All of the dem viewpoints that I disagree with are actually GOP

[mdmc]

positions that the dem party have also taken up as their own!.

Death penalty, drug war, preemptive war of choice, bankruptcy reform, free trade, "illegal" immigration, lack of free health care and education.

These are all the policies of the dem party that I oppose. They are also the policies of the GOP.

I think that the fear of the Green party, and of Ralph Nader, stems from the knowledge that the Greens have a very clear stance in opposition to the neo-cons, while the dem's positions are muddled, at best. Al From (dlc) does not believe that Nader caused Gore to lose in 2000 (in fact, Gore does better with Nader in the race). How many here disagree with him?

There are many great dems, and there are even some great dems in the US Senate. However, they share power with rat worm DINO dems and the GOP. It makes it hard to deliver a true progressive vision for America.

God Bless the Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Kennedy family, and Russ Feingold. These are my guys!

[skipos]

1. All I know is most Nader 2000 voters bailed out on him in 2004

And I think they did the right thing.

[sweetheart]

2. K & Rock!

agree totally, totally, brilliantly and obviously pointed out, eloquently.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

3. good observation

everybody is in on it together.
both parties + corporation + government + media

We the people need to gang up on these hoodlums

[Minnesota Libra]

4. I agree with most everything you said except the...............

....Nader issue. He did screw it up for Al Gore in 2000 AND Nader also accepted contributions from the GOP. That's not a theory that's an admitted fact by Nader himself. So if any DLC bashing deserves to be done then Nader by all rights deserves a little bashing himself.

In fact a candidate who recently ran for House of Rep ran under the Green Party banner. I told the person that because of the Green Party's association with Nader it pretty much did it and so they wouldn't be able to count on my vote. The person told me, "Nader is no longer associated with our party and we have signed a statement saying we do not want him in our party ever again." Ok, bash away!!

[Warpy]

8. Well, first and foremost, Gore won Florida

which a full state recount which Jebbie refused to authorize showed when the consortium of newspapers did it.

Second, the Greens weren't the only splinter party on the ballot. The Socialists could have made the difference just as much as Greens did, or the Libertarians, or the Natural Law Party. The ballot was long and complicated and the Greens were not the villains. Besides, had Gore campaigned as a Democrat instead of as an Eisenhower Repug, those Green votes would have been cut in half. The other half were pubbies protesting Stupid.

Third, your vote is your own, as are the votes of Green Party voters. You don't control them, you don't own them, you can't order them around. The most you can do is persuade them, something DLC Democrats and their campaign handlers don't have a chance in hell of doing.

If you are disgusted with votes that went Green, ask yourself why they did and then try to figure out how to woo them back. Any other point of view on the subject is hypocritical and self defeating.

And for the record, I held my nose and voted for Gore.

[Cassius23]

10. The only problem I see...

is that there is a fundamental gap between what the Greens want and what the people paying for the campaign want. Many Greens want alternative fuel sources, corporate interests loose money when we use less expensive energy and less of it. A good number of Greens want legalization of hemp, if only from an industrial PoV. However, because of the very low production cycle of hemp(you can get one hemp crop a year as opposed to one tree crop every seven years or so) corporations loose money, which is not acceptable.

I'm not sure how to get around this one, honestly.

[dad]

11. Well stated

I was looking to holding my nose and voting for Gore after Al basically ran as an anti-Clinton lite Republican. But once Gore picked Lieberman as VP, I said there's no fucking way he gets my vote. After making such a disastrous choice on his first important decision, no way. I went with Nader in 2000.

[Minnesota Libra]

14. Warpy, I'm just trying to point out the hypocrasy between.........

....what "Greens" claim they want and what they do in bellying up to the opposition for their political contributions. No one, but no one, but no one is perfect and that especially goes for ALL political parties. In admitting that no political party is perfect by a long shot I'd still prefer that my political party at least try for some common ground between what they claim they want and what they do.

As for the statement of, "The Socialists could have made the difference just as much as Greens did, or the Libertarians, or the Natural Law Party. The ballot was long and complicated and the Greens were not the villains." With all due respect, that is just a bunch of bull in the hopes of passing the buck for what we now know really happened. I'll concede one point though; at least you're willing to stand by your man no matter what. That sounds vaguely familiar to what has been going on until just recently on the other side of the isle. I, on the other hand, wouldn't hesitate to leave a party who took contributions from the neocons/fundies.

[Boojatta]

29. Would you be happier if that money went to the Republican Party?

I, on the other hand, wouldn't hesitate to leave a party who took contributions from the neocons/fundies.

[mdmc]

35. Former Assemblyman Jake Gunther once said

"They are an evil group of people. They sell death. They should be ashamed of the way they try to buy influence." He was talking about the tobacco industry. He had recently accepted money from them. He said, "I'll take their cash, but I would never support a single thing that they are after."

Nader took money, and told the neo-cons that they were full of shit. When dems take neo-con money, they seem to end up... supporting the neo-cons.

