might be. But the Party is a coallition of many blocs, and must adopt positions that are compromises between these. It is in the definition of compromise that it is never wholly satisfactory to any single element participating in the settlement. The key element is a resolve among the parts to stand by the whole, unmderstanding that however unsatisfactory, it remains superior to the alternative, which in this case is the blatant reaction of the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #123
138. Thank you!!!!
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 02:35 PM by Sparkly
You said that so well, as always.

I don't think everyone understands that yelling, foot-stomping and withdrawing -- making demands that "The Party" move one way or another -- is going to create any of the changes they want to see.

I keep trying to say that the greatest impact any of us can have is in changing the views of those constituencies or "blocs." Representatives look very closely at where people stand according to polls, and it's not about who yells loudest or threatens to take their toys and go home. It's about what large numbers of people believe, want, need, support, and reject.

Can't change the politicians without changing the people, and that's where we the people can make a difference. Advocate for positions, fine!! Fighting against your best chance for seeing them become policy, is just self-defeating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #109
117. Surely a DU mod would never question my party loyalty here on DU
would they?

Surely that is still a rule violation....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #117
120. Who Has Questioned Your Party Loyalty, Sir?
You have, after all, been making great play of it lately on the subject of Mr. Lamont and Lieberman, to the point you might pass for an old-time precinct worker. And yet here you are making a comment disparraging any attack on a party that has on its own admission set itself up as an engine of opposition to the Democratic Party and its candidates, and whose leadership does not scruple to take monies and other assistance from the far right, for all its protestations it is the true exemplar of the left in our political life. Such contradictions invite requests for clarification, Sir. Any that you care to provide will be read with interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #120
146. Yawn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #146
151. The Topic, Mr. McGrath, Continues To Interest Me
Typically, persons resolved to support the nominees of the Democratic Party on the grounds they are the nominees of the Party, and expecting others to do the same as they do, welcome attacks on parties who have declared themselves enemies of the Democratic Party, and run candidates against Democrats using money and personnel donated by Republicans to strengthen their efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #151
155. I get it, you were questioning the "party loyalty" of the Green Party?
Why would a greenie not be loyal to the Green party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #155
165. That Is Below Your Accustomed Level, Mr. McGrath
But it does not trouble me to spell the thing out a further time. You have expressed some distress at attacks by Democrats against the Green party, an organization that has declared itself an enemy of the Democratic Party, and proved willing to accept money and personnel from the Republicans for promotong its candidates against Democrats. You have also been making great play lately on the need for Party loyalty among Democrats, and the need to unite behind the Party's nominees and disdain any third party efforts. A wall striped in turquois and flame orange strikes the eye about as these two propositions strike the ear, and leads to some curiousity on the part of your audience....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #165
169. Personal attack, very nice. Answer the question.
Who's party loyalty were you questioning? Answer that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. To Say, Sir
That your comment above is not up to your usual level in debate is hardly a personal attack.

You have adopted positions that seem contradictory, and so invite requests for clarification.

What is your objection to attacks by Democrats on the Green party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. ANSWER THE QUESTION Who's party loyalty are you questioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. Whose Have You Questioned Lately, Sir?
It seems very much on your mind....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. I didn't think you would answer the question...
Color me NOT surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. If I may....
Perhaps the Magistrate prefers to take the high-road and inquire about what you are saying -- particularly when you've made seemingly contradictory statements -- than to insinuate anything based on one cryptic post without further explanation from you.

I, however, will say that the post "GREEN DEVIL GONNA GET YA! :puke:" in reply to the OP's frustration at Greens' undermining Democrats (with Republican support), does beg questions about your party loyalty.

So I'm coming out and asking you about yours. As the Magistrate gave you ample opportunities to explain, why are you against people who are against people who are against Democrats?

Why are you "puking" at the OP, and what does "Green Devil Gonna Get Ya" mean?

An explanation would help me understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. You may not....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Way to explain and defend your views....!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. Thank You
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. You know, the entire pseudo-progressive trend on DU would be a riot
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 06:23 PM by Sparkly
if its results weren't so tragic.

There's nothing progressive about fashion statements, loud tantrums, or self-righteousness that has the EFFECT of hurting people, by empowering Republicans. And every day this regime is in power, the stakes get higher.

