When You Vote Green

[ruggerson]

When you vote Green in Congressional House or Senate elections

You are voting to privatize social security.

You are voting for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

You are voting for the Iraq War to contine on indefinitely.

You are voting against any kind of universal healthcare.

You are voting against a woman's right to choose.

You are voting to keep the gay couple next door as second class citizens.

You are voting for corporate America at the expense of working men and women.

You are voting to keep Republicans in power indefinitely by retaining their majorities.

When you vote Green, you are abandoning your progressive brothers and sisters.

[Selatius]

1. Man, I just love the two-party system we've got.

:sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

22. me too. dumb and dumber. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. *lol*

[Nutmegger]

32. Yeah isn't it the best?

:woohoo:

[bryant69]

2. Ironic then, that in Pennsylvania

both the Republican and the Democrat agree that a woman doesn't have the right to choose (while Green is pro choice).

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

[Ravenseye]

10. and both agreed on the nominations of Alito and Roberts

[ruggerson]

12. And if Casey plus five other Democrats had been in the Senate

the Democrats would have had the majority and most likely Bush would not have nominated either man, and if he had, they would never have made it out of the Judiciary Committee.

It's all about majorities.

[Ravenseye]

14. True

Don't get me wrong, i'm voting for Casey, it's just that the list of all the differences is sort of not accurate to the candidates, especially because this whole latest anti-green thing came about because of the PA senate race.

[ruggerson]

15. The point of this OP

is solely about getting and keeping majorities in Congress.

Our system is defined by who has the majority. Something green voters seem to forget.

[Ravenseye]

17. Well I think it's not as cut and dry

Do I want the Democratic party to have a majority in both houses of congress ASAP? Yes.

Am I going to vote for a green party candidate for senate in PA which might hurt those chances? No.

Would voting for a green party congressman be bad? No. I live in a district where there isn't even a republican primary to contest the democratic congressmen. He's run unopposed for decades in the main elections. The election for my congressman is in the primary. I'd like it if there were a green party strong enough to provide a different liberal alternative here in the main election. Why? I think it woudl help keep the democrats honest and maybe help move things to the left more. Plus if Green got elected they could caucus with the Democrats anyway, so it wouldn't affect the majority numbers.

I know your point is "vote green = vote republican" but since the whole thing came up because of the greens in pa, I was just commenting that your list is innaccurate because Casey is a very moderate, if not conservative democrat and he would be more of Lieberman than a Lamont.

I get your point. I just don't agree with it in every respect.

[pinto]

76. I've become more polarized re: the Green Party. Even in a

non-contested safe election, I no longer support a "protest vote". If the Greens truly wanted to support a broad based national progressive agenda, the smartest and most effective move would to align with Democratic progressives, within the party, and elect/support candidates that best reflect those ideals. Many of them are *already sitting in Congress*, for crying out loud. Third party solely for the sake of third party is a dead end street politically, imo. Greens have an opportunity this election cycle to be a part of shaping legislation for future. I appreciate the idealism that chooses to take a pass on that, but I can't support it.

[EFerrari]

18. I wonder who these forgetful Green voters are that you're talking

about. I'd also like to know who the "stupid" "selfish" "dimwitted" and "disorganized" ones are.

The ones who run those "negative" "uncompromising" campaigns.

Because while I've been a Green since the day the Senate certified the vote in 2000, I don't think I've met any of them.

[paulk]

26. Count yourself lucky...

I've met plenty of them, but I live in Colorado, where the Green Party has very actively helped Republicans win. Think CO 7th district in 2002. They have the potential to help Marylin Musgrave (google her)win again here also, since they pulled 4% of the vote in 2004 in her district. I've known Greens who were hoping that Bush would win in 2004, because "it would make things so bad people would have to turn to the Greens". They've run a candidate against Diana DeGette in CO 1, who is one of the most progressive Democrats in the House.

There are some very real reasons for the animosity against Greens that is expressed on this board.

[EFerrari]

27. The Green Party as a whole certainly didn't adopt that position

re Bush, witness no return invitation to you know who.

And I understand the friction and the frustration -- what that candidate is doing in PA is disgusting. But the kind of invective and disrespect being tossed around here the last two days is also disgusting.

[ruggerson]

43. I totally get where you're coming from

but there is a lot of anger out there from people who give tons of money and/or work their fingers to the bone for Democrats, only to have a small segment yell that Candidate A is not "pure" enough on Issue B. And those people, in tight races, are sometimes enough to tip the balance.

I want Marilyn Musgrave gone. I want her political career ruined. And if anyone in that district votes for the Green candidate, they are doing all of us, you and me, an enormous disservice.

[EFerrari]

53. ruggerson, what district is that? I sure know the feeling, lol.

:)

[ruggerson]

56. Colorado 4th -

Btw, Musgrave is the author and originator of the federal amendment to discriminate against gays. She is one of the religious right's most important tools.

Paccione stands a real chance.

http://www.angie2006.com/

[EFerrari]

60. I went and read a bit. If Tom Delay called her one of the 10

most valuable Thugs in Congress, she's double scum!

What kind of a district is it? Older, younger, is there a college in it? Do you know anyone working on Angie's campaign? Her numbers look really good.

[ruggerson]

78. Eastern CO

has Greeley and Fort Collins and lots of rural areas. Leans Republican but is very doable for a moderate Dem. Like you said, Angie's got a real shot at it. I know a number of folks in the district - they all want desperately to get rid of Musgrave.

[EFerrari]

79. Sounds like we ALL need to get rid of her.

I hope Delay's endorsement is the kiss of death there.

CO is one of those states that election reform types look at. Who is the reform group in your area?

In CA, we're lucky right now because the fetid Cuningham's departure yeilded a funky election -- they took the machines HOME OVER NIGHT -- and DUer Landshark is leading attorney in the lawsuit challenging that piece of mendacity.

I wish you guys all the best in getting rid of that horrible person.

[Tesha]

25. Yes, a Green majority would be much better for everyone. (NT)

[MH1]

41. Casey supports family planning, Santorum does not.

Not voting for Casey = not supporting family planning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The Greens stand for all that stuff?

Funny, I heard different and I have no problem voting for Greens even though I'm a Democrat.

[ruggerson]

5. Voting Green is tantamount to voting for Republican majorities

so, yes, you're voting for everything listed.

In Congress, whomever has the maojrity sets the entire agenda.

The whole ball game is about who has the majority.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. No, I'm not.

If I vote for a candidate who is anti-choice, or pro-war, or supports the Republicans with their votes (as in the case of the Dems who voted for the war) I'm voting for those issues.

If I vote against them I voting against their stance on those issues.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” - Thomas Jefferson

[ruggerson]

9. That's right. Keep trying to convince yourself n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Thanks, but I don't need to convince myself.

But, you seemed to be convinced that voting for politicians that don't represent you allegedly stand for works.

[RDU Socialist]

50. how dare you vote your conscience!

maybe you need it made more clear

if you vote for a candidate who is against this war, against the corporate socialism running rampant in this GOP, and a candidate who believes in tougher environmental regulations, then you are voting for the neoconservative imperial agenda, increased corporate socialism, and more lax environmental regulations!

in democratic underground what you vote = opposite of what you vote, unless you vote for a democrat. if you vote for a democrat, the war, corporate handouts, and weaker environmental regulations may still continue, but it won't be to as big a degree! a little iraq war never hurt anyone, right?

let people vote how they want to, if they vote republican, THEN they are voting republican. if they vote green, they are voting green and their conscience, jesus christ this isn't cuba and we're not forced to support the "mainstream" parties.

[Ken Burch]

87. Fine, in most situations, especially battleground seats

it would clearly be better for progressives to vote Green rather than Dem.

But the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to earn the votes of those Green supporters.

Most of them were Democrats who felt that the party had abandoned them and was telling them "shut up and settle for the crumbs we give you."

If we want those voters back, we need to listen to them, tell them they'll have a real voice in the party, and embrace as much of what they stand for as we can.

Arrogance doesn't work. Acting like those people have no right to expect anything from us but owe us their votes nonetheless doesn't work.
It's time to lose the anger and the attitude.

[Protagoras]

4. Interesting in it's absoluteness

Guess the world is black and white with no alternatives. You are with us or you are with the ENEMY. And this applies to every race at every level...can't vote for a green dog catcher without becoming a complete Republican Dupe.

And since it applies to Green...guess it should apply to every other party? Doesn't matter who the democratic candidate is...Just as long as you vote for them regardless of their actions.

This is absurd.

Will Pitt made the most meaningful argument I've seen so far by discussing CONGRESS...but I see we've lost that meaningful approach.

I'm not green, I am a democrat. But not because of this list. If I were Green I'd respond with your own last line. When you vote for X you are abandoning your ACTUALLY progressive brothers and sisters. Pretty easy to turn around on we Democrats in far too many races.

We DO need to clean up our own back yard...starting with Lieberman will be a good thing. Then maybe we'll have more of an argument.

[ruggerson]

6. I am discussing Congress

The OP talks about keeping Republican majorities by voting Green.

I didn't realize that would fly right by you. I'll gladly edit it.

[Protagoras]

58. I'm wounded.

But given the articulation of the argument and the personal nature of the response I suppose I'll survive.

[Greyhound]

33. If only Lieberman were the real problem. He is certainly the most

high-profile candidate, but The Party is rife with them.

Remember, you can't spell Lieberman with lie.

[katinmn]

8. That's silly!

I hope people have learned to vote for the issues.

If a Dem upholds the Democratic Party platform they have my vote. Otherwise, I feel no obligation to support a pretender.

[Warpy]

11. When you vote Green, you also

are telling conservative Democrats that you will not accept antichoice candidates.

You are telling conservatives you will not accept procorporate candidates.

You are telling conservatives you will not accept antilabor candidates.

You are telling conservatives you will not accept pro war candidates.

You are telling conservatives you will not accept candidates who serve Israel but not the United States.

You are telling conservatives that you will not accept candidates that destroy hope for a better life, a better country, a better world.

You are telling conservatives that if they insist on running Republican lite candidates, that it will cost them at the polls.

Whether or not you agree with the above, that's the way it is for frustrated progressive voters across the country. Flame them, not me.

[LWolf]

23. Good points.

I see that DU is turning up the drums on the Green Party. It occurs to me, as I remember all the Greens who campaigned with me for a Democrat in '04, that the Greens represent a decent number of active campaigners and voters that could be brought to support a progressive Democratic candidate/campaign. I'm sure there is wisdom somewhere in drumming them out of the circle. :eyes:

[Warpy]

29. That's the real pity, you know

It wouldn't have to be a progressive candidate. It could be a true moderate, one who is fiscally conservative while not being in the pocket of one or more corporate lobbies, one who is socially libertarian without being libertine.

The party keeps picking jerks who fit the profile I listed above, though, and what is a progressive to do?

Vote for his own destruction or cast a protest? That's the quandary most find themselves in.

[LWolf]

34. You describe it well. n/t

[w4rma]

38. Or it tells them that there is nothing they can do to appease you so why

should they even try? You didn't help their opponents beat them in the Democratic Primary and Greens have fought against truely progressive candidates in many places in the country. In addition to that sometimes, as in the case of Santorum/Casey, they are primarily funded by the Republicans who have no plans to vote Green, only to nurture a spoiler party.

[EFerrari]

13. Actually, most of those things happened when I voted exclusively

for Democrats.

And this is no way to develop a progressive consensus, ruggerson.

[mainegreen]

16. I also support fundamentalism..

*the death penalty
*war
*bush
*chopping babies into pieces
*global warming
*buying hummers
*osama bin laden
*genghis khan
*canadian bacon

:sarcasm:

Your post is devoid of content so I thought I would respond in kind.

[EFerrari]

20. Canadian bacon?!

Now, that's just unAmerican. lol

[davidwparker]

21. When I vote Green, it will be for local candidates. When I vote Green

nationally, it will be if the Dem party nominates Billary and they loose.

A sure-win vote for a Green is like having the Democratic wing of the Democratic party back.

[slackmaster]

24. You forgot "God kills a kitten"

:nuke:

[High Plains]

28. ...it's because you're sick of Democrats who act like Republicans

[ikojo]

68. AMEN!!

The Democrats continue to adopt more Republican initiatives (NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform etc) because they could care less what the activists within the party think...they know that in election after election most will continue voting for the Republican with a D after their name.

Yes, there are good progressive Dems like Kucinich and McKinney but they are way marginalized by the powers that be within the party.

It's the corporatists that tend to receive full party backing and I am tired of it. I'll work hard for local progressive Dems like Jeff Smith and Jeanette Mott Oxford but if Hillary gets the nomination in 2008, I will NOT vote for her.

[omega minimo]

30. simplistic bullshit

[Greyhound]

31. What crap! I'm not a Green, nor do I vote for them, but his mantra

that you are trying to propagate is ridiculous. If the Democratic Party loses, especially in this cycle, they need look no further than the closest mirror for placing blame.

The Re:puke:s have shown their hand and the people don't want what they're selling. It is the Democrats to win or lose, it is up to them, period.

[bvar22]

35. If the Democratic Party would return to its roots,

there wouldn't be a need for the Green Party.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.


1. 65 percent (Of ALL Americans, Republican AND Democrat) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788 /

[meisje]

36. When I vote Green, please kill me!

[w4rma]

37. Also when libs don't help/vote in Democratic primaries it lets DLCers win

Democratic primaries and then these same Greens who were working in the Green Party during the primaries instead of in the Democratic primary campaigns bemoan the fact that a DLCer won the Democratic primary and wonder why Republicans are the Green Party's primary source of funding.

[ikojo]

69. In the 2004 MO Dem primary I voted for

Dennis Kucinich a Democrat. I also voted for Jeff Smith also a very progressive Democrat. Both lost to the establishment candidate (Kerry and Carnahan).

So please explain to me how I helped to elect a DLCer.

[Jim Lane]

81. You did it the right way

You didn't help elect a DLCer. I think that w4rma's criticism was directed at progressives who sit out the Democratic primaries and then complain that the winners were too conservative.

Suppose that Nader, in 2000, had sought the Democratic nomination instead of running as a Green. He probably wouldn't have won the nomination, but he would've attracted many votes from people like me who wanted to support his platform, but not at the cost of sitting out the Bush versus Gore race. Beyond that, he would have helped to build up the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. All across the country, there would be Nader campaign veterans who had become knowledgeable about the nominating process, familiar with the local party structure, and experienced in organizing to win convention delegates. The result would have been that, in 2004, progressives would have been a stronger presence and a more important voice in the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean that Kucinich would've won the nomination, but he would've done better than he did.

The process of moving the Democratic Party to the left can't be accomplished overnight. It can't be accomplished at all, though, if the people who should be supporting it decide instead to stomp off to the Green Party.

[Deja Q]

39. Recent posts by DU show Greens are puke green. Of course,

be wary of Dems who support the privatization and NAFTA crap too.

And that's the point. More people ought to look at all their candidates and make informed decisions. And there are some bad Dems out there too, let's face it. :(

[MH1]

40. ABSOLUTELY. n/t

[cynatnite]

42. The Green Party takes money from the repukes...

I used to respect that party, but no more. If they're willing to sell-out like that, what good are their principles?

[Asgaya Dihi]

44. I don't care about party, I care about policy

When you vote for the drug war you vote for fascism, when you vote for the persecution of large parts of the arab world for the "crime" of being born in Palestine you vote for fascism, and when you promote the middle class at the expense of a poor who have been ignored and imprisoned without a voice for decades now you vote for fascism. Where's all that care we heard about after Katrina? Dead and gone, right along with the political value of pretending to care. We're a "middle classed" nation they say and that's who we'll play to, screw the rest.

I don't much give a damned what party they claim to be a part of. I care if they want or will compromise for fascist policies. All this talk of right and wrong but the closer we get to the elections the more we hear "any democrat is better than any republican". I've got nothing but fascists in my local and State races, playing the conservative voter card. I haven't decided yet if I'm voting green or just not voting at all in 06, but I don't vote for fascists. Not in either party. When they want my vote and maybe millions more like me they'll change their policies.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. "I haven't decided yet if I'm voting green or just not voting at all"

Shame on you. Seriously. Shame on you.

[Asgaya Dihi]

52. No, shame on them. And us.

Blind loyalty, blind hatred, blindness in general is how we got into this mess. We can't understand how the republicans conned people into voting against their own interests but in the interest of pure partisanship we'll condemn those who will no longer do the same with our party. Shame on us.

If they want us to follow then they'd better be leading somewhere that we want to go. If they refuse to do that then either we're idiots for continuing to follow or they'll be walking alone while we go another direction as a nation. I talked with a local politician some months before the 2004 election, he'd worked rehab and knew the drug war was screwed. Admitted it then said he couldn't and wouldn't say or do a thing about it. Political suicide. He lost anyway, he should have had the courage to use the forum he had to educate people. If we won't do that then how will things change?

Either lead somewhere we want to go, or don't complain when we stop following. Shame on the followers. If you have one worthwhile in a local race then you're lucky, I wish I did. I don't and won't vote for a drug warrior or any other type of fascist no matter the party.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. You Would Benefit From This.

It's from a few months back. I think the analogy is spot on for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1260199&mesg_id=1260345

[Asgaya Dihi]

59. Been there, done that

We had control and blew it, we still haven't changed the rhetoric that lost the chance to change things last time. The media consolidation we face today was passed and pushed by Clinton, so was NAFTA, so was a lot of other things. In his eight years the rate of prison growth didn't change in the slightest. About 1/4 way down the following page check for yourself and tell me where the "good guys" were in charge. http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

For the middle class things were better, sure. They were too fast to abandon and ignore the poor though just as the Republicans abandoned the middle class for the rich. How is that really different? I'm not going to support doing the exact same thing again only to a different group, we've done that before and it didn't work out well. Some laws got tougher. Lots of those three strikes laws were passed with Democratic control and Tip Oneal lead the way after Len Bias. Good publicity, good politics, but hell on the poor and we have yet to change course. Here's a taste of that.

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/drug_wars/print.html
At the time, Eric Sterling was a legal assistant to the House judiciary committee. The House speaker, Tip O'Neal had just returned from Boston.

"We learned that the speaker, Tip O'Neal had convened the democratic leadership," says Sterling. "They decided that there would be an anti-drug bill, and it was going to have to be written in four weeks."

There was no time for expert witness testimony, the time-honored way to winnow out seemingly good ideas that can lead to bad legislation. And there was a new legal concept to deal with.

"We had not addressed at all the issue of mandatory minimum sentences before.," says Sterling. was a horrifying prospect. We knew that mistakes were going to be made, and we were operating with a lot of ignorance and a lot of emotionality."

Laws designed to cut drug supply by cutting the number of big-time dealers has failed. The punishment goes mostly to small-time offenders, a disproportionate number of them African American.

These laws have been so controversial that some federal judges now refuse to even hear drug cases. In the War on Drugs, mandatory minimums have done nothing to reduce drug demand—and the profits from supplying that demand are enormous.

When we do change course I'll be there, and as dedicated to that movement as I have been for years to this one. I won't vote against my own interests, it didn't work out well last time and they've had that chance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Well If You Hate Dems So Much Then Why Are You Here?

Just make sure when the elections come around you don't work against democrats here or push alternative candidates, since that is forbidden by the rules, thank god.

[Asgaya Dihi]

63. Hell, I don't

I've said two or three times in this exchange that if I had a decent local one I'd vote for them, that I had exchanged mail and talked with a candidate in the 04 election last time and worked with him on the issue. What part of that says hate a party? Sounds to me like it's the one I'm trying to fix.

I don't follow blind, that's all. The Republicans becoming blind followers is what did a large part of the damage we've seen and us following suit isn't going to fix things. You can't expect people to vote against their own interests, not after seeing what it did in the past. Drug war with the dem's, and economics with the repubs.

[Mr_Spock]

45. True

...and those morons who voted for Nader in Florida (2k) should be punished severly.

[ikojo]

70. As should all those Dems in Florida

who voted for Bush (I believe there were over 50k who previously voted Dem but in 2000 they voted for Bush)

[EFerrari]

73. Punish them first! lol n/t

[Mr_Spock]

74. RedRum

:argh:

[theanarch]

89. only 50K? i saw exit polls that placed it closer to 300K...

...but even if it's only 50K, that's still 50,000 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS in Florida who voted for Bush instead of Gore, and Nader gets ALL the blame? And what about W. Va? D's outregister R's by a wide margin, yet Bush won there too, and with over 50% of the vote, didn't need any help from Nader. This is not a new problem for Democrats: in 1968, George Wallace took 10M dixiecrat votes (nominal Democrats, one and all) from Humphrey, throwing the South to the GOP; yet for the past 38 years all we hear from the DP is how a few hundred thousand anti-war progressives who didn't vote "elected Nixon". The more things change...

[ronnykmarshall]

46. When you vote Green ......

God kills a kitten.

[omega minimo]

47. Maybe hating Greens and Nader is the way some folks process the fact

Maybe hating Greens and Nader is the way some folks process the fact that they let their government be hijacked (twice!) by a corporate cabal (the same forces Greens and Nader were warning against) without doing a damn thing about it. :boring: It's easier to point the finger than look in the mirror and see "LIHOP" written across your forehead.


"You are voting for corporate America at the expense of working men and women."

Are GreenHaters aware that a good portion of voters and non-voters don't support Democrats that they see as complicit with Congressional corporate influences and "no different" than Repugs?

If you harness the energy and votes of all the under-35 folks who are SO jaded about Corporate America running both "parties" like a Punch and Judy puppet show that they think it doesn't matter if they vote or not, Democrats would win "landslides" that would make black box voting a moot point.

:kick:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1801878

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Damn Right. Fuck Those Who Are Narrow-Minded Enough To Vote Green.

[BlooInBloo]

54. The Green Party: A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the GOP.

At least the GOP publically proclaims their evil. Fucking cowardly Greens.

[Pastiche423]

62. So...

You don't want the Green Party voters to vote in November?

Fine!

But when you don't get who you want, then you can no longer blame them because of your exclusion of a goodly percent of left voters.

[BlooInBloo]

66. And the lies roll on... just like the republican party who owns them...

Voting for whomever is bankrolled by the GOP is NOT "voting left".

You can keep saying otherwise if you like, but the truth is available for all to see, regardless of any further green party lies.

Have fun though! I know the republican party does.

[Pastiche423]

75. Did you even read what I typed?

What the fuck does the repuke party have to do w/you trying to exclude the Green Party from voting for Left values?

Once upon a time, I heard that the Democratic Party had a large tent. Hell, once upon a time I was a Dem in that tent - for 32 years.

But then I realized it was a lie. Time after time, I have read here that to be a true Dem, I had to vote for anyone w/a D after their name. Din't matter if they were pro-war, anti-choice, pro-corporations, anti-environmentalists, DLC ........ nope, it din't matter as long as that D came after their name.

The air in that tent began to reek. I became claustrophobic. But I held out until the primary of 04. It was then that I finally got it - I could not vote for a non-DLCer in my state's primary. I HAD NO VOTE IN MY STATE'S PRIMARY!

So, I wheeled out of that tent. I still vote for those values and issues that are dear to my Liberal heart. But I will never, ever vote for someone just because they have a D after their name.

And believe me, I am not alone.

[mod mom]

86. You need to look into some of the corporate contributions accepted by

Dems. Sheesh...have you been living with a bag over your head?

[mod mom]

84. Those "cowards" were the ones who fought for Dem base voter's votes to be

counted in Ohio in '04, when the Dem party retreated.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Yep. That's why I always vote Democrat, while simultaneously working

to get my party to stand up across the board for certain extremely sensible ideas (eg: Greens- a SPHC system. Libertarians- an end to the drug war) that I think would make us far more attractive electorally.

[GAPeace]

64. "If you're not with us, you're with the Republicans"

I wouldn't reccomend voting Green on large-scale races at this point in history (but enthusiastically reccomend them for local positions and I DO support Michael Berg in Delaware), but at some point third parties have to come in. The Democrats have cozied up too well to business interests.

That's what Democracy is all about. Choice and freedom and plurality of ideas. We don't have that, and we shouldn't abandon that dream.

[EFerrari]

72. Michael will be in my area this week end! I'm going to try to

go see him. I admire him more than I can say.

[mod mom]

85. That mantra sounds vaguely familiar

:sarcasm:

[DainBramaged]

65. Hear hear

Clinton's dick never killed anyone. Bush trying to prove he has one has killed tens of thousands.

When you vote green you vote for Bush's dick.

[mdmc]

67. lol

even in NYS? :eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. Word.

[MoseyWalker]

77. when you vote Green

you are voting your consience.

I've been known to do it, though primarily vote Dem.

A vote is supposed to be a person's method for showing who he supports, and what programs he supports.

I don't take it much farther than that, and don't listen to the arguments about hurting this or that candidate (though if Gore was currently president, I would travel to DC and kiss the feet of every one of his supporters - yes, I voted for Gore. And Kerry).

I tend to admire people who vote their beliefs rather than vote based on what others tell them, whether that is that a candidate is "unelectable" or whether their vote would hurt the candidate others mostly support.

Then again, that's just me, and

Damb, I'm dumb (my new mantra)

edit to get rid of a t. If I forgot to dot any I's, sorry.

[MrBenchley]

80. Great post...and right on the money

[mod mom]

82. The Greens in Ohio are the ones who raised the $ for the '04 recount and

fought for the disenfranchised Ohio voters, who although promised by Kerry/Edwards that this time every vote would be counted where quickly forgotten by their party.

The Dems should be working to join forces with Greens who share most progressive values, instead of alienating them from voting. The Greens did not lose elections for the Dems:

1. When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.

2. For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election? Where were the Dems fighting for their base voters in Ohio, NM and elsewhere in 2004? Where is the push for free voter IDs for low income, elderly and college students.

3. Every voter must use their own conscience to cast a vote-no party owns a vote. The Dem party should be reaching out to Greens who are Anti-WAR, ANTI ELECTION FRAUD, PRO ENVIRONMENT, PRO SOCIAL JUSTICE. PRO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, PRO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, PRO LOCAL ECONOMIES and LIVABLE WAGES, PRO UNIONS ETC. They are not the villians.

4. If you really want to look at where dirty money is being funneled, try looking into where big corporation influence is, besides the GOP. This is the enemy, NOT THE GREENS!

[mmonk]

83. I voted democratic and got that.

So how does one establish the point that voting democratic will change that?

[hfojvt]

88. not necessarily, but generally that is correct

However in some races, in the Kansas Senate race in 2000 and in a few congressional districts (unless Dean has been successful in stopping it) there is no Democrat on the ballot. Yes, Pat Roberts of Kansas basically ran unopposed in 2002 with only libertarians and other far right minor candidates running against him. If Nader had entered that race on the Green ticket I would have gladly voted for him as would another 150-200,000 Kansas Democrats.

[deutsey]

90. You naively believe America is a genuine democracy, when, in fact, it's

a two-party oligarchy.