Greens and Lefties.....DON'T ENDORSE NADER.

Particularly the Greens. I am literally pounding my head on my keyboard over the fact that Nader chose Comejo as a running mate. Clearly to woo the Green Party vote. I have said it before and I am going to say it again, this is not the time for any third party on the left to front a presidential candidate. We are screwing our own futures doing this! I know Kerry is not my first choice but I will vote for him this November. To vote a third party will take more votes away from Kerry thus lessening his chances of beating Bush. Do you want another four years of that man? Is that what you want? Some of the left are acting like freaking lemmings. Jump off the cliff and things will get better. Wake up!

John

If everyone is serious about getting * out of office, we have to unite behind Kerry. If it hadn't been for Nader, 2000 wouldn't have even been close.

Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for the Democrats. The Democrats lost the 2000 election for the Democrats. Any of a number of factors would've given Gore the votes he needed to win, and singling out Nader as "the" cause is ignorant. If the Democrats would stop trying to appeal to the inner-rightwinger in all of us, we wouldn't have lost such a large chunk of our base to the Greens in the first place. The DNC (especially the DLC) needs to accept responsibility for its actions.

:nopity:

Nader is a political opponent of Democrats. I dont blame him anymore then I blame Bush, and I dont love him anymore than Bush either.

...but let's be honest about what cost us the elections in 2000 and 2002. If we're scared of what measley damage he can do this election, what does that say for us?

Unfortunatley, Ralph taps into that.

I don't blame Nader, I just refuse to watch him lie again, and be quiet about it because of his so called progressive credentials ... ;)

There's a whole lot of a little bit of denial going on. People are scared of and/or angry with Nader-Camejo, then they claim Kerry has no need to work for the progressive vote. So which is it, really? Is Nader a threat? Then Kerry has to work the left more than he has. If Kerry is fine as he is, then Nader isn't a threat. Right?

and he pissed it all away. He had both Gore and Bush by the BALLZ and could have possibly made them do something 'green' for his endorsement. But he didn't becuase that's what happens when you get old, you become feeble minded.

Gore did not lose the election. However, if it weren't for his somewhat weak campaign, choosing Lieberman as VP, The U.S. Supreme Court, Kathryn Harris, and Jeb Bush all had bit parts to this fiasco. The Green Party played a small part of it, but to blame them for the mess is somewhat short-sighted and somewhat arrogant. That was then, this is now and considering the mess of the past four years, those on the left like myself cannot CANNOT afford to allow Bush another four years. The key is to vote for Kerry. He was not my first choice, but I will vote for him for the sole purpose of getting Bush out of office.

John

You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.

........

If it hadn't been for gore and dnc and that middle-of-the road-let's-act-like-republicans-to-win-votes thinking, maybe we'd have Paul Wellstone in office right now.

far better than a vote for Bush.

Sadly, he's smart enough to realize what you apparently aren't: That if you abstain or vote nader you are depriving a vote from the only person that can beat chimp.

but this year I would like them to build it in "safe states".

I saw Camejo on CNN this morning and he was complaining about the democrats wondering where they have been for the last 3 years. I thought to myself, where has Ralph been?

although I don't put Nader in this category. He's a rigid ideologue, and while I agree with his ideas, I can't endorse the rigidity. That's what we have squatting in the White House now, a rigid man who is incapable of discarding things that don't work in favor of rethinking the whole issue to find things that do.

I vote Green for all local and state offices. That's the best chance we have of getting progressives into the political pipeline. Some of them will undoubtedly change party affiliation as they progress from office to office. That's usually how it works.

At the national level, though, I vote Dem. It's just too imperative to rid the government of neocons to do otherwise.

I am a delegate to the Green Party National convention this week and I am NOT supporting Nader.

Since yesterday, I have heard from some of my fellow Greens and at least in my state it appears that there is a 50-50 split against Nader. In fact, most of our delegates are committed to David Cobb. And according to the last tally I saw, Cobb is at least half way to the number needed to win the nomination. Greens are an independent, stubborn bunch who like going against the tide. If there is a feeling that Nader and Camejo cut some kind of inside deal, there could be a backlash against this 'slick' political maneuver.

The thing is - Nader is not a Green ... and if the Greens "endorse" Nader (even with Camejo on the ticket), I think it will mean the end of the Green Party.

Which I think will be a bad thing for the Democrats. Without outside pressure from real progressives, like Greens, it seems to be the nature of the Democratic Party and many Democratic candidates to slowly but surely move to the right ... and become Republican-lite ... a prescription for losing. -- That, is what did them so much damage in the 2002 elections.

I am hoping that the Green national convention gives Ralph Nader a black eye this Saturday by rejecting his attempt to hijack the Green Party this year. Greens should nominate someone like David Cobb who wants to run a "safe states" campaign -- building the Green Party but not competing in any state where it is close between Kerry and Dumbya.

I also do hope, though, that this sends a message to Kerry not to take liberals and progressives for granted. Kerry will win if he is a distinctive, bold Democrat, he will fail if he lets himself become just a "kinder and gentler" version of the radical Republicans.

:hi:

http://www.greensforimpact.com/doc/wdc.cfm

in battleground states. That is so against the party line of 2000. :hi:

http://www.greensforimpact.com/doc/wdc.cfm

V. Dedicated to Defeating Bush

David Cobb sees his campaign as a mechanism by which to forward the growth of the GPUS, but to do so in a way that is sustainable and in a way that forwards a progressive agenda -- both by raising issues that might otherwise receive less attention, and by conducting his effort in a manner that is unlikely to contribute to the re-election of George W. Bush.

And, as such, Cobb has announced that if nominated, he will not aggressively campaign in states that are most likely to be highly contested come fall.

David Cobb is running more heavily in states that are considered to be "safe," which is to say that the outcome of the vote is predictable, based on history and polling. Green voters in those states can safely choose David Cobb without worrying that their votes could make the difference between electing Bush and electing Kerry.

:hi:

You are being wise and I hope you will convince the other Greens to do what you are doing.


John

we'll all die waiting.

Look, from where I sit there isn't much hope for this country whether Bush or Kerry gets the nod this fall. We're still going to be killing innocents in Iraq, we're still going to be losing our civil liberties, we're still going to be seeing all of the well paying blue collar jobs, and now white collar as well, go overseas, we're still going to see our government wallowing in corporate corruption, we're still going to see tax cuts for the wealthy few, we're still going to see the gap between the rich and the rest of us widen to record proportions.

It is time for a real change in our country, and the Greens are providing that alternative. Granted, it is going to take a number of years, but that fact makes it even more imperative that we start as possible. Yes, that very well could result in short term pain for all of us, but the goal is long term success. Short term, election cycle thinking is part of what got us into this mess, and it certainly won't help get us out of it. A long term plan, well thought out and executed is our only hope. Being caught up in the two party dynamic won't achieve a damn thing except more of the same ol' same ol'. You don't like this, well sorry, but sometimes the medicine that is best for you is a bitter pill.

It won't be short term pain and there is hope if Kerry wins the WH.

I am not willing to sacrifice my childrens future by supporting a third party this year.

While you *yawn* I *quiver*.

Kerry is already promising to "stay the course" in Iraq. He has already promised to provide more corporate tax breaks in some vague hope of trickle down job creation. He has already stated that beyond letting the sixteen minor provisions of the Patriot Act expire, he will do nothing to roll back the rest or restore civil liberties.

There is an old definition of insanity, to wit insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result every time. By this definition the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole is insane. I refuse to buy into the madness any longer. It is time to start working for a real change in this country, change for us, and a better future for our children.

The hope that the neocons will be removed from their offices. They are by far the most dangerous group that our nation faces and the biggest danger to our future.

What hope?

That the religious fundamentalists will no longer have access to policy making in this country. They are *just a shade* less dangerous to the future of our country.


Like Arianna Huffington said, you have to put out the fire before you can talk about remodeling. My only hope this year is to put out the fire. If Bush gets 4 more years, long term pain is on the horizon if not an honest to God WW3.

Ongoing brutality and death in Iraq, the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties, the ever widening chasm between the rich and the rest of us, the continual hemmoraging of well paying jobs due to "free" trade, and even more tax cuts for the few, all in order to oust a man whose only real differences with Kerry are matters of degree, not substance. Sounds to me like you're simply adding more fuel to the flames friend, not putting the fire out.

Gee, we will replace the neo-cons with the neo-libs, PNAC with PPI, Skull and Bones with, well, Skull and Bones, one millionaire with another millionaire.

The only solution is to get corporate influence out of our government, and this means only electing people who do not take corporate cash. For once you take corporate money, you have to dance the corporate tune, no matter which party you belong to. If you don't take corporate cash, then the only people you are beholden to are your constituents. That is how Democracy should work, not the two party/same corporate master system that we have today. It isn't a coincidence that the phrase is "voting for the lesser of two evils", for both ARE ultimately evil, despite there being individuals who are good in both major parties. I am tired of dealing with evil, greater or lesser, and the only path they can lead us on is a treachorous one. I would rather work for good, for a real change in this country.

But hey, the choice is up to you. You can continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and watch this country go down the tubes, or you can work for a real change, putting government of the people, by the people and for the people back into the hands of the people. The choice is yours friend, choose wisely.

You seem to be placing all of Bush's faults and placing them square on Kerry's head and are repeating the mantra "there isn't a difference in candidates" that we heard from Nader in 2000. I didn't buy it in 2000 and I am not buying it now.

Your post is a matter of your opinion and not fact, just as my posts are my opinion. The only way to determine what Kerry will do as President is through a Kerry Presidency. That my friend, is something I will take a chance on and I will consider my vote a wise vote when I cast it for Kerry.

I am not willing to take a chance and vote third party. Not this year.

That is based on Kerry's own promises. Promises that he will "stay the course" in Iraq, cut taxes for corporations, leave the Patriot Act alone, continue the pursuit of "free" trade, amongst other things. What, you don't think that Kerry will keep his promises, that he is simply blowing smoke on these matters simply in order to get elected? If that is the case, then how can we trust the man with anything?

I don't have to place ANY of Bushe's faults on Kerry's head, Kerry is doing that all by himself. He is the one calling for more troops, more tax cuts for the few, more outsourcing of jobs. If you don't believe me, go read his position papers on his web site.

And quite frankly friend, the only difference between the two big parties anymore is merely of style, not substance. Clinton proved this during his term, with NAFTA, welfare reform, and the '96 Telecom Act, among other things. Kerry is simply going to carry this corporatist agenda forward, just as Bush did. All that the two major parties do now is play good cop/bad cop with the electorate, but the results always are the same.

I suggest you read Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democracy. He gives a wonderful breakdown on how we are living in the Second Gilded Age, where party affiliation doesn't matter, merely who your corporate master is.

So go ahead, continue to beat your head against the wall and vote for "the lesser of two evils". We all have to go through that. But when you've had enough and come to your senses, the Green Party will be around, and all of us can work for real change together.

And I have come to my senses.

My main goal is to defeat the religious fundamentalists/neocons this year. Neither group has a place in policy/politics.

NewYorkerfromMass shared this awhile back and I am not for ONE MINUTE going to stand by and take a chance that Bush gets to name people to the SCOTUS. Not a friggin' chance. I am not going to follow Nader supporters off the cliff. That is where I think you are headed. I always get the impression that those who support a third party feel that if America needs to be punished, so be it. Not if I can help it.

William H. Rehnquist, born: October 1, 1924...79 years old.

John Paul Stevens, born: April 20, 1920...83 years old.

Antonin Scalia, born: March 11, 1936...67 years old.

Sandra Day O'Connor, born: March 26, 1930...73 years old.

Anthony M. Kennedy, born: July 23, 1936...67 years old.

David Hackett Souter, born: September 17, 1939...64 years old.

Clarence Thomas, born: June 23, 1948...55 years old.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, born: March 15, 1933...70 years old.

Stephen G. Breyer, born: August 15, 1938...65 years old.

(Got this on Freeperville Central- it's occasionally good for something)

bain_sidhe shared this more illustrated scenario.

Liberal (mostly) SC Justices

John Paul Stevens, born: April 20, 1920...83 years old.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, born: March 15, 1933...70 years old.
Stephen G. Breyer, born: August 15, 1938...65 years old.
David Hackett Souter, born: September 17, 1939...64 years old.

Centrist/Moderate Justices (swing votes on abortion and civil rights)
Sandra Day O'Connor, born: March 26, 1930...73 years old.
Anthony M. Kennedy, born: July 23, 1936...67 years old.

Conservative/Reichwing Justices

William H. Rehnquist, born: October 1, 1924...79 years old.
Antonin Scalia, born: March 11, 1936...67 years old.
Clarence Thomas, born: June 23, 1948...55 years old.

It's worth noting that the oldest Justice is on the liberal wing, and a second liberal justice, Ginsburg, has had a bout with cancer. "Swing vote" O'Connor, too, has has a bout with cancer.

Here's a story from March
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001889252_nader27.html

AUSTIN, Texas — Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is receiving a little help from his friends — and from George W. Bush's friends.

Nearly 10 percent of contributors who have given Nader at least $250 have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil-company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP


Just want to check out Ben Stein's giving - here it is at newsmeat showing donations to Bush and Nader
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=CA&last=Stein&first=Benjamin

Have a feeling this is quite common among Bush supporters

Corporations do double or triple dip donations all of the time. It is the way our fucked up political system works.

The Greens on the other hand take NO corporate cash. Therefore they are only beholden to their constituency, unlike the corporate whores in both major parties.

A financial conservative, believe in W? It's no suprise that Repukkks like that find themselves donating to a new candidate. Of course, they give what they are expected to the gop, hoping to change it from with-in, but fiscal conservatives could find much more hope in a monkey with mental problems than W...

This is great news (if you believe in progress)!

Look at the donations - He's throwing money at Nader to help W don't fool yourself.

moreover, ecological right wing christians have been known to give to nader as well as buchannon (sp?). what does that mean? is that helping W? politics are not divided down the lines of two parties with everything else defined in their terms. It's much more complicated than that, don't fool yourself. A true conservative would have a hard time donating all his/her money to Bush, no matter how much they wanted to believe in *. Stein's no golden boy, but he's coming around - like I said good news.

What's your point?

Adopt the green agenda and make it our own.
Co-opt the issues and the party will cease to exist. FDR did it with the socialist party and look what happened.

Nuff said.

Sad to say though, the Democratic leadership doesn't see things that way, even though the lesson was taught in both '00 and '02 that the Dems need us lefties. In fact it seems at times that the Democratic party is actively working towards making the two party/same corporate master system of government permanent.

Therefore it is imperative that a viable third party is formed. Now is the time to start. If the Dems want to try and co-opt the issues, let them, it is win-win either way. But the time for standing around waiting for the Democratic party to do something is over. We must do it on our own, that is, after all, what democracy is all about.

Not only are most Green positions the most rational from a policy standpoint, but often they're much more popular that the so called "middle of the road" nonsense that comes from the Democratic leadership.

If the Democratic party had the courage and political fortitude to do the right thing- and stand up for themselves- they'd still be the majority party if Congress- and Al Gore would have been president.

A lot of the Clinton worship that goes on around here fails to take into account that his style of "triangulation" (capitualtion) was THE single major impetus for the rise of the Greens- and remins our raison d'etre.

The math is so simple even a "Green" should be able to understand it.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

In other words:

Divide the anti-Bush vote and you only help Bush.

Catching on yet? Or is this just too complex for you?

Yeah, I know. Why should they care? After all, what does the fate of the world matter when there is the matter of one's overweening sense of personal moral fulfillment to worry about?

The narcissism of the Nader left is destroying America.

The current Nader lie: Those who oppose Nader's splitting of the anti-Bush vote are really claiming such a thing BECAUSE THEY HATE THE LEFT!

(Roars and gales of laugfhter.)

How different are your claims than those of the right who say opposing the war in Iraq is tantamount to treason?

You're not the center of the world. There are far bigger issues than Ralph Nader.

Splitting the anti-Bush vote only helps Bush. And the consequences of another 4 years of Bush will be far more dangerous than the petty nonsense you seem to feel is so important.

You can find them here: www.greenparty.org/platform.html

Another four years of bush will be bad, but so will four years of kerry. You may be able to vote for someone who voted for both the iraq war and the patriot act, but I can't.

And you're also right about me being the center of the universe, i can't be the center, john kerry is... (There is no actual center of the universe, as it is not spherical)

I don't think the middle-of-the-right-democrats hate the left, I think they've been bull****ed into thinking that voting kerry is voting for the rights and interests of the common person. don't fool yourself...

First: Greens (like smaller parties in any political system) make strategic choices and form alliances- we don't vote lock step in barrel- although that doesn't mean all of us will vote for Kerry no matter what. Many will, but some significant number may not and that's what political leverage is all about. That's Poly Sci 101.

Second: The whole "Nader narcissism" thing is a meme, perpetuated here and on other anti-Bush sites by something akin to group think. It's a very simplistic way of thinking- and avoiding larger policy issues. Do you realize what you sound like when you say that "the Nader left is destroying America?" Aside from being condescending and counterproductive, you sound like... well, I'll leave it to your imagination.

Finally, you miss the whole point of my post and the one that I replied to- which of course is that the Democratic party would be much stronger and would actually win majorities again if they stopped acting like or pandering to Republicans.

"...you sound like...well, I'll leave it to your imagination."

Hmmm, let me use that imagination. Let's see...

I know! You ran out of blather, right?

What part of splitting the anti-Bush vote don't you understand? Are you aware of what another 4 years of Bush will do to this country, its people, and those we share the planet with? Do you care?

But I would be interested in how the Democratic Party, currently involved in the equivalent of a death match to unseat a Republican president and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress is, in your words, "pandering to Republicans."

It looks to me like the Democrats are trying to do something the Greens will never do in a thousand years of self-serving and narcissistic (oooh, there's that word again) whining, remove the closest thing this country has ever had to a fascist government from power.

Besides, as far as pandering to the Republicans, I kind of figured that is what Ralph Nader is doing when he accepts GOP money.

You know, selling out his country and principles for a few sacks of gold and some face time on Larry King.

http://www.votecobb.org/

COBB is really committed to defeating Bush, while building his party.

http://www.greensforimpact.com/doc/wdc.cfm

"V. Dedicated to Defeating Bush

David Cobb sees his campaign as a mechanism by which to forward the growth of the GPUS, but to do so in a way that is sustainable and in a way that forwards a progressive agenda -- both by raising issues that might otherwise receive less attention, and by conducting his effort in a manner that is unlikely to contribute to the re-election of George W. Bush.

And, as such, Cobb has announced that if nominated, he will not aggressively campaign in states that are most likely to be highly contested come fall.

David Cobb is running more heavily in states that are considered to be "safe," which is to say that the outcome of the vote is predictable, based on history and polling. Green voters in those states can safely choose David Cobb without worrying that their votes could make the difference between electing Bush and electing Kerry."

He seems like a good man and he has some good ideas but as I have said. Not this election.

Those parties like the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, or whatever should focus on local, state, the House, and the Senate. Not the presidency.

John

where there is a threashold for matching funds, so his argument maybe sly one. A smart third party candidate would also have to promise to drop if it looked like he was going to play spoiler.

They want to help get Bush re-selected? Fine. Let them destroy their own ideals and their party.

they gave up on the left long ago, too.

1993-2000. The first Democrat elected to a second term since FDR. The first Democratic Administration in 12 years.

Nevermind all that. I'm not saying the Greens don't have the right to form their own party. They have that right. What I am saying is that we're in a battle to destroy neoconservatism. This isn't to be taken lightly. If the Greens wish to stand in the way of completing that task then they shouldn't act surprised when people remember it.

Shouldn't be suprised when they are remebered for standing in the way of progressive thinking, because they can only think four years ahead.

Do you want Bush to get a 2nd term?

Do you want corporate dominion?
Do you want the patriot act repealed?
Do you want the Iraq war to continue?
Do you want the minimum wage raised?
Do you care about the environment?
Do you believe Cuba deserves modern medicine?
Do you want change?
Do you want tinkle-down economics to end?
Do you want Universial Health Care?
Do you want fair voting practices (Florida & St.Louis, 2000)?
Do you want to end the US reliance on Middle-Eastern oil?
Do you want the US to stop bombing poor farmers in South America who grow Cocoa plants?

Etc.

We need to continue bombing more and more cocoa farmers, and because Nader is against bombing the cocoa farmera, I'm sticking with the Democrats. Kerry is running on a "bomb the cocoa farmers" platform, and I'm for that.

"Bomb the cocoa farmers?" What on Earth are you talking about?

It's us or them, man.

Wipe 'em off the face of the earth. Kerry is the only candidate that I think will do that.

Isn't that good enough for you?

Will he?

How are you gonna get any of that? Please, tell me.

won't even get close

...and you'll burn people for like twenty years with this lie that there's no difference.

Plus, as Grover Norquist stated, their goal is to bring our economic policies back a hundred years to the McKinley era. He will admit that. You want to live a hundred years ago?

Go and make progress on your issues you list, go and get more people to support them. But don't put us back any further with this lie that there's no difference between the two.

...and he was wrong. Gore would have never started this war. Last I saw, Nader still lies about that.

With 100% accuracy.

Gore's a corporate whore, but I don't claim to know exactly what he'd of done. My guess is we'd still be in a hell of a lot of boiling water.

I'd love to debate more, but I have to actually work today, what's up with that? Thanks for the lively conversation.

Dave Matthews for President!

If Bush* policies continue things might get so bad here you couldn't get many people at all to give a fuck about the cocoa farmers somewhere else.

www.greenparty.org/platform.html

use: http://www.gp.org/platform.html

Which was the more important one. The first one is just there as a prerequisite to the first.

Anyways, I'm talking to someone who's going to vote for someone who can't even run for president, so I already know you're not concerned about the first.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yeah. You?

What's your plan?

As sangh0 pointed out the other day, Naderites would have to believe Nader can stop the war by losing the election, however that works.

Do you, or do you not, want George Bush to get a 2nd term?????

I'll answer your questions....

Do you want corporate dominion?
No, that's why I want Bush out.

Do you want the patriot act repealed?
No, but I want it rewritten.

Do you want the Iraq war to continue?
Yes. With the help of NATO and the UN, leading to a real sovereign government. Only Kerry can offer that.

Do you want the minimum wage raised?
Yes. Kerry has already said he wants to do that.

Do you care about the environment?
Yes, are you saying Kerry doesn't?

Do you believe Cuba deserves modern medicine?
Sure, do you approve of keeping people in prison for 30 years because they disagree with Castro.

Do you want change?
Yeah, only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.

Do you want tinkle-down economics to end?
Uh, yeah, are you saying Kerry is in favor of trickle-down??

Do you want Universial Health Care?
Yeah, do you expect Bush to offer it?

Do you want fair voting practices (Florida & St.Louis, 2000)?
Once again, Bush?

Do you want to end the US reliance on Middle-Eastern oil?
Uh, yeah, so does Kerry.

Do you want the US to stop bombing poor farmers in South America who grow Cocoa plants?
No. I'm willing to make that trade to save lives not only in America, but the world. Cocaine is a blight on the health of the world.

The fact that anyone votes for "mainstream" anything anymore amazes me...

Kerry might say he is for all of those things, but when it comes down to it he's still a modern democrat, inherently believing that the only way to win voters is to act republican, if that means being a corporate whore, then he'll do it. If it means continuing to oppress the PEOPLE of cuba (not castro) then he'll do it. If it means continuing subsidies of corn and oil, then he'll do it.

You can bet that many of the things you promised me, environment a serious increase to the min. wage (~4 or 5 dollars, to match inflation, gradually of course), etc are ALL RHETORIC. When's the last time you saw Kerry with a spine, was it 1972? Who stood up to the war in Iraq? (Kucinich) Who decried the election fraud in 2000 (The BBC) Not Kerry, Dean, Edwards or their pals...

P.S. The farmers in South America DO NOT make coke. They grow cocoa plants which would be used for chocolate if the US supported drug cartel governments were to fall to the overwhelming popular oppositing against them. But with the WTO and the IMF holding debt over the economy always threating to destroy the feeble markets and the US supporting the military, how is opposition supposed to come about? We bomb the ones that we believe might be connected to the "rebel" governments, many of whom have legitimate claims to power. Were you aware we overthrew Brazil's first democraticly elected government?

...they never go out and say what specifically they'd do differently than the Democrats and how it would be better.

GREEN KEY VALUES


1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and 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 AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life." We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

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.

QUALITY OF LIFE
Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.

The answer to the first question is just a waste of time without the answer to the second.

How will you get that letting George W. Bush win the election?

When I say I won't vote for Kerry, you hear "Bush gets one vote"

But the situation is much more complicated than that. There are more than two parties in America. There are more than three or four or five.....

I am not letting anything happen. I am actively working against Bush. But in your black and white view of the world, you see it differently.

You told me what you want, now how will doing what you do help you to get it.

But in your black and white view of the world, you see it differently.

Yeah and I'm asking you to help me see it the "right" way. How will what you're doing help you get it?

The first eight letters of "progressive" are "progress".

But worry not! Nadir will magically make all your dreams come true.

divided we fall and this what some on the left are doing.


John

I usually duck out of these (More Than) Two Minutes' Hate sessions, so I must've missed it..

If I could only vote for Nader, I'd rather not vote.

In rhetoric and in action. Just thought I'd point that out.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I still like Kucinich the most and want to advertise that, but I'm showing my support for Kerry, too. I am 100% behind Kerry in this race. I couldn't stand another 4 years of Bush.

* out of the White House, but let it be known that he needs to get some serious election reform going. I'd be happy to check him off as my number two choice on a ranked ballot in 2008.

That's when he gets the White House of course.

John

simple as that.

Simple as that.

I am no fan of Nader in this election but I do not think a vote for Nader equates to a Vote for Bush. I would hope that Nader voters would join with the Democrats and help us win the election but I am not going to blame them for voting for thier principles.

And I think I will vote Kerry this time. I don't like it one bit, but it is the most practical decision.

http://www.changein04.com/mainContent/bvsk.php

http://www.grannyd.com/speech20030308.htm

"In the 2004 presidential election, we must not split our vote between Greens and Democrats. I know the Greens have party building to do, but, if Mr. Bush wins again, there will be no America for them to build their party in. So they must defer this time and earn our respect and admiration for doing so."

David Cobb has the best approach. He is running for the GP nomination, but not campaigning in swing states.

was doing his thing completely independent of any party. But that was a while ago, and i haven't paid attention - has that changed?

Nader has stated that he does not want or will accept our nomination. What he wants is our "endorsement". I personally think that we do not need him and should run a Green. Nader has never joined our party.

My guess is that David Cobb will get the nomination. I am a delegate for him at our national convention this weekend.

Show up at his rallies with literature and signs such as "A Vote for Nader Is A Vote for Bush!".
Nader representatives showed up at every Gore Rally in the last
election to protest so we need to do the same to them.
Kerry has gotten 100% ratings and support from the Environmental groups along with one of the top leaders in campaign finance reform.
So what does Nader have against Kerry?
Nader doesn't seem to feel at all reluctant about helping Bush win the last election and I doubt that he seriously cares at all about helping this country. It must just be his ego. Otherwise, what he is doing doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Nope, I don't believe it's right for us to nag and beg Greens to vote for Kerry. They are, for most of us, like part of the political family.

I am however, pissed off at one individual who I used to admire. Ralph Nader should know that Kerry is significantly better than Bush, if only for the upholding of the "separation of church and state." But I won't "get weird" trying to convince Greens because they are intelligent and know fully what's at stake.

Nader voters are Left Wing Bush supporters. They are Bush supporters without the American flag lapels.

you're beyond any help. instead of villifying the left, shouldn't you be trying to court it? since according to the 'kerry-or-bust' folks, the left could lose kerry the election, shouldn't he perhaps...care? he doesn't seem to.

the worst and stupidest thing you can do while campaigning in a democracy (especially in a 'winner-take-all' system like the US') is to take a significant block of votes for granted. some people really cherish their ideals, and will vote for the candidate that they feel will best represent them (which is what they're supposed to do), rather than the lesser of two evils, or 'against' another candidate. to say that a vote for nader is a vote for bush is to say that the dichotomy of the two-party system is representative of america, a country that prides itself on its diversity. it's called the political 'spectrum' for a reason.

and I'm not voting for Nader

but I'm not voting for Kerry either

Neither represent my political interests.

I also live in NJ, which will be going to Kerry no matter what.

What happened to that vote exchanging thing we had in 2000?

I mean, my vote wont count no matter what, I'll trade my Nader vote here for a green in Penn to vote for Kerry because I know how important this election is.

I hope I don't get banned for this, but Kerry sucks, but if I can trade a Nader vote here, for a Kerry vote in Penn, I'll do it gladly, otherwise, I'm abstaining!

Nader is just interested in self-aggrandizement, not building a third party.

Kerry is just... well, Kerry.

Don't tell me the left is going to screw itself again this year?

I also vote Green on the local level as well.

Since neither of the major parties fielded leftist or even left-leaning candidates.

I really don't think you have the right to tell anyone who they can and can't endorse.

I understand your sentiment behind this thread, but honestly, you are most likely gonna end up doing more harm than good.

Haven't you heard that people will usually go and do the complete opposite of what others demand they do?

Wack a dog enough and watch it turn on you.

Nader didn't cost Gore the White House, but disenfranchisement of minority voters did.

Sorry to keep bringing up race, but in this context I think it's entirely appropriate to remind everybody that were it not for the deliberate scrubbing of African-American votes Gore would be President. It seems to me that blaming Nader is a convenient way for Democrats to avoid dealing with racism and ballot spoilage...an issue they've had three years to address. Due to HAVA the situation is much worse than it was in 2000, and since we're a "two party" system the Republicans and Democrats are to blame for it. Nobody else.

But what right do I have to deny anybody salve for their conscience? If blaming Nader helps you forget the institutional racism your party countenances and fosters, then by all means, focus on him...

...but don't be surprised when the number of registered Democrats shrinks year after year and third parties spring up like dandelions.

it's simple. Let's hope we don't blow this election for "purity"

Seriously, I am just posting to keep this post in my 'recent posts'

i was serious...

we should do this in order to create a 3rd party awareness in America, and to send a message to the Dems.

Why do this? Umm...because the Dems are corporate handpuppets, maybe?

I live in Texas, and if Nader is on the ballot, he gets my vote, unless Kerry should somehow move into contention here.

I asked him "what the hell are you thinking?" IMHO, ralph suffers from intellectual pride and cannot belong to any organization except the "ralph show" I told him that if he really wanted to help,then why not stuff envelopes, or man the phone lines for John Kerry.

I do like some of his ideas, but he is not presidential material. He obviously suffers delusions of grandeur, and he cannot find much in common with any sizable portion of the American Population. A misfit.

Your right John, a vote for him is a vote for bush. This election is too important to muck up with a brand of idealism that undercuts the true contender who is far closer to his ideals anyway.