It seems like a set of pissing matches on the political compass chart (left-right, authoritarian-libertarian), with the lower left quadrant the most fashionably righteous and rebellious.

Consider that some who may "out-left" you on the scale still support the party to the end, and ask yourself (or them) why.

Consider that we have elected politicians who didn't take their toys home and quit, but fight the fight across the aisle every day -- like my woman Maxine, or DK, or John Conyers. Ask yourself why they're able to do that.

Consider that there are people who have suffered tremendously, and died, because of the election of the Bush regime, and that they had far more to lose in 2000 and 2004 than many "conscience-voting" Greens, and even more stand to suffer in 2006 and 2008... In fact at this point, our entire democracy stands at a precipice, our stature in the world, our former ability to be a force for human rights....

But you go ahead and scoff at those who find fault with GOP-supported Greens, who challenge signatures, who "compromise" by voting for Democrats.

You go right ahead and ignore questions about your own party loyalty. They aren't questions anyone here needs to know your answers to; they are questions you need to ask yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #181
184. What the hell are you going on about? Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. Oh, do you have a question?
Was there something I said that you'd like me to clarify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. Who are you replying to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #187
188. :sigh:... Nevermind, Lincoln.
"Sophomoric wisdom: Knowing what one does not know..."

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear...."

When you're less confused, things won't seem as confusing to you. When you've asked yourself enough questions, others' will be easier to answer. When you're secure in what you're saying, you'll have the strength not to back down from challenges.

I'm sure you mean well. Peace.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #181
195. It /is/ tragic.
I wonder if a lot of the more level-headed, practical, and active people give up on this place too, as if there is a constant uprooting and discarding of something with potential by people who have found nothing better to do than graze, complain, and throw fits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #195
213. "nothing better to do than graze, complain, and throw fits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #172
174. Couldn't be mine...GO LAMONT! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #172
190.  I didn't think you would answer the question...
Again, color me NOT surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
110. Greens have lost ALL credibility beginning with Saint Ralph....Screw them
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 12:45 AM by Rowdyboy
and their demented logic. They're Busn enablers and should be detested as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
112. I think they should be left on the ballots, and compete with the rest.
Maybe you view the greens as spoilers, but if a candidate is has a good message and is articulate enough to get it through to everyone, he/she will get most greens to vote for him!

I remember when the United We Stand group was quite popular. Yea, I know, Ross let everybody down, but I KNOW there were a lot of people who were so disgusted with both major parties Ross sounded very good! I STILL have my United We Stand card!

Like it or not, if a group can get the necessary signatures, they're permitted on our ballot!

I don't hear you complaining about the Libertairian Party, or the Socialist Party, and they're always on a Presidential ballot too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrushTheDLC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
113. Instead of condemning the Greens, why not redeem the Democrats?
California is a state where the Green Party does well and is able to win local elections, and come close in the SF mayor's race or a good showing in that pathetic recall mess.

California is also the state that inexplicably returns a right wing warmonger like Diane Feinstein to the Senate.

Anybody see the connection?

Bob Casey is undoubtedly less of an asshole than Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. But in most other races, Casey would be the most right wing of the two candidates. And suddenly people are shocked that a Green candidate jumped in?

You get it yet?

The more the Democratic party is dragged to the right, the more Greens there will be, dropping out of this party's base because their conscience will not allow them to vote for corporatists, warmongers, anti-choice hypocrites, etc.

Now how is it, exactly, that the GREENS are to blame for that?

It's time to take back OUR party and OUR base and then the Greens won't have a reason to oppose us. Fuck the 10% "mushy Middle", I want the 50% that stopped showing up in the first place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #113
116. The Greens lie now, why won't they lie later?
We have to call them on their lies. It's a personality issue; I don't expect them to stop lying no matter what the Democrats do.

If they really want to change things, they'd change peoples' minds rather than hurting and killing them for not being more progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #113
124. Then how about the Greens join their local Democratic party and pull....
the party to the left instead of being a 3%-4% spoiler?