[Warpy]

30. What HAPPENED is that an incomplete count that showed

Stupid as winning was set in stone by the USSC and K. Harris. The margin was so slim that any of the splinter parties on that ballot could have swung it the other way. There is no hypocrIsy.

Again, blaming Greens is silly. Their votes are their own, as is yours. Your only recourse is to persuade them to vote Dem, and the only way to do that is for the Dems to co opt some of their platform, as has been done before with successful third parties.

You still don't get to control anyone's vote but your own.

[Bitter Cup]

16. I voted for Gore as well

and while I take serious issue with Nader saying that there was NO difference between him and Bush, I don't blame the greens for Gore's loss.

Any number of things accounted for Gore not being sworn in as president. HE WON. Florida was stolen. The Recount was a joke, and Gore quit the fight.

But he's a new man now and I hope he gives it another shot with his refound gumption.

[mdmc]

25. I use this standard response for most Nader blame.

This is from another DU'er, and I think it is very good. Please excuse the tone, as it was pasted from another, most contensous, discussion. (notice what DLC'er Al From said?) :)

As posted by DU'er madhound
Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte ... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. What the fuck are you talking about?

Since when did those become "Dem policies"? When a couple of Democrats voted for it? Get a fucking grip!

[mdmc]

6. which policies did dems not vote for?

death penalty
drug war
preemptive war with Iraq
bankruptcy reform
nafta / cafta free trade (instead of fair trade)

Outside of the dems that I mention (progressive & black caucus, Kennedy and Feingold), what Dems oppose these policies?

What dems stand for universal health care and free education for all?

These are the policies that I oppose. They all are law with the blessing of some dems.

Please show me where the Dem party opposed the policies that I opposed in the OP. PLEASE! (and watch your language).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. When exactly did "some" Dems turn into our whole party's policy?

You're completely off the deep end. There's no nice way to say that.

[Cassius23]

9. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here...

as someone who follows the drug policies, as a rule the Democratic Party pursues the drug war with great vigor, even more so than Republicans in some cases(please refer to the increases in budget for the DEA during the Clinton administration as well as the great resistance to the legalization movement also during his administration). The bankruptcy laws in question were voted in by most Democrats and also very few Democrats were against the war in Iraq until it became popular to do so.

It is true what you say, Vash, that a few people do not a policy make, but this does not seem to be a minority view.

Therefore the OP's question still stands as far as I see.

[mdmc]

12. look at the dem party platform

death penalty
drug war
iraq
free trade
The dem platform supported all of these gop proposals (sure the progressive & black caucus' might oppose them)

where is universal health care? Where is free education?

What is the dem platform? I know that in the national elections of 2000 and 2004, these were all positions of the party.

[mdmc]

17. what is the party policy on the drug war Vash?

I think that the GOP supports the drug war. The Greens oppose the drug war.

What is the Dem party position?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Be a green then.

Have fun.

[mdmc]

19. How do the Black and Progressive Caucus feel regarding the

drug war? Should they be Greens also?

What really suck is that almost all elected Dems, in private, hate the drug war. Most, in private, support legalization. Unfortunately, some "poll" somewhere, told them to "avoid" addressing this issue.

I would rather have a Dem party that I could believe in. I don't want to join the Greens. I want my own party to be a great party. I hate the fact that we have become gop-lite. The Dems are GOP-lite, and I want that to stop. It is a noble goal.

[jsamuel]

24. you say that now, but then hate everyone who votes green during the electi

ons

[mdmc]

20. What is the party's position on the death penalty, Vash?

The GOP supports the death penalty. The Greens oppose it. Where are the Dems nationally on this issue?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. You're doing a good job proving your lunacy.

Keep going. Ask me about every issue. Have fun with that! :hi:

[mdmc]

22. Why is progressive ideology lunacy?

Do you think that I am wrong about the Dem party, or do you think that the Dem party is better off operating in tri-angulation? My premise was that all the "problems" that I have with the Dem party are positions that progressives (the black and progressive caucus) do not hold in common.

You seem to think that either the Dem party does not believe in the things that I oppose or that we (Democrats) are better off without progressive positions. Help me understand.
:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. My problem is you're extrapolating a few votes...

votes, that I might add, many of those by Democrats whom had absolutely no choice on due to their constituencies, are equivalent to being the whole party. And your "logic" and "rhetoric" (to use the words loosely) doesn't render itself to a sane person.

[mdmc]

26. Conclusion

The Dems only take gop-lite positions in order to get elected (they take positions that are popular with their constituencies). I can accept that.

When there is a national race (in 2000 and 2004), the dems took these policies (drug war and death penalty) as their own. These positions were part of the national party platform, were they not? When the national party runs a pro death penalty and pro drug war national platform, doesn't that suggest that those are the positions of the party.

If I am wrong, please post what you think the Dem policy positions are for the issues that I stated in the OP. I know what the polices of the Green party and the GOP are. I thought I knew where the Dems are on these positions. If I am wrong, please post what (you think) the DEM party positions are on these issues.

