Since it's "hate the Greens night" -might be worth a look at what the derision's directed at

[depakid]

10 KEY VALUES

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY

Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect his or her life and should not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM

Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE

It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION

Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY BASED ECONOMICS

Redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. Develop new economic activities and institutions that will allow us to use our new technologies in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological and accountable, and responsive to communities. Establish some form of basic economic security, open to all. Move beyond the narrow "job ethic" to new definitions of "work," jobs" and "income" that reflect the changing economy. Restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens, community volunteer work, etc. Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY

We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY

We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY

We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.
Make the quality of life, rather than open-ended economic growth, the focus of future thinking.

The entire platform, along with policy prescriptions is here: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/

[Desertrose]

1. Sounds about right to me...the platform, not the hating.

Green is alright with me.

:hippie:

Always has been.

[FarLeftFist]

192. Sounds almost like my favorite Anarchist organization:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

[Oregone]

2. They sound like a bunch of fuckn vampires

Seriously. Was twilight about the Nader clan in Washington?

I need to take a shower after reading that. I, for one, will never insult spinelessness again

[Ken Burch]

26. OMG...Ralph is EDWARD!

And Matt Gonzalez is Jacob!

(Does that make Cynthia McKinney Bella?)

[QC]

3. That's not very sensible at all! n/t

[flvegan]

4. Clueless apologists swarm in 3...2...1...

LEAVE THE DLC ALOOOOOONE!!!!

[quinnox]

5. K&R, and honestly they are looking better every day

I am getting more and more disgusted as a big 'D' democrat by this administration and those in Congress who seem to be weak, ineffectual and helpless.

[scheming daemons]

10. psst... the Greens don't advocate for turning homeless people into indentured servants

You might want to rethink.

[quinnox]

15. neither do I

That blatantly wrong interpretation of my thread was put forth by someone else, NOT me.

[depakid]

64. "You might want to rethink."

From the policy platform:

1. We support the irreducible right of the working people in a company, without hindrance, to form a union and to bargain collectively with their employer. This right was guaranteed under The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1936.

Furthermore, we support the right of workers, without penalty, to inform other workers on the premises of a union being formed. This includes advertising and recruiting.

The 1936 Act has been eroded and diluted over the years by incremental infringements and restrictions, especially by the Taft- Hartley Act of 1947 (which includes the union shop) passed over President Truman's veto. We stand for repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

2. It is imperative that employees in a company or business enjoy workplace democracy, which includes the following:

The right to elect representatives to sit equally with management on the Board of Directors.

The right to fair and democratic elections of their own union officers.

No permanent replacement of striking workers.

No forced overtime.

Encourage flexible working schedules so employees can arrange our own time to deal with personal and family concerns

All workers, temporary or permanent, must be paid a living wage.

All workers must have health care coverage, at least half paid by employer, until the passage of universal health care.

All workers must have unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and access to a jobs search program when they are unemployed. This security applies to farm workers as well.

Require minimum pensions for all workers, fully vested and portable, that do not reduce social security benefits

Mediation must be the first available solution to labor - management disputes with an agreed-upon time limit.

New union members must have the right to submit a first contract to binding arbitration at the request of the union.

Labor has the first right to buy out a company that is for sale or is going bankrupt, or being outsourced to another state or another country.

We support a law requiring employers who purchase or merge with other companies to honor all existing collective bargaining agreements and contracts.

Labor has the right to stock ownership and oversight of the investment of its own funds in the company where it works.

3. We support the enactment of living wage laws that apply to all workers. A major consequence of this law will be the lessening of the ever-widening gap between CEOs' income and workers' pay.

4. Agricultural and other excluded workers must be covered by federal labor laws, except where existing state laws offer more protection.

5. We encourage cooperative ownership and management of enterprises whenever a buy-out is possible.

6. We support day-care service offered at every workplace when feasible, or reasonably near-by when not feasible at the workplace.

7. Management's unhindered right to close its workplace and move to a lower-pay locale must be circumscribed to the degree that it protects the local workforce and their job security.

8. We support the establishment of a reduced-hour work week and at least one month of vacation per year for all workers.

9. The ever-widening gap between rich and poor is destructive of democracy and creates an uneven playing field for economic opportunity. Public welfare that depends on hand-outs from the corporate rich reduces democracy by that same amount. Every citizen must have the leverage necessary to become a productive member of the economy and the society in which we live.

10. All workers have a right to a safe and humane working environment. A lack of adequate enforcement of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) laws and/or insufficient standards put many workers at risk.

We support the following safety policies:

Protect and enforce OSHA laws. We insist on adequate testing of equipment and funding of enforcement procedures.

Inform workers of workplace hazards. Employers have a responsibility to protect workers from those hazards.

Legislate full funding for worker safety programs at both the state and federal levels.

Insist on agricultural practices that don't endanger farm workers. Put agricultural practices under the jurisdiction of OSHA.

11. We stand firmly opposed to privatization and contracting-out of public services. A government that works for us would provide critical goods and services that should not be run for profit.

It's usually wise to read about things before making attributions- because sometimes, what you've been reinforced to think- isn't really how it is .

[rucky]

6. Those things really piss me off!

Especially the Respect For Diversity part.

[City of Mills]

7. Sounds good.

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. But..but..those things aren't "sensible". K&R

[scheming daemons]

9. Don't hate the Greens.... they're just unelectable in this country

They simply are not something that can be taken seriously, politically, in this country.


The Libertarian party gets as many votes as the Greens.

[tomp]

31. would you vote for one? nt

[scheming daemons]

32. only if the Democrat in the race were unacceptable. n/t

[tomp]

35. under what hypothetical conditions would a dem not be acceptable? nt

[Bandit]

68. If Zell Miller or Ben Nelson were on the ticket

:shrug:

[tomp]

75. so a candidate would have to be an obviously a republican....

...flagrantly opposing the dems from within the party before you would vote green?

[bvar22]

102. or Blanche Lincoln?

because that what I'm looking at.

[scheming daemons]

69. In my state... Arlen Specter would be a good example... nt

[tomp]

74. good enough for obama, but not for you.

and easy to say when he's not running against a "republican".

[a la izquierda]

204. Well, the Democrat running for OK governor...

is not acceptable. Period. She's anti-choice.
But I guess I have to vote for her, since the alternative is idiot Mary Fallin. Add that to the fact that my Representative is a Repuke running unopposed, and I'm disenfranchised as a woman no matter how you slice it.

Yeah, one issue vote and all that...

[tomp]

216. exactly my point....

....if you vote for her, she's "acceptable." the question really should be: when would you not vote for a democrat?

[a la izquierda]

218. i might not actually vote for her. that probably makes me...

a bad Democrat, but i am really tired of compromising my beliefs. i voted for the pro-gun, pro-death penalty Edmonson in the primaries, and i'm not a death penalty supporter (i don't care about guns one way or the other). that was not a compromise in beliefs that i felt strongly about. i do not care for anti-choicers and homophobes.
at any rate, the idiot Fallin is polling ahead. i haven't made a decision yet. but i am uncomfortable voting for anyone, let alone a woman, who is anti-choice.

[tomp]

231. good for you! i like that kind of "bad" democrat!

i will always vote my conscience in the future.

what i've been trying to ferret out here is where people's breaking point is. when, exactly, would a democrat not be acceptable, i.e., how far can a democrat move to the right before any particular democrat will abandon them. for many people here, i think that time is never.

[relayerbob]

130. Would, and have

[SPedigrees]

46. +1 nt

[treestar]

96. +1000

The Greens have an uphill battle to appeal to more voters. They don't seem to be doing much of a job of it, or they'd get significant numbers of votes. Their leadership must be weak enough to make calling Obama weak a hilarious joke.

[LooseWilly]

121. The blinders of those who have internalized the TWO PARTY MANTRA is a tough hurdle

especially when most of those elected by the two-party-theism feel so free in many states to pass legislation that makes it even harder to get on the ballot or get public campaign funding if one is not of the two-parties.

Of course, the myth is that one of the two parties will always absorb the values/policy positions of nascent third parties that begin to attract public attention, and that's why no third party ever appears. Except, of course, for the Republicans... which appeared in the mid 19th century from the ashes of the Whig party. With the Hallowed-Two-Parties of this age both moving away from the growingly popular Green platforms... something interesting could happen.

Keep your eyes and ears peeled.

In the meantime, enjoy your hilarities.

[treestar]

152. Name one Green leader we've all heard of

As I said, they have a long way to go. No one says they can't become national; the parties have changed over time. But so far, they're not getting very far.

[Skidmore]

205. Actually, name one Green candidate.

The only one I can think of is Nader.

[LooseWilly]

229. Matt Gonzalez was on the ticket with Nader in 2000

He narrowly lost the SF mayor's race to Gavin Newsome... whenever it was.

Here's all the information that eludes me...

[demodonkey]

241. David Cobb, Presidential Candidate 2004 -- see my post #240. nt

[LooseWilly]

228. You haven't heard of Nader?

Granted others, like Matt Gonzalez, don't have a lot of name recognition... but when they aren't allowed in front of a camera at a tv debate... ask yourself whether you live in a Democracy or not.

[Jackpine Radical]

178. In the past, while I have always liked the Green platform,

I have always done the sensible thing--voted for the lesser of two evils.

Furthermore, I have reasonable Democratic candidates to vote for: Feingold, for one, so it's not an issue in 2010 for me.

But dammit, I am being sorely tested on the Presidential front. The anti-union, anti-education, pro-corporate, botched-healthcare, Social Security-raiding, imperial, warmongering trends I see at large in the country make me really wonder what I will be doing in 2012.

[Lorien]

118. Says who? Fox News?

Many people I know vote for Greens, and Greens are a real force internationally. It's only limited imaginations and a slavish adherence to MSM opinion that dictate the current road to ruin.

[liberation]

128. Argumentums ad numerum and antiquitatem always end up with the ultimate logical conclusion:

That we should all eat shit, after all trillions of insects doing so for eons could not possibly be wrong ;-)

[Skittles]

144. uh huh

they said that about Dennis, and look what we got

[Lucian]

233. They can get enough votes if we Liberals vote for them.

Just sayin'.

[AnArmyVeteran]

11. If the democratic party was smart they would adopt many of these great platforms.

Notice how nothing in the Green Party platform suggests giving our country over to corporations? You might want to reflect on that.

[phasma ex machina]

12. K&R Color me green. nt

[patrice]

13. The worst thing about Greens is that they can't organize their way out of a wet tissue paper bag

[The Green Manalishi]

99. Just like the Libertarians,

Trying to get Libertarians, or Greens to organize well enough to actually impact elections is a daunting task. Lots of good people in each, (and Peace and Freedom, too) - yes I know a lot of Libertarians that trend 'left' rather than right- but an election on any scale above city council requires serious compromise with practicality in the United States.

I really wish we had a parliamentary system with 10,20 or 30 parties. Yeah, given the choice between a (D) and an (R) I'll go for the (D), or I wouldn't be here, but.....

[patrice]

101. Instant Run-Off would help wouldn't it. I know a lot of Greens. Love 'em!! But they make me crazy,

so I don't go around them anymore.

I think the difference between us is their relative satisfaction with the possibility that the whole thing called America very well could crash and burn and that's okay with them, because it's an opportunity to establish somekind of power-base. The fact that they are okay about that possibility makes them quite goal-less and disorganized when it comes to getting work done. They don't mind preaching to the choir ALL OF THE TIME, because that keeps the choir together and they think all they have to do is wait for their chance.

I disagree with these assumptions strongly, aside from the hurts that political cataclysm will produce, when what comes that they think is coming, they're more likely than the rest of us to get rubbed out .. . .

AND I'm so busy that I simply can't stand their narcissistic self-absorbed wandering meetings!!!

[Starry Messenger]

14. An education platform for CA gov.

Guess which party? I won't name names, since that is against the rules...





Education – Key Themes

* For decades, California was acclaimed for having the best school systems in the country
* Since the passage of Prop 13, the State has sunk to the lowest fifth of all states in key measures of educational achievement
* There are solutions - we can rebuild the quality of our school systems so that once again California can be a world-class engine of personal opportunity and business excellence.

Background

California can provide and maintain quality public education, creating the best conditions for teaching and learning, controlled by the community it serves. Our educational resources should not be provided by the strings-attached "charity" of foundations and corporations, who have no long-term loyalties or commitments, but should be fully funded, by making those individuals and businesses that have already greatly benefited from an educated populace in California pay their fair share.

There is a profound crisis in our State's public education system that has resulted from the long-term under-funding of this vital social institution. It should be unacceptable to all of us that California ranks 47th in K-12 per pupil spending and 45th in the nation in spending for community colleges per-pupil. It should be unacceptable to us all, as Californians, that the percentage of high school graduates going on to college had declined from 66% in 1996 to 44% by 2004 (ranking us 46th in the U.S.).

This dismal legacy of bi-partisan failure has resulted from 3 decades of Prop 13 thinking that put a higher priority on low taxes and high real estate values than on the educational opportunities and employability of our children and citizens. Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger and the Democratic Assembly cut over $9 billion from K-12 on top of an earlier $11.6 billion reduction, leading to layoffs of thousands of teachers. In addition, there were over $2.5 billion in other cuts to higher education, which significantly limit access to higher education for those who would benefit the most.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, "To repair the damage of centuries of denial and oppression means appropriations to create jobs, job training ... and equal education.” He warned us against "limited reforms... at bargain rates for the power structure.” As Governor, Laura Wells will help restore the priorities we need to rebuild a world-class education system.
What We Propose

Parents and students already know that there have been great problems in schools, especially in economically under-supported urban and rural areas. On average, new teachers in urban schools now remain less than 5 years. Such turnover is disastrous for any stable school and community environment. It results from the Peace Corps-like approach of many intern programs, and is fueled by the difficult and deteriorating conditions in the classrooms and the neighborhoods where families have lost jobs and homes. So we must have a positive program that defends and improves the circumstances of teachers, educational staff, students, and parents.
What our children need:

* Class-size reduction, to reverse the tread toward larger and larger classes, aiming at a ratio of 1:15 in K-12 so that drop-out rates will reduce;
* Improvement of teaching conditions with adequate time to plan, collaborate and meet with other staff, students and parents;
* Qualified teachers and instructional aides as well as intervention personnel to keep schools safe;
* Material resources, not only in terms of books, class materials and technology but clean and healthy facilities as well;
* Programs that meet the specific needs of students, whether in special education, ESL, or AP, as well as strong physical education, arts, school-to-career programs, and libraries;
* Relevant instruction, not only in study skills and college-preparation, but in cultural diversity, racial and gender issues and citizen activism/participation for a cooperative and peace-oriented society;
* Expansion of early childhood programs, which have a direct correlation to later educational success, and adult education classes, which help with literacy, family skills, and life-long learning;
* Increasing the community college programs and their full-time teaching positions and restoring the enrollment and classes cut at the California State Universities;
* Electives and enrichment programs as well as support services in schools (nurses, counselors, librarians, etc), which often keep students engaged and in school;
* Affordable higher education, with scholarships - not loans - for deserving students.

What We Will Oppose

* One-size-fits all scripted curriculum programs and testing that dominates the learning process at the expense of developing the whole person;
* Expansion of corporate charter schools, which are run with a profit incentives that drain needed funds away from students into the personal enrichment of others, and which in many cases are run by corporate-backed groupings that have no local roots or loyalties;
* State legislation (especially the current SBX5, linked Federal "Race to the Top" monies) which would link teacher assessment (and merit pay) to student test scores, and allow closing of schools, especially in urban areas, reorganizing them as charters;
* Fee hikes and downsizing in the California State University system and the increasing influence of corporate priorities in the University of California system, which combine higher fees with layoffs of staff.

[LooseWilly]

122. Investing resources in education for the general population? What madness is this??

erhmm... sold. :)

[laughingliberal]

136. Madness, indeed!

Get a grip, man! There's profits being missed!

[Dr.Phool]

16. Why, you dirty commie, you.

I have a mind to rush right out and vote for somebody whose policies I don't like, just to thwart you pinkos.

[Forkboy]

17. This will probably get locked as advocating a third parrty...

...even though anyone with a brain can see this is where the Dems need to be platform wise. But, we can't have anyone making more sense than us!

[depakid]

29. Not meant as advocacy at all- any more than posting the Republican party platform is

which people do from time to time (though usually the values and policies garner the opposite reaction).

The only Green candidacy I'd in any way advocate here (or ever advocated here) is in and for my new home, where Greens hold -and look to increase their numbers in the Australian Senate in the upcoming election on August 21. Note that we have preferential voting (IRV) an that Labor (left wing Dems, essentially) will be receiving second billing in an agreement (or...alliance) between the tow parties

Interesting thing about the party is that it's international. All Green parties around the world hold the same set of core values. As far as I know, it's the only party (including communists) that's international in this respect.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Now if they could actually elect a national politician... n/t

Richard Carroll of Arkansas, their only statewide office holder became a Democrat and lost in the primary.

But it takes a lot of time to create a national party.

[hfojvt]

22. they already did that

His name is George W. Bush

[Ozymanithrax]

24. Bush a Green....gruesomely funny... n/t

[hfojvt]

41. no, he's not a Green

he's a national politician that the Greens elected.

[Raineyb]

66. No he didn't but apparently it suits your agenda to keep that lie going

and yes I did say lie. Anyone who says that the Green party got Bush elected is either ignorant of history or is a fucking liar.

[newspeak]

85. yeah, it's getting tiresome

some refuse to see how many registered Democrats voted for Little Boots. It's always, but, but, if the greens weren't on the ballot, Little Boots couldn't have stolen it. Or how about those "jews for Buchanan?" Nope, it's always the Green Party's fault--it's how both sides keeps a third party from gaining a firm grasp in the political arena. However, I'd like to see the democratic party embrace some of these ideals.

[hfojvt]

92. ooh, another irrelevant argument

The Nader-denial is just as tiresome. It's simple election math. In an election, the way we do it 5 > 4 + 2 Or, to use actual numbers from New Hampshire 273, 599 (Bush) > 266,308 (Gore) + 22,198 (Nader) + 2,757 (Libertarian) + 2,615 (Buchanan) + 1,221 write-ins + 328 (Constitution) + 55 (John Hagelin). Bush wins with 48.07% of the vote, and Gore would win with just 66% of the Nader vote.

How was Gore supposed to pick up Bush-voting Democrats? By moving to the right? Then he would have lost more Greens. How many Democrats voted for Bush because they heard that "there's hardly any difference between Gore and Bush"?

I could swear that there was somebody saying that in 2000, but cannot remember his name. I think it starts with an N and rhymes with "paid her".

And Jews for Buchanan? Really? Am I supposed to believe that these apparently very conservative Jews would have voted for Gore-Lieberman if only Buchanan had not been on the ballot? That's one heck of a stretch. Why should I do so many contortions just to let an obvious culprit off the hook?

I'd like to see the Democratic Party embrace Green ideals as well, but that only happens if Greens stay in the Democratic Party and win primaries. Splitting off and giving electoral victories to the Republicans kinda leads to the opposite.

[liberation]

129. Two words: Joe Lieberman.

what were you saying?

[BzaDem]

158. So? It is OK for Nader to have allowed Bush to win, because Gore's VP was Joe Lieberman?

Are you arguing that Bush/Cheney would have been better than Gore/Lieberman, because of Lieberman?

[hfojvt]

91. Why is it your agenda to keep denial going.

You can call me a liar all you want. I still think the facts are on my side.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

What is your answer to New Hampshire? Did the Supreme Court give New Hampshire to Bush? Or did Nader?

Now I wait for the irrelevant argument that "Nader had every right to run."*

Wrap your mind around this. I am not saying that Nader didn't have a right to run. What I am saying is that by exercising his right to run Nader tipped the scales in Bush's favor. I don't see how an honest person can deny that. It seems likely to me that the Nader-deniers actually voted for Nader and are trying to ease their conscience or something by insisting that it is all about Florida and the Supremes.

Intrestingly enough, Somerby in his book about "How Bush got to the White House" also gives Nader a pass and focusses on the M$M.
http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/ Clearly, that was very important as well, but I don't think Nader deserves a pass.

* among others. Another irrelevant argument is "Those votes don't belong to Gore" when the clear fact is that 70-80% of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore if Nader had not been running. More than enough to put New Hampshire in the win column and to make Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and New Mexico much more comfortable.

[relayerbob]

133. Nader wasn't a green

He was an opportunist ... big difference

[Raineyb]

222. The facts are NOT on your side yet you pretend as though they are.

That's what makes you a liar. Do I have to define every fucking word for you?

Definitions aside, the people are entitled to vote for whomever the hell they want. So every vote someone from another party gets is one the Democratic party DID NOT EARN.

Gore knew he had two opponents. He should have done a better job of driving home the point that he was better than Bush that was HIS responsibility. No one, and I mean no one was under any obligation to make winning easier for Gore. No one! But Gore didn't bother to do HIS job, he assumed Bush was so fucking stupid and that the populace was smart enough to make the "right" choice. And even though he did a piss poor job of doing his part to make sure he won he STILL won until the Supreme Court decided to give the Presidency to Bush. So your assertion that Nader made it possible for Bush to win is sheer unadulterated bullshit. You completely absolve the Democratic party for any part of their loss as though if it weren't for those nasty leftists, why Gore would have won. It's an argument based on a nasty, undeserved sense of entitlement, an unwillingness to make the Democratic party take responsibility for anything, and, despite your assertion that you're not saying that Nader didn't have the right to run, you are arguing exactly that which means one of the two options I originally laid out is true. You can pick which one best describes you.

[BzaDem]

157. That's funny. Last time I checked, it was not a 'lie' to spread an obvious truth

just because the truth makes some people uncomfortable, or because there is a small group that is in perpetual denial about the obvious truth.

In fact, if someone calls the truth 'a lie,' isn't that itself a lie, by definition? Or are lies that support Green candidates somehow exempt from characterization with the English language?

[Raineyb]

223. You're not spreading any truth. THAT'S what makes it a lie.

You may believe your lie but it's still a fucking lie.

[LostinVA]

72. The Greens did not elect Bush -- fucking stupid meme

[Ozymanithrax]

79. The green party did not elect him...

They tried to elect hyper egotistic Nader and weakened the Democratic Party. In that, they were used by Republicans and tossed.

What elected Bush was the Supreme Court awarding Florida to Bush rather than allowing a full recount, which would have elected Gore.

[hfojvt]

89. no, because it simply is not all about Florida

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

because the Supreme Court did not award New Hampshire to Bush, Nader did that. The Supreme Court did not make Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Oregon competetive - Nader did that. In fact, put just 16,987 more votes into Nader's column in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Mexico and Bush wins a decisive electoral college win.

[Ozymanithrax]

97. Florida won the eleciton. Had it gone to Gore, He would have won.

The 2000 election was won by fraud, by Republican operatives comitting felonies to stop the vote. I did not vote for Nader and would not vote for him now. But the unprecedented interference by the SCOTUS and chicanary by Republicans won that election.

It is the nature of third parties to split the vote. They are spoilers.

It doesn't mean they don't have good ideas and they should not be discouraged from running.

[glitch]

135. "The 2000 election was won by fraud, by Republican operatives comitting felonies" and SCOTUS

Absolutely agreed. Sure Nader had a spoiler effect, but no matter what the game was rigged for Bush.

The fact that SCOTUS had to decloak to get him in tells us that.

If Nader had "spoiled" more THEY WOULD HAVE JUST RIGGED MORE.

All the various spoilers (Nader, butterfly ballots, "Dems voting Republican", caging lists, brooks bro riots, SCOTUS, Cruella) do is provide extra flak to cover the fraud.

[hfojvt]

165. you are stuck on Florida

while the other relevant states are New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico. Had Nader not taken 20,000+ votes in New Hampshire then Gore would have won.

[glitch]

181. You do not think election machines can be, were and are rigged. Florida is not the only state

where they are at play.

The information on them has been available for almost a decade now. There is no excuse not to be informed on the issue.

[TheKentuckian]

106. The Democrats should have earned their votes. The vote entitlement concept makes a mockery of the

very premise of democracy.

To be blind with anger in defense of such an inherently dangerous mode of thinking is pretty sad.

Too much was sacrificed so I could have my vote for me to give it away.

I used to pop off with this kind of disgusting rhetoric toward Nader voters but it is a lie. Way more and I mean by the millions more Democrats voted for Bush than there are Greens.

I have grown to believe this shitty tactic is mostly a defense against dealing with our desperate need to recommit this party to the very principles that would not only secure these votes but their enthusiasm sad well as lighting a fire on our side.
Not to mention actually causing us to advocate policies that would have meaningful and broad impact that would being votes from folks from all walks of life.

No votes can be taken away, you start out with zero. Even your own isn't predestined, there is no requirement you cast it for yourself.

Then there is the arrogance out there to actually say that liberal Democrats have "nowhere else to go"!
No, no...you better go ask somebody. I'll write in like a motherfucker.

For all the alleged political moxie bandied about, we sure have a lot of folk too stupid to ask for a vote and respect and serve the least of those you hope to get to support you. Too damn foolish and smug to recall that you can't run down people and their convictions and mock and ignore them and maintain loyalty.

This is a who do you think you are level of audacity and hubris. Everybody doesn't respond the same to "can't" and some of us don't take kindly to a gun to the head, makes us cagey and pretty damn feisty.

Tell your bosses that many of the cats are not as tame as they believed, we won't back down, that compromise means everybody wins, and or votes are far from an entitlement program.

[hfojvt]

171. who said anything about entitlement?

and quit imagining things about my bosses. I work as a janitor and my boss is a janitor.

I really do not understand how or why people want to be in denial. In 1992, I was disgusted by Bill Clinton. In my eyes, the three major candidates - Clinton, Bush, and Perot were all just moderate Republicans. So I voted for a 6th party candidate. I did so, knowing full well, that I might be helping Bush Sr. to be re-elected, and I did not care if he was. If I wanted to stop his re-election as much as I wanted to stop the election of Bush Jr., then I would have voted for Clinton.

It's not about entitlement, it is about result. The actual result of the Nader campaign was to help elect George W. Bush.

Suppose Gore, Bush and Nader are playing shuffleboard. Gore is not entitled to any points, but if Nader, for some reason, keeps knocking Gore's tiles out of play, then it is clear that. You see how that works? Results, not entitlements. I don't care who is entitled to what, but the actual thought experiment of how the election would have gone without Nader in the picture helping George W. Bush to win. Sure Gore could have won if he'd played better, somehow, he could have beaten George W, Bush's money machine, the M$M attacking him, and also a progressive icon in the Green party. But he also could have won, and much more easily, if the progressive icon had worked as hard to defeat George W. Bush as he did to elect him. For some reason, he did not think it was important to defeat George W. Bush.

And even today, neither he nor his supporters will admit he was wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

217. Votes are not anybody's tiles. You are just relabeling your entitlement and playing through.

Every way you try to reframe you still start out with these votes in Gore's column. You insist that their is some logic where they "belong" to him and someone "takes them away" or "someone disrupts his game" and it is insane and terribly anti-democratic.

Hell, we don't even get to democracy you do what even God withholds and take away self determination, playing by your perceived rules.

Are you in some way trying to say that Gore was prevented from appealing to Nader's voters? That he was disenfranchised in some fashion or that Nader had some unfair resource advantage? Or maybe it was that Nader took advantage of name recognition or media coverage compared to Gore?

Your thought experiment is plain of no worth. Suppose Nader isn't there? How does that clarify that Gore is predestined to those people's votes?

Take Bush out, take Gore out, add in Joe Biden, take away Pratt Buchanan, add John McCain, change Florida's SoS, take your left foot out, put your right hand in, do the hokey pokey and shake it all about.

Take Ross Perot out in 92. It's goofy.

You want to adjust the rules to come to a desired result and/or to place blame for not getting the desired result.
I was a Nader basher myself, so I've heard and said it all and know the mentality well.
I finally decided it was crap when I observed that Democrats that voted for Ronnie Ray Guns and the shrub (sometimes both) never got bagged on and were always to be compromised then the fog was lifted from my eyes on this scam.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You want a governing coalition? Then we all sit at the big kids table and all decide on the menu.
This was misrepresented and now you've went and pissed off Democratic regulars like me that you used to be able to pretty much count and some of us don't need no stinkin Nader, we'll write in if need be.

Clearing the field won't save a thing. I come with choice, if you don't give me acceptable options I'll feel free to make my own.

[frylock]

109. flat-earther here!

[sabrina 1]

53. Once again, the lie that covers for the felons on the Supreme

Court. The SC appointed George Bush. Why are you spreading that lie?

Gore won the election and it was stolen for Republicans by the Supreme Court.

There are several people on this board helping Republicans to rewrite the history of that treasonous event by blaming Nader, a man who abided by the law, ran legally and lost, for what many of called the 'crime of the century'.

The lack of anger at the treasonous criminals who stole that election is remarkable.

Why are you covering for the felons on the Supreme Court?

[hfojvt]

58. maybe because it is not about Florida

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

Get rid of Nader (pkease) and Gore wins New Hampshire. Florida and the Supremes are irrelevant.

Nader did not violate any law. He has a perfect right to work for the election of George W. Bush or any other Republican, but just because it is legal does not mean that I have to like it.

It is the Nader-deniers who are trying to re-write history, and many who also seem determined to repeat it as they continue to promote that lie "there's almost no difference between the two parties", and "I am so disgusted with the Democrats that I am not gonna support them in 2010 or 2012 (and you should join me)"

It is not the Supreme Court that is threatening to help Republicans win in 2010, or already crowing about how Democrats deserve to lose and who can hardly wait to say "I told you so" on November 3rd.

[sabrina 1]

98. Your posts are filled with opinion.

And with projection. There is no need eg, to wait 'til November for anyone who wants to say 'I told you so'. There should be no fear of Democrats losing to the worst Republican Party ever nor should Democrats be losing the support of Independents at this point.

Your post also confirms what I thought about your attempt to blame anyone but the criminals who put George Bush in office. And thanks for your opinion, but I defer to those who know what happened like one of our country's most successful prosecutors. Too bad you would rather let them off the hook. Your hatred for a liberal people's advocate is noted. But he had nothing to do with Bush's stolen election no matter how many gyrations you engage in to prove otherwise.

You may be the kind of person who would put your own personal and petty satisfaction at being able to say 'I told you so' before the good of this country. But do not assign your own personal pettiness to others. You have zero right, not to mention any proof whatsoever to do so. And you only discredit yourself when you try.

The Democratic Party has the power to bring back those who have become disaffected, ONLY they can do that, or not.

Voters vote for their own and their country's interests as they see it. Votes have to be earned, and political operatives who whine about voters are losers, because nothing looks weaker than a party that was given the trust of the people, after ignoring them until the next election comes along, whining that they bear no responsibility for losing the people's support.

Iow, you're not helping Democrats at all.

[frylock]

111. and did nader cost gore his home state of TN?

get rid of gore, and gore wins tennessee!

[sabrina 1]

149. Unless there was cheating involved, no.

The SC stole the election. Why do you look for other reasons when it's clear that if the counting had continued in Florida, Gore would have been President.

What the SC court did was treasonous.

What Nader did was legal.

It couldn't be more clear.

[frylock]

162. i don't believe that nader cost gore the election..

i've read the works of greg palast, and have a pretty good grasp of what actually happened in 2000. i apologize for the confusion.

[sabrina 1]

164. Oops, I"m sorry, I misunderstood you ...

I've read Palast also, but most convincing was Vincent Pugliosi's 'None Dare Call it Treason'. Even Republicans admit that the case he laid out was very compelling. He's one of this country's most successful prosecutors and I think he did a great job of treating this like a crime and then prosecuting it the way he would have had it ever been brought to trial.

He is adamant that it was a treasonous crime and should have been prosecuted. I agree. Anyhow, sorry about the confusion :-)

[Chisox08]

143. You assume that Nader voters would have automatically voted for Gore

if he hadn't run. Sorry to ruin your little bedtime story but that is not true. I know Nader voters who would not have voted at all if Nader didn't win. Traitor Joe had a larger role Gore losing. In reality the Supreme Court appointed Bush. The Supreme Court now as it was the is made up of 4 moderates, four lunatics and one moderate lunatic. The moderate lunatic joined with the other lunatics and stopped the Florida recount, I thought those guys was big on states rights, giving the 2000 election to Bush. Not only that there were other shenanigans going on in Florida like the purging of voters who more than likely would have voted for Gore.

[laughingliberal]

137. Seeing posters here cover for RW crimes is a little shocking, isn't it? nt

[glitch]

182. Not really,

it's been a long decade.

[LostinVA]

73. Al Gore won the election, the USSC appointed Bush President

Nice outdated and divisive meme, though.

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

94. Without Nader, the Supreme Court never gets the chance

It's only divisive because some people would rather fight than switch their minds to fit the facts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. And if Gore could have won his own HOME STATE, where he was a Senator

the matter would never have gone to the Supreme Court.

Tell me, was it the Green vote that made Gore lose Tennessee?

[KoKo]

168. You forgot about DieBold Voting Machines and the Bush Manipulation?

Lydia...I hope you were being sarcastic in your post. You CANNOT HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT BUSH V. GORE?

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

172. I actually covered that, if you'd read the post I linked to about four times

"Gore lost Tennessee by 80,229 votes where Nader took 19,781 and was not really a factor, but Gore might have campaigned there or run more ads there if he was not worried about losing Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire or New Mexico."

I believe a strong case can be made that the Greens did cost Gore Tennessee as well. Campaigns, you see, have limited resources - time, money and energy. If they spend more time and money in Tn, then they can win, but then they might easily lose Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, or New Mexico - states where they won by a sliver. Again, take away Nader and Wisconsin and Oregon are cakewalks, assuming Gore takes even 70% of the Nader voters which I think is a fair assumption. Without Nader, Gore can devote more resources to Tn.

Next question.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

175. So it wasn't his inept campaigning and his saying "Me too" to everything Bush said..

so that THREE DAYS before the election, 1/3 of likely voters were undecided?

No, that couldn't have had anything to do with it, could it?

Nah, it was the Greens. Those insignificant but oh so powerful Greens, who can turn Democratic candidates into mealy-mouthed mumblers of nothings.

[liberation]

132. Not really. Again, Joe Lieberman....

what where you saying, again?

In case your intellectual dishonesty is clouding your historical memory, your pal Joe supported the GOP in their position regarding absentee votes which actually gave traction to the hearing in front of the Supreme court for the GOP lawyers.

Funny to see all you DLC cheerleaders completely ignoring the fact that half of the Dem ticket in 2000 was actually supporting the GOP's positions during the recount fiasco. The same penchant for intellectual dishonesty makes me see very little difference between the die hard GOP supporters and some of you Dem toe liners. But I am sure, it is easier to blame things on some old dude who just wanted to exercise his constitutional right to run for office.

Whether you storm troopers like it or not, at least back in 2000, this was still a constitutional democratic republic, in which their citizens past a certain age have the right to run for any office they so chose. I find it fascinating the fact that some of you feel entitled to other people's votes, without having to even pretend to bother earn them, and seem so utterly opposed to basic democratic principles as diversity of political choices for voters.

[City Lights]

77. You're confusing the Greens with the United States "Supreme" Court. nt

[frylock]

112. the poster is also confusing his ass with a hole in the ground

[hfojvt]

173. ooh, zing

Good thing you are arguing with facts and logic instead of just opinion and invective.

[frylock]

214. you continue to show that you don't know fuckall when it comes to the stolen election..

you've been fucking bombarded with fact after fact after fact, yet you want to believe in your heart that it was nader. now tell me all about facts and logic. i'm all ears. share your research materials. what books have you read on the subject? take your time, i've got all day.

[hfojvt]

220. I was bombarded with Florida, Florida, Florida

and I said at least half a dozen times that it is not about Florida. Nobody has an answer for New Hampshire or New Mexico, Wisconsin or Iowa. Just irrelevancies like "Nader had a right to run" or "those votes didn't belong to Gore" or "If Gore wasn't such a putz he'd have beaten Bush even with Nader stabbing him in the back"

It's not about my heart, it is about the facts and logic. Research materials? Here you go http://uselectionatlas.org/ Dave Leip's atlas of US Presidential elections, which I summarized here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

What? I need to read some book to learn that 266,348 + 22,198 > 273,559?

I think I read that book back in the 2nd grade. It was called "How to focking add"

so, to summarize the list of reasons for why it's not Nader's fault and my response

1 - 10,000. Florida was stolen!! I agree, but New Hampshire was not and with a mere 67% of Nader voters in New Hampshire, Mr. Gore goes to Washington. And then there are Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Minnesota which were made much closer by Nader's presence.

10-12,000 - Nader had every right to run!!! I agree, BUT by exercising that right, he tipped the election to Bush.

12,001 - Those votes don't belong to Gore. I never said they did, but odds are very good that without Nader they would have gone to Gore and we'd have avoided 8 years of excrement which we are going to spend the next ten years trying to dig out of.

12,002 - I know a couple of Nader voters who wouldn't have voted for Gore! This is an argument? Nader got almost 3 million votes. Come back to me when you have taken a random sample of at least 500 and then you may have something.

12,003 - Gore should have won Tennessee. And he might have if he hadn't had to devote so many resources to Iowa, Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Mexico

12,004 - Gore was a crappy campaigner. Considering that the M$M went to war with him for two years and he went against the RWNM and a well funded son of a President and a progressive icon and STILL got the most votes, I don't think he was that bad, but it's clearly easier to beat one opponent than two.

Then there were other "arguments", like "you are just helping the rightwing cover up the crimes of SCOTUS" and "you have your head up your a$$" and "you ought to be ashamed for spreading lies". So, it's pretty clear that I am NOT the one who is emotionally invested in an idea.

[frylock]

221. over 200,000 registered DEMOCRATS in florida (yes, florida again) voted for bush..

keep tilting at those windmills.

[inna]

189. shame on you for spreading absurd and ridiculous lies.

disgusting.

[Radical Activist]

44. If they could only elect a Governor or Congressman!

Twenty years is long enough to produce results. We may have a viable progressive third party some day but it obviously won't be the incompetent Greens.

[Ozymanithrax]

81. In our system we will never have a viable third party as things stand...

It is a winner take all system with different laws in each of the 50 states concerning the creation of a party. This makes it difficult to build a party apparatus.

Republicans and Democrats are a coalition of polarized interest groups, not a single entity. Pull away enough interest groups to create a third party from any one of the big two, and the party that did not fracture becomes strong enough to utterly dominate in any election.

If you fracture both parties and create four parties, it might work.

The only real route to a third party would be to make voting mandatory. The majority of Americans who never vote would have to go to the polls, and they could be organized. But without bringing in the majority of non-voters, third parties will never be anything but spoilers in elections.

[asdjrocky]

19. Just not sensible enough for the sensible woodchuck. nt

[BzaDem]

20. Ironically, the effect of the Green party (when relevant) is to move as far away from those 10

as possible.

[Swamp Rat]

28. No, Ironically, the Democratic Party's move to the right of center has done just that.

Don't believe me? Watch them lose seats next November.

[BzaDem]

30. I guess that's what I'm sugguest YOU watch. See if we improve under Republican rule. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

33. I am still waiting for things to improve under the current administration.

So far, I am as bad off as I was before hurricane Katrina killed my pets and friends, and destroyed my city, home, car... actually, much worse. Now, on top of unemployment and no health insurance, my air, water, and food has been poisoned.

[BzaDem]

159. Who ever said that you only should vote for a candidate when things improve?

Last time I checked, when a vote is between two candidates that have a positive probability of winning, the vote is for which candidate you want to govern over the other.

So if one candidate won't improve things, but another will make then worse (i.e. poisoning the air, water, and food TWICE as much), you vote for the former.

(Obviously, it is transparently false that Obama is responsible for the effects you describe. But even if we accept your false assumptions as true for the sake of argument, I don't see how they change things one iota. Many Republicans want to disbanded the EPA. That in and of itself makes the choice.)

[Swamp Rat]

196. mindless, soulless partisanship

:thumbsdown:

[KoKo]

169. I know...it's like "walking backward...over and over."

:-(

[Swamp Rat]

197. over and over the bones of dead Americans who could wait no longer.

On top of that, this website you and I have loved for so many years has been overrun by soulless partisans who REALLY DO NOT GIVE A FUCK about their fellow citizens.

They only care about WINNING abstract inane arguments in cyberspace.

Here is what they will win in the concrete:

[Warren Stupidity]

212. we've been tweedl'd to the right by the duopoly for 30 years.

We scared the living shit out of them with the prospect of our capturing a major political party to enact a progressive democratic left agenda back in the 70's and they have skillfully manuevered the potential of the boomer majority into irrelevancy.

As we start to exit the arena I am devastated by the contradiction between what could have been, what we could have done, and what instead we have 'accomplished', or more accurately colluded in.

[hfojvt]

21. they seem to have left off their key plank

#1 Helping Republicans win elections.

[Swamp Rat]

27. Keep telling yourself that and watch the Democratic Party lose seats next Fall

The Democratic Party's move to the right of center WILL lose them seats.

[hfojvt]

37. so the country will elect Republicans because they want to move left

that's just what I said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8831165&mesg_id=8834441

[Swamp Rat]

38. Oops!

[hfojvt]

40. should be easy enough to remember

it's my dad's 67th birthday.

But I don't think that had anything to do with New Hampshire or New Mexico or Iowa

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

[tomp]

34. how weak are the dems....

..that they can't survive those incompetent and insignificant greens!?!?

the dems MUST be able to form enough of a coalition of voting groups to surpass the repubs' ability to do the same.

if they can't do it, they don't deserve to win. if the dems lose to the repubs because they failed to sufficiently attract
the green voting base that's on the dems, not on the greens.

but the dems have this colossally arrogant attitude that says, "since you are the smaller party, you must change your
views to meet ours and not vice versa, and on top of that we will never make any concessions or allow you to have
any power under our 'big tent'."

um...see you at the voting booth... and good luck!

[hfojvt]

39. there may be some other math at stake

If a candidate moves left to pick up 100 Green votes, then this leftward shift may cause them to lose 1,000 centrist votes.

My point is that the Democratic wing of the Democratic party cannot seem to form enough of a coalition to defeat the centrists in a primary, nor to bring more people into their fold. Instead they just give up and let Republicans win, which gives the right an even bigger microphone.

[tomp]

76. so it's go along with the centrists or nothing?

isn't that what i said?

so your solution is that they should continue to "fight" the centrists until they win. historically speaking that would be foolish. better in my view to stand on principle for what you believe. if the centrists can win without the left, let them. if they can't, let them compromise for our votes, at the the very least. but the further they go to the right to pick up votes lost on the left, the more they look like republicans, proving the point of the left.

it is my contention that the democratic party is constitutionally unable to a satisfy a portion of the left, if not the entire left (not to mention being constitutionally unable to meet the needs of the vast majority people in general). the fight you suggest is futile and counterproductive for the left. this contradiction is elemental to understanding american politics.

[frylock]

115. oh noes!!1 not the centrist vote!

won't somebody please think of the centrist's vote?

[frylock]

114. you seem to be a few planks short of a deck

[hfojvt]

207. thank goodness you are here to provide much needed substance

Seems to be another plank of that wonderful woodchuck coalition - nobody who disagrees with me (us) on any issue is worthy of any respect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Hmm wasn't that a democratic platform too?

Oh...

Never mind. I expect either of the two parties to appropriate this when the votes are there.

[bvar22]

107. expect them to appropriate the words,

but not the policy.
THAT will stay the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Social Security was NOT a Democratic Party invention

That is the kind of ahem, appropriation I mean.

Of course I fear things will have to get much worst before that happens.

[Catherina]

25. Informative post. Rec'd. Thank you. n/t

[Naturyl]

36. Compare this to the DLC platform

And then decide who is really Democratic.

[Radical Activist]

42. Zero Greens have been elected to Congress to fight for those values.

However, we do have a Progressive Caucus and other Democrats who fight for them. The track record is that progressives can get elected to Congress as a Democrat, but not as a Green.

The Green Party has been around long enough to have some accomplishments under its belt. Instead, there are two Green Parties who can't merge together and there's nothing to show for 20 years of effort except small victories in local (usually non-partisan) races. Pathetic. It's clear that the Green Party strategy has been a complete electoral failure.

For those of us interested in actually winning elections, rather than making a symbolic statement in a losing campaign, the Green Party is a total waste of time.

[quinnox]

48. consistently posting the opposite of your user name

"Radical Activist" Yea, right.

[Radical Activist]

49. Effective activist.

You think supporting Greens makes someone more radical?

If I'm very liberal and want to run for office I can do one of two things:
1) Run as a Democrat and have a reasonable chance at getting elected and doing something good in office.
2) Run a symbolic issues campaign and complain about how the system is stacked against third parties when I lose.

There's nothing radical about pursuing ineffective tactics that don't accomplish anything.

[TransitJohn]

139. Sensible Activist, then. n/t

n/t

[inna]

194. sensible pragmatic. thanks for changing your avatar btw,

that was very insulting to Che's memory.

[Radical Activist]

226. You must think Che wasted a lot of time on third party campaigns

and other tactics with no chance at accomplishing anything. :eyes:

[moksha]

236. You just showed how clueless you are.

He didn't 'waste time' on third parties. He fucking led revolutions that overthrew the parties ad the government.

Not a damn thing about it was practical, sensible or timid, like you and your cohorts.

[Radical Activist]

239. You just showed that you didn't get my point.

Actually, Che's tactics were very practical and pragmatic because they produced tangible results. The Green party does not. Those words aren't about compromise. They're about getting something done other than symbolic acts that only make a person feel self-righteous.

Even Che thought that trying to lead an armed revolution in the US would be a futile waste of time. So the question for us is to figure out what alternative tactics make the most sense for our place and time. The Green Party obviously isn't the most effective tactic, no matter how good their issue positions are.

[moksha]

242. Nah, You are full of bullshit.

Leave Che alone, you don't understand.

[Radical Activist]

243. Thanks for the thoughtful, well-reasoned response.

Have fun leading revolutions in your moms basement.

[Raineyb]

67. No, we have Democrats who pay lip service to fighting for them.

When push comes to shove the Democrats will cave to right wing ideology like they have been for decades.

[TransitJohn]

200. But that's just the point.

Your side is just interested in winning elections. Not implementing policy to affect positive change in peoples lives. So very radical and activist, heh?

[Radical Activist]

227. That's very insulting and moronic

to suggest that the progressives elected to Congress don't care about policy. Do you think that about the entire Progressive Caucus?

The fact that you think we're on different "sides" just because I want to use a tactic that might accomplish something is disappointing.

[Warren Stupidity]

213. Bernie Sanders, not tech. a green but close enough.

I'll settle for a democratic socialist independent. The point being that this has been done before, and that third parties are not always irrelevant or counter productive.

The other alternative is capturing the democratic party, and that seems not a likely prospect, given that we are unwilling the suffer the defeats required to make that happen.

[moriah]

43. The ideals are great.

The reality is that voting for them right now -- with their poor organization and current major elections being won at the local level rather than the national -- is essentially the same as pulling the lever for the Republican in close races.

I advocate voting Democratic. This is a Democratic discussion forum where one of the main rules is to not advocate for third-party or Republican candidates when there is a Democrat running for the seat, so it fits. I do not hate Greens. But I am not going to advocate for people to vote for them -- both personally, because I think that it is a vote being thrown away when it's for a national seat, and because this is not Green Underground.

I would not go to a forum run for and by Green Party members and tell them to vote Democratic -- and if I was a Green, I would likely be really pissed off if someone did decide to use the bandwidth I had helped purchase through my donations to work against the best interests of my party. Just as I, as a donating member of DU, get pissed off when people use this bandwidth to advocate voting Green.

[Radical Activist]

45. It's a fair point about

not going to a Green board to campaign for Democrats. I wouldn't do it either.

I'm happy to have Greens at DU, but I wish people would be up front about the fact that they will always be dismissive about everything good Obama does because what they're really trying to do is build support for a third party. The problem is that some people believe the hype and it spreads the kind of cynicism that takes the energy out of any movement.

[slay]

47. Many of us would like to see a better Democratic Party that embraces the ideas

laid out by the OP. Unfortunately, the Dems would prefer to be MUCH more like the Republicans than any green type party. If a 3rd green type party pops up or starts attracting voters, the Dems will have only themselves to blame.

[Radical Activist]

50. Which Dems? Who?

There are a lot more Democrats in office who support those ideas than there are Greens in office.

The amount of effort that has gone into the Green Party could have resulted in progressives taking over many local Democratic organizations and getting people elected to office who hold the exact same ideals. I've seen it happen in a number of areas were liberals made a coordinated effort to take over and use their county Democratic organization. They've accomplished far more than any Green organization I've seen.

[slay]

55. We have Kucinich, Grayson, Weiner

and a few other good progressives - unfortunately Obama is not one of them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. DeFazio, Kaptur, Blumenauer, Ellison, Oberstar, Feingold

None of them perfect, but at least they stand for something.

[depakid]

180. Jeff Merkley's also and up and coming leader in the Senate

Intelligent, highly skilled and unquestionably progressive.

[relayerbob]

134. Ah ....

so Democrats shouldn't advocate actual democracy among our ranks?

[moriah]

210. Would you come here advocating for a Republican?

I know you wouldn't because you're not stupid, but let's say you were (Republican or stupid, either way, they kind of go hand in hand.) The rules say that Republicans aren't supposed to come here even just to debate issues with us even without advocacy. This is not a debate board per se -- this board is very specifically directed to the Democratic party and expects people here to support Democrats. There are other discussion boards that may be directed toward an audience from one political party but are welcoming of polite discussion from others, with the understanding that they are house guests and should behave properly (Redstate is one such board, and is about the only place I will go if I for some reason I feel the need to bang my head against a wall by talking to Republicans). DU is not like that.

The objectives of this place are to support Democrats and their causes -- Greens are allowed to be advocated for when there is not a Democratic nominee in the race, but ONLY then. (Before you think that doesn't happen, Boozman was so solid up here as a rep in this district that Democrats didn't run here for Congress -- the county's Democratic Party office here said that the Greens put up a candidate tho, so they all voted for the Green... and it's a good strategy.) And I donate here because I want a place that is devoted to advocacy for the Democratic Party.

It would be unconsciousably rude for a Republican to waltz in here and use up bandwidth that me and other people like me have paid for trying to plug their candidates. Just as it would be for people to advocate for Greens when there is a Democrat running.

It has nothing to do with democracy in our ranks. That's what primaries are for, dearie. Those are our ranks -- people running as Democrats trying to get the best Democrat for the job nominated. Democrats. Not Greens running against Democrats.

Do you get it now?

[Raineyb]

224. Have you not been paying attention. There are people shilling for CRIST on this board

and using the excuse that he's now an independent so it's okay. So you're saying it's perfectly okay to advocate for a third party as long as the candidate is not left leaning?

[moriah]

230. No, I think that's the definition of insanity.

But more importantly to my point about shilling and DU's purpose, there's a Democrat running in that race, so people who are shilling for Crist are breaking the rules just as much as the people who are shilling for John Gray instead of supporting the Democratic nominee (Blanche Lincoln).

If there wasn't a Democrat running, it'd still be the definition of insanity, but the rules here state that only "left-leaning" third-party candidates can be advocated for here, and only in a limited fashion. So I think it'd be a violation of the rules as well as common sense and liberal principles. It'd be up to the mods to decide if he was left enough, IMHO -- and I don't think they would decide in the shill's favor.

[upi402]

234. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results

There is the definition of insanity that applies to the modern Democratic Party. We have a party that's aligned with Barry Goldwater OR we can vote for batshit crazy Republicans.

So this false choice is not working, the elephant is filling up the living room, and we shut our eyes and plug our nose -and call ourselves rational.
Not so bad. But when somebody says something about the knee-deep elephant dung, THEY are called irrational etc. No hope of change while stuck in insanity like that.

[moriah]

235. Or you can work to change the party.

Primaries, man.

They really are the best way for us to work within the current structure to make positive change. Heated primary battles are good so long as they do not make people utterly despite the other candidates, because your favored candidate might not win the nomination. After the primary, vote with the party so we can keep the seats, then work on the next primary strategy to get more progressives on the ballots for the next general election.

Anything else, I firmly believe, is shooting yourself in the foot.

[Radical Activist]

51. The Tea Party has already had a bigger electoral impact than Greens have had in 20 years.

For progressives, the tactical questions is whether to keep putting effort into the Green Party or to expand our power within the Democratic Party. Only one of those strategies has succeeded at getting many progressives elected beyond the local level.

Even the Greens themselves are splintered into two different national Green parties. How is that supposed to be effective?

[quinnox]

52. so how many times you going to kick the Greens

I can't believe you praise the Teabaggers at the same time you put down the Greens. The Greens are our natural allies.

[Radical Activist]

54. It's a discussion about tactics worth having among progressives.

The tea party strategy could be copied by the left. What they've shown is that a grass-roots political movement that works to nominate liberals in the Democratic primary would get more strong liberals elected than the Green Party has. Unfortunately, the attempts to do this have received little funding and support in the past.

I've voted for a Green in every election since 2000. They're nice to have on the ballot when the Democrat in a race stinks. But I've never seen a Green candidate with an organized campaign and any clue about how to win an election.

[newspeak]

87. you mean those teabaggers

who get good corporate media coverage everytime twenty or more get together. Those teabaggers, who are basically corporate sponsored--the faux grassroots movement?

[Radical Activist]

104. There are ways to get news coverage and fund left movements.

Yes, it's easier for the tea party. But that's just an excuse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. Do enlighten us, from your vast experience in getting publicity and funding

for Green and Socialist causes.

[Marr]

202. *crickets*

[quakerboy]

166. If you buy that, Ive got some coastal property you might like

Its sitting right on the ocean front in Arizona. Supercheap, I'll make ya a great deal on it.

The tea party has as much to do with grass roots as Corexit(sp?) has to do with clean oceans. They are a manufactured representation of certain powerful interests that uses a few angry right wingers to front as a grass roots movement. They have a whole media outlet literally in their pocket, and most of the others acting as lapdogs. They are getting what they are paying for. If you find that kind of ruthless lying money that is willing to support a leftist movement, finding enough angry patsies to make a go of it is the easy part.

[slay]

56. +1

I don't get it either.

[slay]

57. Only because they had huge rich corporate backers like Dick Armey

Man you know this stuff - why are you picking fights with progressives tonight? :shrug:

[frylock]

116. because that's radically active thing to do!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. The Tea Party gets 15 illiterate soreheads together and the national networks cover it

while the Greens or the Democratic Socialists can have a national convention with hundreds of people each, and no coverage.

I've learned over the years that that's how it works.

Soreheads get the coverage, people working quietly for change are ignored.

[eridani]

59. Their values are great. What would be even better would be--

--if they actually took electoral politics seriously.

[depakid]

60. Holding the balance of power in Oz- and having state cabinet positions in Tassie is pretty serious

While Bernie Sanders isn't technically a Green- he might as well be, as he seems to share the same attitudes, beliefs and values.

And you've got the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (e.g. up and coming Senate leaders like Jeff Mekley who also hold the substantially the same values).

The trouble lies with the corporatists in both parties who block meaningly substantive and structural reforms- without which the nation continues inexorably to decline- and without third party for people to move to (as they have in Oz) the disillusionment on the left translates into apathy, affecting progressive candidates (and votes on ballot measure and local issues) down the ticket.

[eridani]

93. I meant in the United States

I have yet to meet a single Green Party member who has mastered the basic concept of a precinct walking list. With our current electoral setup, the only way to move left is to primary conservadems.

[Touchdown]

61. Pretty much the antithesis of any drive for genital cutting or body violation.

I wonder why yuu are touting it DK.

:shrug:

[depakid]

62. Evidence based public health policy is part of what we do and try to ensure other parties do

I could have cared less about the issue one way or another- until I heard a presentation back in 2005 in a graduate NGO management course.

Having heard the presentation, I followed the matter as more evidence was adduced.

Makes sense from a public health standpoint to put the research out there and to promote interventions that slow the spread of disease.

In New South Wales, we also promote harm reduction and disease prevention through things like needle exchanges. That's been a tough row to hoe in America, too. Runs into similar difficulties from another side of the aisle.

[Touchdown]

70. But there is no evidence.

That's the point.

What there is, is a very well financed sales pitch, and what is interesting is that the medical community in your adopted country is very skeptical of these studies.

[depakid]

84. We're never going to agree on that bit- though we do agree on many other things

Probably most things.

Like most alliances or coalitions- my bet is that we agree on much more- and will fight for much more.

For example- ever heard of this guy:



Lon Mabon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Citizens_Alliance

My ex and I fought tooth & nail in the trenches on ballot measure after ballot measure.

And while it took a bit out of us- she lives near Boston now and I live in the Hunter, we'd both fight those fights again in a heartbeat.

[Touchdown]

147. Oh' God yes! I remember that Douche from way back in 1992.

That's when he tried to get teh ghey made illegal in Oregon. A more stealthily written one by a Tony Perkins (not the same guy in FRC, but a Chrysler dealer in Colorado Springs) in Colorado got passed instead. OF course, to the rest of the country, fighting Mabon was a top priority when Colorado's Amendment 2 slipped through without enough fight.

But it did get repealed by the Supremes. I have learned a couple of years ago that Mabon has always and continues to try to get signatures on ballot measures to this day.

[AsahinaKimi]

63. Some where I remember hearing..

That its not easy being green

[DFW]

65. I don't hate the Greens

except for #5, I don't even disagree with most of the platform (if I lived in Kansas or Oklahoma, I wouldn't
want the state government deciding that maybe creationism should be taught in my state's schools, e.g.)

But I'm not one of them. I'm a Democrat.

I wouldn't mind a bit, however, if my party remembered that many of its ideals were supposed to be rather
similar to many of the positions laid out in the Green platform.

[WinkyDink]

71. Democratic Underground. It's a simple concept.

[Romulox]

78. I didn't see THANK GAWD IT PASSED! in that list...

:hi:

[depakid]

80. unemployment numbers dropping into the 4% range nationwide look pretty good

from our perspective.

Sorry that it's not like that where you live.

It could be- though. With these very values and policies.

[Romulox]

83. LOL. Sorry, I didn't realize I had clicked on the "Down Under" edition of DU.

I was speaking about the multi-trillion dollar bailout of mutlinational corporations advocated by the original poster as a policy to be implemented in the United States.

You know, that one? I don't see that anywhere on that list, nor do I see it as even fundamentally compatible with that list. The OP was disastrously (not to say comically!) wrong about that one (and the resulting unemployment figures in the US :hi: ) Neat trick to pretend that your THANK GAWD IT PASSED schtick was only as to the Australian bailout of multinational corporations, but it's also patent revisionism. :hi:

[depakid]

86. There's nothing much anyone can do about some folks

Your bit about San Diego with slackmaster pretty much told any reader what they needed to know about the way you think about things.

It's sad- it really is.

You didn't need to feel put upon about Dearborn- though it's understandable (probably to slackmaster too) why you lash out.

[Romulox]

88. Next time just post a .gif of a white flag.

When you resort to attacking my community (based on erroneous information posted to a subthread to which you were not a party, no less!) in defense (should I say deflection?) of substantive issues, it is a clear signal to the world of your surrender.

"You didn't need to feel put upon about Dearborn"

Your anger is intersecting with your ignorance here. Dearborn is a very nice community, and I enjoy living here. :hi:

[depakid]

90. You went off at San Diego quite on your own

It was pretty ugly too- as anyone can read for themselves on LBN.

As to Dearborn, it's a community -like all communities that could an would benefit from the 10 key values listed in the OP.

Don't you think?

Time to bury that hatchet.

[LWolf]

82. Those aren't Democratic values.

They don't belong on DU! It's the DEMOCRATIC underground!!

[Spazito]

95. LOL, well, now I can see why the 'Greens' in Texas are so popular...

with the repubs and why the 'Greens' are always happy to take repub money!

The Greens in Canada, which is much more conducive to a multi-party system, CANNOT get elected to even ONE national seat. They are fringe even in Canada and certainly FRINGE in the US and will remain so, even with the repubs behind them.

[depakid]

142. A smart Canuck would grasp that Canadians already have most of the constituency covered

via other parties holding similar values.

[Spazito]

211. Ummm, no, a smart "Canuck" would note that even the more...

'mainstream left', as would be defined by the 'left of the left' here on DU, would note the NDP (mainstream left) has NEVER become the governing party and will never do so. They can only garner an average 15% of the vote.

I might suggest you check out the 'values' of these 'other parties' and, if they have seats in the House as does the NDP, see how close they hold to their 'values' when they vote to prop up the neocon government we currently have, you may be quite surprised.

[kgnu_fan]

103. Democratic Party can learn a lot from these fine examples

After all, we need real Change in this country...

[killbotfactory]

105. Great, but they should organize within the democratic party

That's the way our system works, factions have to come together and reach compromises about major issues and candidates before elections. If it were a parliamentary system this process would happen after elections. Either way, to be effective, they have to work and compromise on things or they will be politically irrelevant. You can keep your eyes on the prize but it's important to be realistic about how to get there.

Opposition to the green party is less about their stances and more about their political methods which are counter-productive to accomplishing their stated goals.

[Stinky The Clown]

110. I'm sure they look forward to being called Fucking Retards by the High Lord Elders

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. Or have the Lord High Elders "accidentally" drop them from the mailing list and phone tree

and never quite get around to reinstating them, even after several reminders.

It happened to me and my friends in Oregon in the 1980s, and I was so turned off that I stayed away from any actual involvement in electoral politics till 2000.

[killbotfactory]

193. If they can't take that kind of crap they have no business in politics.

Seriously. If they are so unorganized that being called a dirty name can cause them to take their ball and go home, they won't get anywhere.

[Ignis]

113. K&R...and probably IBTL. Here's an interesting fact:

When I recently questioned why our (D) reps were unwilling to see the fight for the public option through to the finish--despite the necessity of a public option being clearly detailed in our Democratic party platform--I was told that platforms don't matter.

:wow:

But this sure looks like a great one. I'd love to incorporate more elements from this platform into our own.

[BrklynLiberal]

117. marking for later perusal..

[mod mom]

119. thanks, depakid, I posted this in years past asking why progressives

don't align with Greens to work for a common & similar agenda, instead of joining in with the corporate Dem /GOP bandwagon.

[Greyhound]

120. It's all the Greens fault! Yargle, bargle, blarrgh!

Thanks for doing this.

Good luck, we're all going to need it (even those that don't see anything wrong with this course).
:hi:
:kick: & R

[upi402]

126. "Liberals are fucking retarded" -Rahm Emanuel

Well fuck you too Rahm.

[liberation]

131. As long as you keep on voting Dem... Rahm does not mind what you think of him

In fact, I am sure plenty of people in the DLC just get off on seeing liberals having to put up with the abuse. It complies rather well to their conservative tendencies to piss of progressives.

[laughingliberal]

138. I think Rahm's OK with votes for Republicans. Facilitates the Democrats' move to the right.

What he's not OK with is more progressive or liberal Democrats in the majority.

[Spheric]

141. "Fucking retard" is an appellation I wear with honor. Consider the source. /nt

[Spheric]

140. Haters gotta hate.

K&R

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

145. When I hear Green Party I think of this:

The Green party with its zero elected federal office holders and a spoiler presidential candidate doesn't really impress me. The Green party needs to show how grassroots it is by getting some of it's candidates into federal office.

[KoKo]

174. OFGS...that OOGHA BOOGAH about Nader get's very old and stale..

Shame on You!

[yowzayowzayowza]

146. The Green Party is for stooges...

here in Texas:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x64872

[depakid]

148. The Democrats are doing much worse in Michigan from an ethical standpoint-

Evidence Mounts That Michigan Tea Party Is Democratic Front

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/evidence_mounts_that_michigan_tea_party_is_democra.php

Guess like most things, it's OK when a Dem does it- but when a Republican give money, it's a grand conspiracy!

[yowzayowzayowza]

151. Yea, the teabaggers are stooges too. n/t

[depakid]

154. Did you read the article?

Not that I disagree with the teabagger statement- but apparently, what's fair for the goose isn't fair for the gander.

Actually, it's worse than that- the Greens are an established political party trying to get on the ballot. Personally, I don't care how they do it.

[yowzayowzayowza]

156. Yes, stooges all.

eta: Gaming stooges within the law is fair play.

[Cleita]

150. If only our government really was for the people and

by the people, all those values would be implemented immediately.

[tigereye]

153. sounds like good stuff...

I would love to see more Greens on the ballot..

[Bluebear]

155. Highly unpragmatic values.

:silly:

[stevedeshazer]

160. Why do you hate Amerika?

:)

[me b zola]

161. Recommended

But I got the feeling yesterday that the BS being spouted wasn't about crapping on the Greens. I felt that it was the beginning of a meme to say that those of us not pleased with the administration are not Democrats. I was too furious with that BS of an OP from yesterday to post. I don't even remember if I hit alert or not.

[snake in the grass]

163. K /R

Sounds all very subversive to me!

That is if you are a bloodsucking, bipedal rectum from the DLC.

[KoKo]

167. Thanks...I missed posts about Hating the Greens,but nothing would surprise me to read here, anymore

:eyes: I'm waiting for Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh Sainthood any day because they support what the House are Senate's lates action was to take away our freedom that we thought we had.

So...it's not surprising, at all. Most Dem Heroes have been trashed here recently. It's like a "Death Watch" waiting to see who will be next to be trashed so we can all read more Huff Post to check out the latest Celebrity Do Over or the "Fashion Shows of the Rich and Famous" when we aren't occupied with salacious gossip about the latest Wall Street Hedge funder who "Traffics in Little Girls" imported from Asia and the usual stuff that we see posted instead of real news and our Democratic Activists REAL NEWS goes off to ARCHIVES.

[Bryn]

170. Nice Platform

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

[Historic NY]

176. Does it include letting the Repukes carry your water in ballot issues?

[depakid]

179. I think the question is: why, in a democracy keep ANY party off the ballot?

:shrug:

[Historic NY]

185. No, I think its why take money from the opposition sort of compromises the

issues you purport to support.

[depakid]

188. So when Dems are flush with corporate cash from banksters & polluters, that's OK

but when the Green use cash just to get on the ballot there must be some nefarious motive or quid pro quo.

[Taverner]

177. They're irrelevant - the Democratic Party needs to foster a Socialist Wing

THAT would be the only way you could get real change

[Unvanguard]

183. Actually, the derision isn't directed at any of that.

But you knew that. :shrug:

[TransitJohn]

184. What pisses me off about the administration isn't necessarily that they won't

work on some of these planks to the Green platform, but that they expressly refuse to work to implement any of the freaking Democratic Party Platform approved in Denver. :banghead:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

186. Green is my favourite colour. K&R

[defendandprotect]

187. Love the Greens . . .

and the platform that Nader ran on was even more jaw-dropping dead on wonderful!!

I've worked with the Greens -- ran for local office with them --

[Warren DeMontague]

203. "ran for local office with them" .... so..... um... How'd that turn out?

No, seriously. I'm trying to envision it.

[depakid]

206. Sounds to me like she had what it took to give it a go

Something one suspects you'll never be able to say.

Indeed, when one reads some of the comments then justaposes them with the avatar, it's hard not to envision things like this:

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Um, yeah.

Probably, she left out the stuff about the moon landings being faked, or how we oppressed South Korea by keeping the North out, or how the US stole the bomb from Nazi Germany, that kind of thing.

But it's nice that you're sticking up for your teammates and intellectual equals.

[depakid]

209. LOL- you can't even grasp Godwin's law

- and even more amusing, you went off on North Korea to further the point.

Tells a reasonably astute person all that they need to know.

[Warren DeMontague]

219. No, actually, a relatively quick use of the search function will tell a "reasonably astute" person

all they need to know, particularly about what has been said here, by whom.

But one of my favorite things, here on DU, is when people who clearly have no fucking clue what they're talking about try to take ridiculous postures of intellectual superiority. Take "Godwin's Law", for instance. Either you don't understand it, or you have, maybe, elementary school level English reading comprehension abilities.

See, I said that the previous poster "believes we stole the bomb from Nazi Germany". Know why I said that, chief? Because the previous poster.. Believes we stole the bomb from Nazi Germany. :think: As a historical fact. And has argued it, repeatedly. Mr. Godwin doesn't come into it at all. Same with North Korea. Her 'understanding' of History (did I mention the stuff about the moon landings being faked, the van allen radiation belts, or the "star friends lunar colony"?) is, errrrm, unorthodox.

Which I why I said, gently, I did- that I was trying to envision her run for political office on the green ticket. And having a bit of a hard time.

Don't get me wrong. I think everyone deserves the chance to participate in the political process.



Everyone.

Like I said, the search engine is your friend. That is, If you're really interested in figuring out what people are talking about, as opposed to tossing out knee jerk insults and in the process making yourself look goofy as hell.

Otherwise, keep on truckin'. That's some team you're assembling, there. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

190. The Green Party Platform also says they oppose censorship in the arts, media and internet.

That is going to come as a seriously unpleasant surprise to some of our more outspoken, Erstwhile Green Supporters-- who were, just the other day, siding with James Dobson and several Ex-Bush Administration officials, in bitching that Obama isn't coming down hard enough (excuse the pun) on consenting adult porn.

[paulk]

191. the problem with the Green Party

is that all too often they have run only vanity campaigns, or worse yet, vanity campaigns that have helped Republicans get elected. This happened in a Colorado district race a few election cycles ago - (and the Green candidate was a DU member)...

If the Green Party were serious they would start trying to win elections at the school board and city council level - until they do, I can't take them seriously.

[depakid]

199. Have a look at the Pacific Greens (Oregon)

Elected Pacific Greens currently in office

Michael Beilstein, City Council, Ward 5, Corvallis
Matt Donohue, Corvallis School District 509J, Position 4
Pat Driscoll, Secretary, Eugene Active Bethel Community
Jim Nicita, City Council, Oregon City
Andrea Rogers, Mayor, Mosier

Appointed Pacific Greens

Lori Burton, Linn County Commission on Children and Families
Michael Dawkins, Planning Commission; Ashland
Teresa Keane, Oregon Pain Management Commission
Tracy Phillips, City Planning Commission, Urban Renewal Budget Committee; Phoenix
-------

http://www.pacificgreens.org/cat-in-action/greens-in-office

My guess is that you'll find the same deal in other states with active Green Parties.

[paulk]

215. that needs to entirely be the focus of the Green Party, imo

no more running in races where they can only be a spoiler. They need to work from the grassroots up

[depakid]

245. Parties exist as collective efforts to influence political outcomes and project political power

In the American system, one way to project power and influence outcomes is to use the spoiler role.

To have credibility- a party or subset of a party has to be willing to do that- be the spoiler (which is why the progressive caucus in the Democratic party fails- and the blue dogs "win," -and then lose their own seats first -while screwing the rest of the nation with their cowardice, corruption and lack of principles).

Blue dogs are willing to take everyone down (even themselves, because they think they get a fine fat money making position afterwards- just like Republicans).

In the scheme of things- a blue dog democrat- i.e. Republicrat, is much worse that any Republican, for the same reason that a traitor has throughout history been decried and subject to the worst sorts of penalties societies can fashion.

[H2O Man]

195. Many of my

friends and associates are Green Party members. I was saddened to see the mindless attacks on Greens on this forum in the past day or so. I was able to convince many Greens and other progressives on the left to support the democratic ticket in 2008. The people here who insult Greens etc are either lacking common sense, or have an agenda which harms everyone except republicans.

[Swamp Rat]

198. "or have an agenda"

:thumbsup:

[KakistocracyHater]

201. I like what they're saying-would they do it? all they need is money to get

more attention, that seems to be the major hurdle, besides those stuck to the 2-party system, trapped in assumptions.

[johnaries]

225. What good is a platform if it can't be implemented?

You might as well add "Peace on Earth and good will toward Men".

I have no problem with their platform, I support the vat majority of it. If the Green Party had a snowball's chance in hell of winning I would vote for them. But they don't.

If we had National Run-offs, I would vote Green in the GE, but I would vote Dem in the run-off. But I would still end up voting Dem, wouldn't I?

And that's my point. No matter how high your ideals, by voting Green you siphon votes away from Dems and help Republicans win. In essence, you are voting against your own platform and your own interests.

I live in Bob Corker's district. Every time I vote for him I hold my nose. I would love to have a more Liberal Representative, but a more Liberal candidate couldn't win in my district. That means it would turn Republican. I can't stomach that, so I continue to vote for Corker - even if I have to hold my nose while doing so.

[Lucian]

232. "Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

Grr.

But K anyways. I love the Green Party platform. Sounds like what the Democrats used to stand for.

[WinkyDink]

237. False premise for an agenda. Why not start a Green Party Board?

[SidDithers]

238. They chose Cynthia McKinney as their national leader...

'nuff said.

Sid

[demodonkey]

240. It was the Green Party that tried to get to the bottom of the election problems in Ohio 2004

http://iwantmyvote.org/

Remember the anomalies and strange results in Ohio 2004? Some of these anomalies have still never been explained, but the Greens at least tried to stand up and get to the bottom of what happened in Ohio and New Mexico too.

And were it not for the Green Party 2004 Presidential Candidate David Cobb, who used his standing as a Presidential candidate to call for a recount in Ohio, the problems with our elections would have been buried even deeper than they already are.

I'm a lifelong Dem, but I worked for and with the Green Party as one of the nine Regional Coordinators for that Ohio Recount. I spent the month of December 2004 on the ground in Ohio. Kerry had turned tail, and even though the Republicans had observers at every recounting session (as did the Greens and Libertarians) the Democratic Party and Kerry refused to organize anything. The whole month in Ohio I only ever saw one young 20-ish kid who said he was observing for the Dems in one county.

What I saw there was horrible, and although the partisan GOP Secretary of State (then) Ken Blackwell thwarted getting a real recount, I will go to my grave knowing that election should have gone to Kerry.

Because of the Green Party recount in Ohio, as you all may recall our party's Barbara Boxer and Stephanie Tubbs Jones DID courageously stand up to challenge the Ohio electors, the first time this happened since the 1800s. (remember Thank You Patriot, here on DU?) And we had a rally and march of about 1000 down PA Avenue from the White House to the US Capitol. Many DUers marched.

But of course the Barbara Boxer/Stephanie Tubbs Jones challenge went nowhere. But the alarm had been sounded and after that many election integrity and reform organizations flourished. Some were successful in getting paper ballot based voting systems in some states.

Much of this would never have happened if David Cobb and the Greens had not stood up and called for justice in the Ohio election.

Yes, we still have a long, long way to go to real election integrity. Sadly many Dems believe that the issue of bad voting machines is somehow corrected because Obama won. Well NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. But even today Dem leaders ignore the issue and some like Steny Hoyer even beat back our efforts to get verifiable, auditable, secure elections. Self-defeating, and sad.

WE need to PAY ATTENTION or this will come back to bite us even harder in a future election, especially if the current push for totally insecure internet voting (like paperless electronic voting on steroids) is successful.

PAY ATTENTION.

And always remember that David Cobb and the the Greens stood up for the RIGHT THING (recount of Ohio in 2004), and tried to do what our party refused to do after Kerry capitulated within hours of the polls closing. As a Dem I will be forever grateful to the Greens and respect them for this.

[backscatter712]

244. The problem is vote splitting.

It might not have been THE one single cause for Gore's defeat in 2000 (there was also Bush's cheating and many other factors), but it absolutely was a factor.

It's the same reason why I'm cheering on Tom Tancredo as he runs for Colorado governor under the Constitutional Party banner - he's splitting the teabagger's votes and thus ensuring that Hickenlooper wins easily.

I have no problem with the Green Party platform, and in fact wish the Democrats would adopt more of it. But splitting our votes between Dems and Greens simply gets teabaggers and sociopaths elected.