I'm sorry, I like some of the Green Party's positions, but I just can't vote for them right now. Getting Republicans out and stayed out is just too important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
114. Hey, if Lieberman can run against Dems with Republican aid--
--why not Greens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
118. Don't like them? Don't vote for them.
It really isn't too complicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #118
121. Would you say the same of the Republicans? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #121
126. Absolutely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
119. I'm a furriner
and I see little substantial difference between your Republican and Democratic parties. I'm all for the Greens anywhere.

The Republicans are the really, really warlike crony capitalist party while the Dems are the slightly less warlike international globaliser party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #119
122. Why do you come to Democratic Underground?
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 11:09 AM by LoZoccolo
NOTE: We've already heard the "small d" argument; don't make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. Because
I find the discussion and people here interesting.

If the Democratic party moved to the left, I'd happily retract my statement above.

While Bush and the neo-con imbeciles are scum ... lets say 10 on the scummery rating ... I don't see much point in supporting a party/people whose main claim to ones vote is that they are only 8.5 or an 8 on the scumometer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. How about working to change the Democratic party?
That's what we're doing in my hometown. There's a news progressive element in the county Central Committee and we're getting progressive candidates ELECTED.

With the growth strategy the Greens have to become a viable 3rd party, it'll be 1000 years before that comes about. Why not jump aboard the "lesser of two evils" and help change it.

With the system, as much as I don't like it, we have, Greens being a 2%-3% spoiler is not doing this country any favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #128
137. It seems some think banging on the windows from the outside
is an effective way to change what goes on inside...

(Instead, it helps make both sides powerless, imho.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #128
206. I'm not American
and don't live in America.

My personal view is that by accepting the lesser of two evils, you are simply perpetuating the system. But I like what you are saying about getting progressive candiadtes up etc.

Parties can change vastly - see the Republicans and the south etc etc.

re: the Greens. Where I live in Scotland, the Greens are a viabl;e force and set to get more seats in 2007.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #206
207. OK, and then what does voting for third parties do?
Ones that never get more than 5% of the vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #207
225. Of course
they will never get more than 5 per cent of the vote with that attitude.

I can see your point - you want Bush out as fast as possible.

This I support wholeheartedly.

But I would be very wary of simply trading him for something only slightly less worserer.

It seems to me that a dem President, especially Clinton, would differ in style only, not substance, unless of course there was a radical change.

What really needs to change is the US voting system - as in Britain at Westminster, to more accurately reflect voters intentiions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. Hear Hear!!!
The Democratic Party has given its progressive wing the back of the hand on almost all issues, instead opting for the mushy middle approach, trying to steal away Republican voters.
If the Democratic Party wants to get people to not vote Green, how about coming up with a platform that will bring them into the Democratic fold and not giving them the tired choice between two corporate stooges.

Quit blaming Ralph for your own shortcomings as a party. If we had a decent platform that addressed the needs of the people instead of the big money interests, the Greens wouldn't be an issue and many current non-voters would suddenly have a reason to vote again. As long as the DLC exerts undue influence on the direction of our party, that will never happen, it'll just be the SOS.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark E. Smith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
129. "There is no difference between Al Gore and George W Bush!"
The Big Green Lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #129
135. That's not what Nader (or the Greens) said
Though I hear that repeated so often that people seem to think it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. He has said things like....
"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference."

Which party does he generally criticize more? Or does he criticize them equally, in your view?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #136
140. He also said
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 03:36 PM by depakid
In the context of the Supreme Court, that "there's not a dimes worth of difference between the parties" and that Democrats had the power to block nominees like Scalia and Thomas- but they willingly refuse to use it.

I think he's been proven right on that one, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. "not a dime's worth of difference"
Does ANYone on this board think that's true?!??

NO difference on issues like the environment, education, reproductive rights, church/state separation, affirmative action, tax policy, foreign policy, childcare and headstart, arts funding, alternative energy investment, outsourcing, warrantless domestic spying, etc. etc. etc....??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark E. Smith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #143
183. That is the Big Green Lie
And that is why they are worth so much to the GOP.

When the Greens take Republican money, they're as much on the corporate teat as those they criticize. And I for one no longer believe that they are anything more than a GOP spoof designed to split the opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #183
185. There's a lot to what you say....
I'm not sure whether they actually consider, and recognize, their actual EFFECT and are rightwingers in disguise, vs. how much they are "naval-gazers" who see ten inches in front of their faces, superficially don the attire of "conscience" without seeing past the mirror to its EFFECT on others, and basically claim to "care" so much that they DON'T CARE by their actions.

Maybe there are some of both. I think the Greens here are well-meaning. I think the organization as a whole, at the top, is questionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wolf Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #185
200. Couldn't agree more Sparkly!
Individual Greens nationwide I think are good people deep down. But those who claim high seats of power in it are driving us just as far off the cliff, using the specs of the "naval-gazers" you talked about. And those who should be jerking the wheel to get the party back the fuck off that cliff for the most part are just as blind or naive (not really sure either way) to the damage it can inflict. Till that happens, it'll be just as chaotic as it looks right now.

I did have faith once in the higher ups of my party. That'd be before the Romanelli debacle in PA and seeing crap merchants get legitimacy for unleashing a dark ass hell by attacking Iran (see http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/16/yet_another_bombthe... . Standard yammering RW bullcrap from the mental meat grinder known as Fox News. The Fox motto="From functional brains to hamburger meat quicker than Monica down to her...you get the picture!") and I realized being friendly to Dems and making sure sanity and the Republic are off the respirator is better in the long run than blindly following Party line off the edge of oblivion. I trust my dear friend working in the Democratic Party HQ here in NV more than I trust our Party leadership right now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
132. They're on the wrong ballots
I want more greens in my state and local elections and less in the national ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
142. No "Green" on the ballot in 2000 = President Gore...
...so the question sorta answers itself as far as I'm concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
144. Gloria Steinem's Top 10 Reasons for not voting for Nader -- 2000
Seems worthwhile to read this again right now... (I've highlighted what I consider a few especially salient points.)

TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem President, Voters For Choice

10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next president. Bush has made clear, by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-right-wing, that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries.

Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.


Quoted in numerous places on the web, but first Google hit here: http://www.designcommunity.com/law/notes/21.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #144
166. reason #9 says it all- it's easy to be the perfect candidate
until you actually have to try and get people to vote for you.

Voting Green or some other third party that has no chance is taking the easy way out. You get to sit in that ivory tower and jeer at those of us getting our hands dirty with the real business of democracy... compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. Yup -- that's the one I consider key, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeeters2525 Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
145. I'll Take Green
Over another mothrfukin Lamont post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #145
150. I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.
You would rather have the Green Party on the ballot than another Lamont post, or you'd rather see a post about the Green Party than one about Lamont?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
149. Yes- and that goes double for the Lieberman Independent Party too-right?
Right?

We are loyal Democrats here, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #149
157. I think it's equal, although to be fair....
the "Lieberman Independent Democratic Party" exists in one state, as far as I know.

And I don't think ANY elected Democrats should be supporting him, nor should any act like it's a big surprise that most Democrats endorse Lamont.

I'm opposed to all opponents -- simple!!

However, I think the Greens have exacted more of a toll on the political realities today -- to the detriment of many of the weakest among us -- than the "Lieberman Independent Democratic Party" has, at least so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #157
160. Joe opens the door for "far left" Democrats to endorse or run as Greens...
...when they dont get their way, or when they dont like a candidates position on one issue or another.

I think it is unwise for you to downplay what is happening- Lieberman is starting a trend where "Democrats" feel the need to endorse candidates outside the Captital D party.

Unchecked, the trend that Joe and his supporters are moving forward is one where Democrats can endorse whoever they want- Green or Independent- in ANY state.

He gives Greens an excuse: "Hey- Joe did it, and many of you moderate & conservative DEMS had no problem with that..."

It is the same thing- and if the OP has a problem with Greens, as I do, then he should have the same problem with the Independent Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. Why let him "start a trend?"
Why "feel the need" to endorse candidates who effectively strengthen Republicans?!?

Why use Joe as an "excuse" for anything?!? How childish is that? "He did it, so I can too." (Maybe he said the same thing -- "Greens did it, so I can too.") Two wrongs don't make a right -- except a turn to the "right" in further GOP power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. Good- we do not disagree- Greens & Independents who run against DEMs...
...are enemies.

PERIOD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #163
164. No disagreement
except that I just call them "opponents." :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #163
168. Period Indeed, Doctor
Always a pleasure to be in agreement with you, Sir!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
156. Anyone voting for Nader in 2008??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
158. wait
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 04:59 PM by iamthebandfanman
why do we hate the green party in general again ?

i thought we just didnt like greenies who use republican money...that is obviously republican money...


???


maybe we should start funding the libertarians ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
189. Yes, how dare free humans align themselves with a group that
most closely matches their political ideas and ideals. How dare they indeed.

PS - better link to image, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #189
191. If they campaign against and lie about DEMs, they are my enemies.
Sure- they have a right to team up with the Republicans and the media against Democrats, but that does not mean we have to pretend that it is a healthy thing.

Greens, like the Lieberman people, are enemies as long as they join the GOP & media in attacking Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. Thank you, Dr Fate!!!
Standing right with you on this... And it's going to become more and more THE issue as elections near. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #191
194. I do not disagree
But I cannot agree that it is proper to restrict political choice in the manner I have seen called for in this thread. Yes, the Green Party is a separate party, competing for Democratic (and Repub, Libertarian, Independent and independent) votes. Rather than reducing political choice to athe current tertiary system (Democratic - Republican - unaffiliated), I would suggest a reformation of the system by which voters express their choice of candidates. But that is a conversation for another thread, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #194
198. "Proper" or not
the "reformation" you suggest is so far afield, it's not at issue.

Thus, I think it's entirely "proper" to "restrict" political choices, in discussions of practical options, to the practical possibilities we're living with here and now.

The "current tertiary system" is the CURRENT system. Nothing improper in my mind about facing that reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #189
196. It was a picture of Samuel Jackson...
...from the movie Snakes on a Plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #196
199. Oh, thank you
Now the thread header makes sense - gotcha. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
193. IBTL. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #193
197. I think if it was going to be locked...
...that would have happened yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
201. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Polemonium Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
204. Ahh the sweet Democracy of fewer choices.
290 million people, and we all have to agree to be a part of two political parties. Lucky us. Diversity is sooooo over-rated. I support and work for the Democrats because that is the system we have now, and I don't see an easy way to change it. But whinning about people who want to work for change is frankly wrong. You are starting to sound un-American. No freedom allowed unless your a democrat, no constitutional protections unless your a democrat etc etc. You are starting to sound like one of the nut jobs in the current administration, just replacing one word with another.

Proportional representation is the better way IMHO.

So old Joe Lieberman has finally come out as a Republican. I agree our party should no longer support the man, in fact Harry Ried should tear up his membership card. But people have fought and died to protect delusional Joe's right to run... as an independent rethuglican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
214. Every Dem vote changed to a Green by GOP Vote fraud means
that an angel in Heaven sheds a tear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
215. I thought I put this guy on ignore.
Edited on Thu Aug-17-06 08:31 PM by chaska
Throw us some more red meat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
216. Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
I mean, if Republicans were busting their asses to keep a particular Democrat off the ballot, wouldn't everyone here be pissed? What's the difference between that and keeping a Green off the ballot? It seems to me everyone deserves a chance to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #216
221. Not if the principle behind it is "make Democrats win". n/t
Edited on Fri Aug-18-06 01:01 AM by LoZoccolo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #221
226. The ends justify the means?
Will the same hold true the next time the Republicans jam the phone banks of a Democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #226
227. I believe that what they did was illegal.
Checking to make sure that the Greens fulfilled their own legal requirements is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulip Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
219. It's a free country
Suggesting someone be removed from running for office because of their political beliefs goes against every part of my constitutional, freedom of speech, and civl liberties back bone.

BTW I am a full blooded Democrat. Don't care for the Green Party or any other party but it's their right as an American to participate in the political process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
220. I like the idea of a viable third party, but not at the expense of losing
Democratic votes.

Maybe all the scare is really to show the Democratic Party that the Greens can be a coalition buster... and that their platforms have to been taken seriously.

For long term strategy, that is fine, but as a Democrat, I hate that a party that realistically can't win more than local offices has the power to decide state wide and national electoral outcomes. Until we become a coalition with Democrats and Social Democrats, Greens, et al. being part of the grand coalition, it only serves as a balloon burster, but that is my opinion.

I don't like the shenannigans going on in PA right now...it doesn't say much for the Party's leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
222. OK....I read the whole regurgitated thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 18th 2021, 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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