It sounds like they take electability uber alles - not necessarily a bad thing. I just don't like where it leaves the party (opposing war with Iraq = not popular = not a Dem party position = gop-lite).

[JetCityLiberal]

44. As are you Vash

proving your obstinate lunacy....once more.

It's not that you won't answer any of the questions, you can't. Nothing new.

[KaptBunnyPants]

28. Cafta and bankruptcy reform were not supported by the vast majority

of representatives.

Cafta passed the house with 15 votes from Democrats, and 187 votes against it by Democrats.
In the senate it got 10 out of 44 Democrats to support it. The bankrupcy reform bill did similarly badly amoung Democrats. Could use a bit more leadership on all those other issues, though. Sure would be nice to see the swords beaten into plowshares, so to speak, in Iraq and our own little forgotten raging out of control drug war.

[eridani]

40. 2/3 of Dems voted AGAINST those things

Except for NAFTA, but they changed their minds and mostly voted the right way on CAFTA.

[mdmc]

33. What is the Dem party policy of trade, Vash?

I know where the GOP stands (for free trade) and I know where the Greens stand (for fair trade). What is the Dem party posistion on trade?

[dysfunctional press]

13. Clinton was a DINO, too-

nafta
wto
welfare reform
telecomunications act
defense of marriage act

for starters...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Vote issues. Party is irrelevant.

There are issues and issues. I don't give a rip if some pandering Dem votes to put an imbecile like Reagan's mug on a dime. I do care if some politician votes for a war that will kill thousands, cost billions, and disrupt world peace. I do care if some pandering politician decides to win votes by giving up a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. There are lines.

The Dems have for too long been the "not as bad as the Republican" party and used the threat of Republican dominance to keep the voters on the left in line. In the meantime, they have adopted Republican issues as they're own to win the "center" while abandoning the left.

I'll be voting issues in 2006 and beyond.

[Uncle Joe]

27. I do not blame the Greens for Al's loss in 2000,

I blame the MSM. Al was punished by them for empowering us, when he championed the internet. They wanted to keep their monopoly and remain the sole gate keepers to the truth and the internet threatened this. Al Gore was and is the most visible symbol and primary champion of the internet. The closest analogy would be the mythological Greek hero Prometheus, however instead of feasting on liver the MSM vulture feasted on his credibility with slander, obfuscation or just the ignoring of his words. Had it not been for the MSM's obvious bias in trashing Al and camouflaging Bush's mistakes, lies and general incompetence, Al would have dominated the electoral map to such a degree as to make it impossible for the neocons to steal.

[MrBenchley]

31. Who is afraid of the Green Party?

Those asswipes are as welcome to voters as an onion fart.

[mdmc]

32. I say let them build their party, and we will build ours

and we can respectfully co-exist and represent the left. When we have a good leftie running, they can support us. When we have no chance of winning (or losing), we can support the Greens.
:toast:

[MrBenchley]

43. I say fuck them and the horse they rode in on

You'll noticve they're not over at Green Underground....they're here running down Democrats.

[mdmc]

47. can't we all get along? I think that we would be better for it

:patriot:

[MH1]

34. Death Penalty was taken out of the Dem platform in 2004 - thank Kerry

Someone pointed my to a great article about that recently, so it comes to mind.

I am less sure about the others. I know MANY Dems don't support "bankruptcy reform" or so-called "free trade". Many were snookered on NAFTA because the idea was to share jobs with Mexico - a theory that's too long to go into here, I felt it was valid at the time, but history proved me wrong along with many Dems who supported it and now know better.

Kerry, for example, has been working to expand access to health care for pretty much his entire career (S-CHIP was based on a prior bill that he wrote), and many other Dems have supported him. This is a perfect demonstration of the real meaning of "progressive" - incremental change in the desired direction; as opposed to "radical" change which is rapid major change and causes societal upheaval. I'm not passing judgement on whether sometimes radical change might be better than progressive - but let's be clear on the meaning of the terms.

So, my point is, I think you are mistaken when you say "These are all the policies of the dem party...", because many of the items you list are NOT policies of the Dem Party...they are policies of certain members of the Dem Party, not the Party itself.

[mdmc]

36. thanks you mh1 for this info

:patriot:

[MH1]

37. You're welcome!

Heh, I only now read some of the earlier replies. Not sure why I didn't read them before, but I'm glad I didn't read them before composing my own reply.

;-)

[mdmc]

39. yeah

:shrug:

I am very glad that we ran a true liberal in 2004.

[Jim Warren]

38. I said during the '92 campaign

After Rayguns 12 year reign, the center had moved so far right, the real left had been pushed off the scale.

Dennis Kucinich was the only real Democrat running in the last election.

[mdmc]

41. no we had kucinich, braun, and sharpton

and dean was close enough to pretend. Kerry was a good old liberal too...

[mdmc]

42. i supported brown in 92

for the record

[JetCityLiberal]

45. Great post

I agree with you. Not one bit surprised at the disagreement you are getting either.

You nailed it. :thumbsup:

[mdmc]

46. thank you jetcityliberal!

:hi: