Time to quit kidding ourselves about the Greens Thread #2

Thread #1 here:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=521768

I'm not a Green fan myself, but when there's a thread that goes through nearly 400 posts, then it is Grade A Flame Bait.

Nader has already thrown his support behind Kucinich, but hasn't ruled out a run if we nominate a DLC candidate.

I will NOT be blackmailed by someone who is not even a Democrat!

I will NOT be blackmailed by someone who is not even a Democrat!

The centrist independents whose votes the DLC so desperately wants - to the point of letting them vote in Dem primaries - are not Democrats.

Can you do that with a basketball on your fingertip, too? :eyes:

:shrug:

"National elections are won in the middle." I'll take the centrist 30% over St. Ralph's 1% any day.

On edit: Why should we depend on a soon-to-be statistical irrelevancy who has already shoved the knife under our 5th rib once before? Screw St. Ralph and give me a 4 or 5 million NASCAR dads any day...

Get the centrists if you can. Just quit whining about the progressives who go Green.

At most, "centrist" swing-voters make up maybe 10% of the total electorate. They are notoriously the most fickle and indecisive of voters, and typically make up their mind at the polling place, or shortly before they go to vote.

Of that 10%, maybe half will actually vote in the election-- that leaves their total influence at ±5% of the vote-- miniscule to say the least.

Now, consider the 50% of non-voters, most of whom's personal beliefs skew left/liberal, but who don't vote because they don't see much difference between "right" and "righter". If we could energize even ONE-FIFTH of that group behind a candidate who speaks to their issues and beliefs, we could win again.

Want proof? Look at how the Repubs reinvented themselves after Nixon. In the late '70s, they recruited the social and religious conservatives to the right of their party, and brought them into the electorate. They've done a good job of kicking Democratic ass over the last 20 years, don't you think?

If the Dems were to do the equivalent on the left (who are a bigger group than the religio-conservatives, anyway), we could do the same thing.

But somehow most candidates and their supporters keep going after the "GOP-lite" vote in that mushball middle who have repeatedly sold us out to the Repubs in the past, and have as much in common with Barry Goldwater than with Hubert Humphrey.

Keep pandering to the "centrists", and watch us become the Whigs. Not a winning strategy by any means.

According to Harris, 40% identify themselves as 'moderates:

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.asp%3FPID=212 :

"...Democrats continue to hold a significant modest eight-point lead over Republicans in party affiliation, based on over 13,000 adults surveyed in Harris Polls in the year 2000. This lead (37% to 29%) has scarcely changed since 1996. People who identify themselves as Independents, however, are down slightly to 23%, their lowest percentage in the eleven years since 1989.

These Harris surveys also show that while many more people continue to identify themselves as conservatives (35%) than as liberals (18%), the largest proportion of the public describe themselves as moderates (40%), and that moderates have increased their lead over conservatives by five points, their biggest lead since 1992....."

Denial is our worst enemy.

Sure, and they think they're in the top 5% of income, too. What I take from that is that they know 'moderate' in ordinary usage means 'not an extremist'.

Nobody is a bigot or loonie to himself. What people call themselves and how they behave frequently don't match up at all well when seen from a broader perspective. What we know from all surveys with any claim to methodological soundness (check the internationally-respected UChi/NORC surveys, for example) is that a majority of people -often a LARGE majority- are in favor of positions such as universal healthcare, taking care of the poor, and restricting the power of corporations. Those are generally regarded as 'liberal' and even 'socialist' positions.

A recent General Social Survey from UChi/NORC was very interesting. It asked, among many other questions, how satisfied people are with the US socioeconomic system. A large plurality (>40%) said that it needs MAJOR changes at a minimum. The number of people who were satisfied with it and felt that it needs no changes (8%) is no larger than the number who thought it needs to be totally scrapped and replaced. These are not 'moderate' opinions in the sense you're using the term.

We have extreme sports, extreme beverages, foods with extreme flavor, music is played extremely loudly, we always reach for extra strength. People run up huge debts, drive enormous cars, drink 151 proof rum. This is the land of pro-wrestling, hard-core porn, supersizing! Am I to believe that a people who abhor moderation in almost every aspect of life are going to cling to moderation in the field of politics? Think about it, extreme politics. Sounds good.

My point is no more and no less than where the votes are to realistically to be found in time to avert the unmitigated disaster of another * administration. The richest harvest will be had in the center, as the demographic survey clearly proves. Until we get the power to govern back in our hands, all discussion about what we SHOULD DO is theoretical; we cannot govern from the left unless we win from the center.

Votes are 'realistically to be found' where votes are always found: in people's heads.

I misquoted the GSS on satisfaction with the US system. I wasn't working from my notes and, though I knew the numbers I was quoting were too low, I didn't want to overstate the case. I needn't have worried. I looked out my notes afterward and the real figures are:

07% think this is the best system we can have
44% think it could use some work
37% think it needs major overhauling and fundamental changes
08% think it wants totally scrapped and replaced

So only 7% are really happy with it. The other 93% think at least some changes are needed.

Ninety-three percent. That's quite a lot of people. Over 265M, in fact. 128M believe we need to make fundamental changes in how things work..

Do you really believe all those people are happily choosing between FarRight and MediumRight each election? I don't. I think they're staying home. The 49% who're deeply unhappy with what's going on map neatly onto the percentage of people who don't bother to vote, did you notice that?

It seems to me that the numbers are telling us that if we want to win big, we have to offer candidates who commit to making big, non-cosmetic changes.

I don't think people need to be PhD sociologists to understand that.

That all or even most of that extremely cooked-up 93% are liberals? Doesn't it occur to you that at least half of the people who object to the "system" and want it changed want it moved farther to the right? What reason do you have to believe otherwise?

Because of how they poll on other questions! The majority of people are FOR socialised medicine, FOR socialised housing, FOR a reduction in the wealth gap, FOR substantial old-age pensions, etc., etc., et lengthy cetera.

(And those numbers are the furthest from being 'cooked-up' of any in the world)

I want to see the questions. Not your characterization of the answers, but the actual questions asked that produced those numbers. I find it impossible to believe that, asked "Are you in favor of socialized medicine?" seventy-one percent said yes, for example.

As for "cooked-up", you take 7% who say that the present system is the best system that we could possibly have (in 1996, remember) and claim that that means 93% are for serious change. If you prefer "deliberately exaggerated" to "cooked-up", that's okay with me.

The actual language was something like "How do you feel about the idea of the government guaranteeing healthcare for everyone? Would you be strongly in favor/opposed, somewhat in favor/opposed,....".

If you want to read the exact questions for yourself, go to your nearest large library with a copy and look, or unpocket $300 for a copy of the latest (2002) administration on cdrom.

you...claim that that means 93% are for serious change

That's your exaggeration, thanks. I said "The other 93% think at least some changes are needed", and that is accurate.

You need to stop presenting those figures of yours as proof positive that Americans are hugely and overwhelmingly liberal, which every poll and every elections shows they are not. Asked if they would like free healthcare, 71% said yes. That's quite different from being asked if they support socialized medicine. Maybe to political people like you and me, the two issues are one and the same, but most people aren't deep political thinkers. They think that money and programs grow on trees. Asked if they want something, it's yes, asked if they want to pay for it, it's no.

That's not so. As Chomsky has repeatedly pointed out, people say 'no' if asked whether they want to pay more taxes. BUT when asked if they want some service EVEN IF it means higher taxes, they say 'yes'. And NORC are not in the business of doing shoddy surveys, so you can feel confident that people were not left in the dark about where the money would come from.

Get the data and look at it yourself. I'm reporting accurately.

'Every election shows' people aren't liberal for the same reason 'everyone knew' that the Back Of The Yards community was hopelessly passive, apolitical, and conservative.

I'm saying you're making shoddy use of it. Or did NORC headline the conclusions that America is majority liberal and ready for President Kucinich?

"Socialized medicine" is a crashword term. If 71% of Americans actually said they were in favor of it, then indeed that would indicate a massive shift to the left. But no such thing was in the actual NORC survey. If your representation of the actual question was basically accurate, it is a totally different issue from socialized medicine in the eyes of most voters. How you ask the question has a lot to do with the answer you get.

If you make a hugely intensive grassroots push like Back of the Yards for a small group of voters, you stand some chance of getting them energized and on your side. Go try it nationwide, with the media and the money firmly against you, and see what happens.

Okay, how would you interpret (a) majorities--often large ones--being in favor of conditions we usually think of as 'socialist' or 'social-democratic' --most of which we do not now enjoy-- and (b) nearly half the population expressing a deep level of unhappiness in the system as it currently exists?

My interpretation is that if lots of people are unhappy, and lots of people are in favor of conditions that do not now exist, the lack of the conditions seems to stand a better-than-random chance of being the cause of the unhappiness. Of course, it could be merely correlational, but I can't offhand think of a third thing that could be causing both. And the two things might possibly be unrelated, but I can't think of any two other causes that could produce those two effects and still be unrelated. Can you?

What's your interpretation?

First, your majorities are NOT in favor of conditions we usually think of as socialist or social democratic. It only appears that way when you warp (excuse me, "paraphrase") the original question to suit your agenda. Maybe it seems to you that healthcare provided without charge is equivalent to socialized medicine, but it doesn't seem that way to most people, especially to most of the people who responded to that survey. They don't support socialized medicine, and they raise a hue and cry against it when it is proposed.

Second, the fact that people would like to see "change" doesn't mean that they agree with you on what KIND of change they would like to see. "Change" is pretty nebulous. It's the reason both Greens and neocons supported the recall in California - not because they agree on any of the issues, but because they both wanted "change."

Therefore, your "two conditions" are figments of your imagination, and any correlation between them would have to spring from the same source. Great God, you don't even look for historical data to see if the numbers that seem so important to you are going up or down! You see a high percentage that you can ascribe to your own agenda and you grab it, uncritically.

Simple test - I am assuming that you have the NORC survey report in hand, and that you're not just making these numbers up. So look at the report itself, this "gold standard" as you call it, and see if it draws any conclusions that are similar to yours. Obviously, if this country were suddenly to lurch to the left after a rightward drift of over twenty-five years, that would be big news - they wouldn't just sweep it under the carpet, unless, of course, it were only a figment of some readers' imagination.

Your problem is that you are so deeply embedded in your own point of view that you can't see any alternative to the status quo other than yours. You need to talk - scratch that, you need to listen to people who don't agree with you more often.

Pushing the Party further to the left will destroy us. The majority of the country is NOT liberal/left leaning despite what you believe. The Republicans are licking their chops hoping we nominate Kucinich. They'd bury him quicker than they buried McGovern.

If we have a centerist elected who ends up governing from the left, he's gonna get buried, too. Clinton portrayed himself as a centerist, but then moved to the left shortly after taking office (gays in the military, universal health care). Two years later, we lost the House.

We better get a candidate that speaks well to working class Americans and downplays all the social special interest baggage our Party has accumulated.

you really need to learn the difference between 'making a case with solid evidence' and 'asserting your unsupported opinion'. You're doing the latter, and it cuts no ice with anyone who is actually willing to think.

The evidence I offered for people being liberal/left-leaning is quite solid, coming as it does from the gold standard of opinion polls. They construct their instrument with the help of hundreds of sociologists, and they administer it to a very large sample. No other study anywhere in the world is more accurate.

telling us which candidates for the nomination they will and will not vote for, either. That's why they aren't being accused of blackmail.

Hell, put everyone on ignore! That way you'll never have to be on the receiving end of the great compromise ferris wheel!

is that I have never put anyone on ignore and never will. Bad arguments need to be refuted, not ignored, lest more innocent readers be led down a primrose path.

the primrose path that leads to the Democratic Party actually standing for something instead of continuing to let itself be defined by its opposition.

If you're not going to put me on ignore, then buck up and engage with me on the points.

I can see where the Greens and their leaners, with less than 1% of the vote, would come to see the voters as the opposition, but that attitude only compounds the problem.

The ghost of Lee Atwater is still celebrating. :eyes:

I don't know to whose post, but I'm sure it was a nice reply to someone's post.

I wrote: the primrose path that leads to the Democratic Party actually standing for something instead of continuing to let itself be defined by its opposition.

You wrote: Not the opposition, but the voters. By this, I took you to mean that the voters, not the Republicans, are defining the Democratic Party.

My response in reference to the "L-word" thing and Lee Atwater refers to one of the more egregious instances in which the GOP, not voters, *has* defined the Democrats and for the worse. The DLC came about in response to that, not to anything the voters initially did.

Does that help?

and not simply daring me to put you on ignore.

if you don't like me "blackmailing" you by not making the defeat of Bush my *sole* political goal in life (mean liberal bastard that I am), you don't have to read my posts. By all means, keep reading if you prefer.

Sheesh. I'm at a loss for words, mostly because I've got a whole boatload of words I want to say...

I will say this: With all the anti-Green sentiment, you'd think the anti-Green folk would be happy that there's a candidate the Greens will openly support. Had Kucinich ran in 2000, those 97000 votes in Florida would not have gone to Nader. Don't you care about the Democratic candidate GETTING those votes? Or do you prefer being exclusive and divisive?

I just don't understand you. Are you so blindly hateful of the Greens you'll piss on them regardless, even when they open up to joining with the Democratic party?!

Nominating a candidate the Greens would find acceptable would mean a 50-state electoral defeat for the Democratic party. They don't have enough votes to make it worth the effort---period.

If Kucinich wins the primaries and is nominated as our candidate, I'll be happy to vote for him. If its Lieberman, I'll vote for him too.

If Kucinich can't win the primary, that proves he's not the choice of the Democratic majority.

The Greens can get into coalition politics, or better, get involved inside the Party and drive their agenda from within. If they wish to remain a competing Party, I'll view them as Republican-Green.

Every election is perfectly fair,
Never suffering from interfere-ania.
And all the results reflect our true choices
And I am Marie of Roumania

(Apologies to Dorothy Parker)

They are not entitled to a say in who the Democratic nominee is. I don't have a problem with Kucinich as a candidate, but he doesn't have the support and it's not like we can just pick one out to appease a few Greens without the support of the moderates and rest of the Democratic Party. Kucinich isn't going to happen. So there you go.

I don't hate Greens. I just want to win and they want to interfere with the Democratic candidate's chances removing the most dangerous and sinister occupants ever to inhabit the White House. Why in God's name should I view them any differently than Republicans when their apparent purpose and actual results are more conducive to destroying the Democratic Party and everything I believe and stand for while the Republicans that are enjoying the fruits of their efforts?

You are afraid we will piss them off - oh well. I'm getting more and more pissed off too. Arguing about it is not going to change anyone's position; I think trying is a waste of time. Individual members of both sides have already decided what they are going to do, who they will and will not support, so it's time to just go do what you gotta do and be done with it.

is that Democrats who believe in the principles of the Greens should support Dennis.

Nader DID NOT SAY THAT GREEN PARTY MEMBERS SHOULD BECOME DEMOCRATS TO SUPPORT KUCINICH.

I am proud to say that in MN we have many ex-Democrats/turned Greens/returning Democrats involved in the DFL party again because of Dennis.

As a Dean supporter, you surely must be aware that there are a number of Green voters who are supporting him. Do you really think it's in the best interest of your candidate to shun or reject them?

Honestly... it seems to me that the Democrats were "blackmailed" in the last presidential election by people who felt that Mr. Gore was going to appeal to the moderates and independents. During the debates, I kept getting the feeling that Mr. Gore was trying to be more like the Shrub... trying to appeal to people who were tending towards Shrub because of many things including, but not limited to, the blue dress. Why on earth Mr. Gore distanced himself from President Clinton so totally is beyond me! Sure, intern-wise, distance was needed. But there were Democrats who were furious at President Clinton for getting into that mess and who still remained committed to the direction that his administration was going. They separated the personal man from the man doing his job and the overall ideals of the party. Anyhow, I just kept wishing that Mr. Gore would be himself and rip into Bush with some of the passion that was there (I still believe), instead of aiming for the middle which in this country, as compared to other countries, is still pretty right-wing.

If the Democrats want Green votes, they'd best move back where they belong. Last election, I felt that we were forced to choose between "sorta right wing" and "really right wing." I see some Democratic candidates this time (Kucinich comes immediately to mind) speaking about issues in ways that I wish ALL the Democratic candidates would speak. And then there's Joe Lieberman. I won't get into Joe Lieberman, but if he winds up being the Democratic nominee I'll be seriously disappointed in the Democratic party. SERIOUSLY disappointed.

I guess I'd have to vote for Lieberman if he were the nominee because I do feel that the most important goal is to get rid of Bush, but I'd have to do that sadly. I'm hoping for a Democratic candidate with some courage and, to put it plainly, some BALLS. I'm hoping that Nader made Democrats understand that unless they start standing for the principles that Greens are pretty uncompromising about, they aren't going to earn Green support. I am realistic enough to understand that no candidate is going to be all things to all people, but Democrats can certainly do better than "sorta right."

I truly believe that Democrats can do both... defeat the Shrub and at the same time present a real new direction and a real vision that the majority of the people will buy into.

I'll be quiet now.

All the more reason not to vote for kucinich.

way to national domination!!!!!!!!!!!

Kucinich/Nadir in 2004! Destroy the party of FDR by running a ticket that is practically a parody of his presidency!

You should start a thread with everything you just posted. That would be hillarious!

Your post now treats the numbers in proper perspective. 1% and 2% is NOTHING, and in the case of the Green party a bunch of fringe radicals.

But a lot of people also use the flipside of the "1% phenomenon" in order to scapegoat the Greens.

Damned either way I suppose.

97,000 voted for Nader in Florida. If 10% or even 5% of them had voted for Gore instead, it would have been President Gore, unstealable. However, if the Democrats stiff 30% of the middle to pursue 2% of the left, we'll go down in flames.

It isn't simple, but reality rarely is.

In one sentence you give credit for Gores loss not to Gore but to Greens....in the next you say they are inconsequential...which is it?

How is attracting Greens stiffing the middle? Please explain in detail. What exactly is it, you feel distinguishes the middle from Greens?

RC

Because it has to be simple. It has to be black and white. It has to fit neatly on a bumper sticker. Otherwise, it's easy to snark at and therefore obviously wrong.

Once more with feeling - It isn't simple, but reality rarely is.

As for the difference between the middle and the Greens, if you're that far out in left field that you need to have this explained, you'll never get it. But I suspect you know perfectly well, and are just fishing for more opportunities to make debaters' points.

"Anyone but Bush" fits pretty nicely on a bumper sticker. Are those words a lapse of yours into non-reality?

I am fishing for opportunities to make Debaters points? Perhaps so....since debate is based upon logic I have to wonder why it is you would take exception to another's efforts to score them. Would you prefer voodoo? Perhaps a faith based approach?

I don't need to have anything explained to me....I am interested in what you feel differentiates Greens from those in the "middle". Are you ashamed to give your opinion?

I voted for Gore....that said, I have the balls to admit that Gore isn't in the White House because of Gore, plain and simple. It is common practice among many around here to affix blame for Mr. Gores failure on the Greens. Those very same people claim that Greens are inconsequential, so inconsequential that they should be ignored and excluded from debates...it follows then, that Gore the man and his campaign were so weak and ineffectual that they were rendered moot by a group of no consequence. That, my friend, is rather insulting to Mr. Gore....who I assume you are a fan of. So I'll ask again in more direct terms. Was Gore so weak and ineffectual that his failure was caused by a party of no consequence....or is the party of such consequence that they caused a man who consciously ignored their positions the subsequent loss of the office he sought? You see, you have created a pointless conundrum, devoid of logic, borne of equivocation and a lack of accountability.

It is simple, very simple actually. You are either willing to be accountable for your failures and behave in such a way so as not to relive them, or you are not. Blaming Greens for the Democratic parties weakness is not the answer to winning an election. If it were, Gore would be in office today...wouldn't he? Playing both ends to the middle never works...not in the end. We can continue to behave as placating, pandering, whiners or we can win, all of us, together.

RC

97,000 Greens voted for Nader in Florida. Nationwide, a very inconsequential number. Hardly makes a blip in the nationwide popular vote. However, the declared margin of victory in Florida, based on flawed mechanical counts, is 537 votes for Bush. If 10% or 5% of the Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore instead, all the mechanical counts would have gone to Gore. The undercount wouldn't have mattered, the recount would not have been necessary, and the SCOTUS couldn't have stolen the election.

HOWEVER! It doesn't follow that Gore or the Democrats generally or this time around should flush tens of millions of votes out of the moderate middle down the toilet pursuing tens or hundreds of thousands of Green votes.

Hence the apparent contradiction (apparent to the determinedly simple-minded or those determined not to "get it") that, while the votes of Greens who haven't realized their mistake and continue to demand concessions aren't worth what they would cost in the general election, Florida Greens nevertheless DID cost Gore the White House in 2000. It's all in the numbers. Elections, especially presidential elections, are won and lost on the basis of very arcane numbers.

It's not rocket science! :thumbsup:

to try to make a point that suits your purpose. It is a fact that Nadir and Kucinich represent the extreme fringes of the left world. A ticket even featuring either one of them in the VP slot would make McGovern's '72 campaign look like a rousing success by comparison. It is also a fact that Nadir fucked up the 2000 elections, in part, by saying that there was no difference between the two parties. It is now three years later, and most of us know better.

You have the right to support Nadir, to kiss his ass and say it's pretty, for all I care, but when your continued support of Nadir puts Bush into power, you have forfeited the right to complain about how screwed up Bush has made the country. You know full well what a vote for Nadir entails. In the meantime, I will 'blame' Nadir for whatever I please, from being one of the ugliest, most hangdog looking shitheels ever to walk the earth, to being a foolish, vainglorious idealogue, to continuing to campaign in Florida when he knew the potential results. All are true. If you feel 'scapegoated' by this truth, you might want to do something about it -- like not hang out on a message board that is focused on the Democratic Party. The Greens are the enemies of the Democrats; Nadir's rhetoric is evidence of it, and his, and his followers', behavior in 2000 seals the deal.

and Nader nor the Green Party are entitled to any say in who the Democratic nominee is. They are the opposition just the same as Republicans are, so they can take their extortion tactics and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Let them raise the money to run a Green candidate on their own and on their own merits and pay their own bills instead of piggybacking off the Democratic Party. Quit bitching and moaning and threatening and just go do it. I won't try to talk anyone out of their vote. It's your right and responsibility to vote as you see fit. I have a responsibility too, and you are not going to change my position, so do what you have to do and leave me and the Democratic Party out of it. It's that simple.

Green Underground....they could tell themselves how much smarter and ideological purer they are than than those Republican-Lites on DU.

Of course, it'd be a rather lonely place...

... I'm sure the phone company would lease them a booth for their monthly get-togethers.

but why let any facts get in the way of these ridiculous arguments?

You need to stop thinking that if only you can push Kucinich out of the race that all of your candidate's problems are going to be solved.




And at the return of the Reagan Democrats, hypocrisy and divisive right-wing tactics began.

I will support any of the current nominees should they be selected, and that includes Lieberman, and yes, Kucinich. I happen to like Kucinich. However it is already clear that he is not the choice of the majority of the Democratic Party, and I can't change that to placate you, your presumptuous accusations notwithstanding.

I wish him the very best in his quest for the Democratic nomination. If he wins, I'll vigorously support.

What I won't do is listen to Republicans and Greens tell me who I should vote for in the primaries.

I rather admire DK, and will vote for him without reservation, if he's nominated. What I will NOT do is seek to curry favor from a party whose nominee in 2000 *actively* sought the defeat of our candidate, and is now attempting to overplay their pair of political deuces into blackmail regarding the selection of the *Democratic Party* nominee.

Why don't we just say "fuck it" and not bother contesting the race at all in 2004? Since our "moderate" candidate will have more in common with Shrub than with the Democratic Party values, we may as well save the money and have a big party instead!

LOOK at voter turnout for presidential elections-- we're ALMOST below 50%. Do you know why?

MOST VOTERS CAN'T TELL THE CANDIDATES APART ANYMORE. EVEN GORE AND SHRUB. Look at what they had in common: pro-death penalty, pro-"welfare reform", pro-NAFTA, pro-"most favored nation" status for China, pro-Iraq embargo, pro-Star Wars/SDI, pro-death penalty. To many people, THESE are VERY important issues! And because there was VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE between Gore and Bush, THEY STAYED HOME.

If you want to continue nominating Repub-lite candidates like Gore, Clark, Dean, etc. go ahead and knock yourself out. You can expect "your" party to be completely ignored ONCE AGAIN at the polls, as they continue to be defined by the Repubs and themselves as "Republican Lite".

I have invested sweat and blood in this party over the years to just hand it off to some conservative-in-Democrat's-clothing who'll piss it away for some nebulous thing called "electability".

If you want to make the Democratic Party the modern version of the Whigs, knock yourself out. Just don't expect any help from those of us who are the heart and soul of this thing.

"MOST VOTERS CAN'T TELL THE CANDIDATES APART ANYMORE. EVEN GORE AND SHRUB."

I sure as hell can tell the difference and if the electorate can't figure the difference after 4 years of Shrub, then I can conclude that our democracy is toast, anyway.

Even in the 90s, we didn't enjoy Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, so of course we couldn't get our agenda passed. If we had, this whole ridiculous dscussion would not be happening.

But, I understand there are 2 types of Greens-

(1) Greens who are Republican. And
(2) Greens who are naive.

SO if you're not (1), be prepared to keep cutting that nose of yours to spite your face.

If anyone here is of the opinion that the Greens are the enemy of the Democratic party I have one question for them: What are you going to do about it? I see two possibilities. You could try to appease them or you can ignore them and try to swing right to replace them. Either way you go, there is a drawback. By going left, you must be careful not to alienate centrist Democrats. Look to Bush for tips on how to placate party extremists without losing support of the more moderate. You need to be able to say things that seem insignificant to outsiders, but mean a great deal to insiders. On the other hand, if you move right the contention that there is little difference between D and R becomes more and more accurate, so you have to accept that the Greens will attack you with that and hope that you can offset the loss of their support. So what do you want to do?

They're a much smaller group than the swing voters and the ones that insist on being wooed are going to cost a lot more than they're worth (because every extreme position costs us in the middle). We have to do what we have to do, and leave them to do whatever they're going to do. We can't help it.

But a better question is, what are the Greens going to do? Do they want Bush to stay in the White House? Do they want Patriot Acts three, four, five, and six? Do they want Scalia as Chief Justice? The longer the Republicans stay in power, the farther to the right this country will move.

See, the Greens have a choice. The Democrats have to follow the dictates of practical politics. The reason there's no example of run-left-and-lose-by-a-landslide more recent than 1984 is because we haven't been that stupid since 1984, and we aren't going to start now. But the Greens have demonstrated that they aren't all that impressed by practical politics. They can choose to help unseat Bush, or they can take their ball and go home, either refusing to vote or voting for some Green nominee to be named later.

I'm not impressed with arguments that Greens are some kind of natural force that the Democrats are going to have to deal with. They have more choices than we do. I'm just hoping that they'll make a responsible choice and vote against Bush.

take it. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have sunk into a deep malaise. Who do you think wins such a contest of wills? I think one of the things that really angers the Democrats with respect to the Greens is that in a certain sense the Greens have the Democrats' number. They know that if they are ignored they can just bash the Dems by saying that the parties are becoming more similar and this angers the Democrats. What should the party do?

We can't fix that for them. We're not going to throw the general election just to placate them.

It's like a man trying to balance on a floating barrel, being pestered by a biting fly. There's not much he can do about the fly without falling off the barrel. The fly is the only one with much choice in that situation. It can, theoretically, make itself enough of a pest to actually make the man fall off the barrel, which I guess would make it feel important.

The Greens have, at most, enough power to give the election to Bush, but not enough to persuade us to political suicide in their favor. So I repeat, it's not a question of what Democrats will do, but what Greens will do.

Is the party capable of winning without their support? I am not saying you must cater to them, but you might want to take into account that they might not support you. Where should the Democratic party go to make up for the votes that it might not get? What is the plan? Or is the plan to do nothing and just hope that the Democratic candidate pulls off a win without the Greens and without courting replacements for voters who have gone Green?

Anyone else want to take a crack at it?

"library_max (398 posts) Sun Oct-12-03 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #8

19. We can't really base our election strategy on the Greens


They're a much smaller group than the swing voters and the ones that insist on being wooed are going to cost a lot more than they're worth (because every extreme position costs us in the middle). We have to do what we have to do, and leave them to do whatever they're going to do. We can't help it.

But a better question is, what are the Greens going to do? Do they want Bush to stay in the White House? Do they want Patriot Acts three, four, five, and six? Do they want Scalia as Chief Justice? The longer the Republicans stay in power, the farther to the right this country will move.

See, the Greens have a choice. The Democrats have to follow the dictates of practical politics. The reason there's no example of run-left-and-lose-by-a-landslide more recent than 1984 is because we haven't been that stupid since 1984, and we aren't going to start now. But the Greens have demonstrated that they aren't all that impressed by practical politics. They can choose to help unseat Bush, or they can take their ball and go home, either refusing to vote or voting for some Green nominee to be named later.

I'm not impressed with arguments that Greens are some kind of natural force that the Democrats are going to have to deal with. They have more choices than we do. I'm just hoping that they'll make a responsible choice and vote against Bush."

Not that they'll read it this time, either! :eyes:

Would you say that about running against Republicans? Do you really think the Democratic party should just rely on fate? The question is simple: try to get the greens to vote for you (potentially costly) or try to get appeal further to the right (potentially unpleasant). Or are you just going to try to get non-voters to come to the Democrats? If you have no plan, feel free not to respond.

They are an opposition party, as 2000 clearly demonstrated. If they want a seat at the table, they'd better remember that this is a potluck, and not show up empty-handed and expect to be fed. Simple as that...

The only ones eating and getting fat are Republicans.

I wonder why the RNC didn't set a place for Ralph, though.....fine way to treat a friend.

Is that what you are asking - where do we pick up replacement votes for the Green votes lost?

First of all, the number of votes lost in states where it would even make a difference is not that significant. I'm not sure we have to "replace" those few votes. Of course there still needs to be vigorous campaigning and targeting for the undecided vote in addition to voter registration and get out the vote efforts. If you are asking for a plan, that is what I would suggest.

Sad, I would have thought they'd gotten the message in 2000.

What I don't understand is why don't they align themselves with Republicans? Heck, Republicans donate to Green campaigns and Ralph enjoys Grover Norquist and Schfley's company, so I'd think they'd find allies there. If Greens made a serious attempt to run AGAINST Republicans, I'd happily contribute to their efforts.

They don't really have that big of an influence in the end.

Here's the Math:

John_H (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-12-03 09:22 AM

Math with Ralph. Here we go:

2.7 percent minus (the number of greens who will never vote anyhing but green) minus (the huge majority of greens who live in states we'll already win handily) minus (the number who live in states we'll already lose) minus (the number of moderates we'd lose in states we need to win if we adopted major elements of their platform) minus (the large numbers of ex-Greens smart enough to see all those green "no outlet" signs and have come home)

Ask yourself, Dems, is this number positive or negative?

Seems to me our stubborn friends of the not-so-loyal opposition need to think about reaching out to us before they align themselves with a party who has a little over a year to exist.

He'll, a lot of Green staffers are looking for jobs. I think probably they've done the math.

if the Greens really don't make much of a difference?

and focus instead on 2004 rather than pick over the old bones of 2000. It isn't productive.

But a better question is for the Greens as a Party to decide whether they do or don't have any influence or relevance, whether they really want to or not, and accept the consequences either way instead of switching back and forth when it behooves an individual argument. They just can't have it both ways anymore.

Repost with permission of author:

quaker bill (231 posts) Sun Oct-12-03 04:18 PM

Time for the Greens to stop kidding themselves about the Greens

A couple of simple concepts first.

A vote is a vote, it is not a bargaining chip. No one can tell what you were thinking when you cast it. It is a simple statement that I want this person to be president. I support the right for anyone to vote for anybody who can get on the ballot. A vote for one candidate is implicitly a statement that I do not want the others to become president.

There are two distinct types of candidates. Those who are actually trying to get elected, and those who are making some form of political statement.

Candidates who are trying to make a political statement are not constrained to any attempt to form a coalition or consensus that might result in victory.

Those trying to get elected must do the actual work of finding a consensus among the electorate that would result in a working majority. They understand that if they fail to get elected, nothing they believe in will become policy.

Now as to the Greens, at least those in here, I hear that Nader voters did not change the election results. Yet from the same sources you hear that if Democrats want to win next time they will move in the Green Party direction. The argument is a contradiction in terms on it's face.

Posit for a moment that votes for Nader did not change the results of the election, then by implication a move by the Democrats to the left to capture those votes, even if successful, would not have changed the results. If these votes did not matter, what is the incentive to move the party to capture them?

Posit for a moment, as I have also heard, most folks who preferred Nader voted for Gore, and the remainder that voted for Nader did not make a difference. While I have seen no real data to back up this assertion, for the sake of argument I will provisionally grant it credence. In this case, Gore was far enough left to capture all of the votes that could have made a difference. If the remaining votes did not matter, what is the incentive to move the party farther left to capture them?

Let's look at the practicality of moving the party to the left. Here we get stuck on the notion that the Democrat is trying to get elected and the Green Party candidate is trying to make a political statement. It is not possible to left-flank a Green Party candidate.

Posit for a moment, as I have also read, that Gore lost the election because too many Democrats crossed over and voted for Bush. I have heard it said that since far more people crossed over to the right for Bush than to the left for Nader, the Nader votes did not make a difference. In this scenario, moving to the left to attract more Nader voters is exactly counterintuitive. This is the best argument made for the DLC.

The only basis for the Democratic party to move to the left to capture Green Party voters is if their votes for Nader in 2000 made a difference. If they made a difference, then the votes for Nader gave Bush* the Whitehouse.

Now is the point where we go off into the BFEE stuff. Yes the election was rigged, but not enough, they seriously underestimated the turnout in the Black community. They expected 10 percent of the electorate in Fla to be Black people, it turned out to be 15 percent because of NAACP GOTV efforts. Bottom line, if Gore had 97,000 more votes in Florida in 2000, the election would still have been rigged, but Bush would have lost anyway.

Here is the punch line.

The Nader Campaign did nothing to advance the 10 Key Values of the Green Party. In fact the country is only that much farther away from moving toward any of them now.

The Nader Campaign did nothing to result in a move of the Democratic Party to the left and obviously from the virulence of most of these threads made few friends here.

The Green Party needs to get a grip on it's role. Either their campaign made no difference at all in the outcome and they are therefore precisely irrelevant, or they made all the difference and their votes for Nader gave Bush* the Whitehouse. You can't have it both ways. If you want influence, accept responsibility for outcomes.

Enough for me on this one.
Quaker Bill

I reject the premise of the question that the Democratic Party has to do anything about it. They are the opposition and deserve the same consideration, understanding, and compromise due a Republican – NONE.

Trying to appease a few Greens is simply not worth the effort, nor is it worth the risk of alienating more moderates than what would be gained from the Greens.

With permission from the original poster, here is a repost of "Math with Ralph"


John_H (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-12-03 09:22 AM

Math with Ralph. Here we go:

2.7 percent minus (the number of greens who will never vote anyhing but green) minus (the huge majority of greens who live in states we'll already win handily) minus (the number who live in states we'll already lose) minus (the number of moderates we'd lose in states we need to win if we adopted major elements of their platform) minus (the large numbers of ex-Greens smart enough to see all those green "no outlet" signs and have come home)

Ask yourself, Dems, is this number positive or negative?

Seems to me our stubborn friends of the not-so-loyal opposition need to think about reaching out to us before they align themselves with a party who has a little over a year to exist.

He'll, a lot of Green staffers are looking for jobs. I think probably they've done the math.

Or isn't it a problem? For something that isn't a problem there seems to be a lot of anger about it.

The Democratic Party cannot be expected to commit political suicide to placate an insignificant number of Greens. See the math up above. It's their problem, and the question is more appropriately what are the Greens going to do about it? They have more options available to them, but as far as the Democratic Party is concerned, we don't have to deal with them at all. They cost more than they are worth, and there's nothing we can do about that.

I heard that from a Kucinich supporter today. If that is true, that is like blackmailing us in a way.

I see the Draft Nader movement has started.

http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/Nader_2004.htm
SNIP..."The efforts by Moveon.org and other organizations to convince progressives that the Democratic Party is their natural home are almost comical. This is akin to proposing that the Vatican will lead church based reform around the globe. The Democrats haven't nominated a progressive since the eighties when the last round of corporate insider trading went un- remarked by, well, the Democrats...."

And he is to undermine any other Democrat in this effort:
SNIP...."The Draft Nader movement is on the move. Go to www.draftnader2004.com. You can even vote to select Nader's running mate.

Apparently Nader is seriously considering the Draft, as he told the New York Times: "It is quite clear that the Democrats are incapable of defending our country against the Bush marauders. They have been unwilling to go all out to stop the destructive tax cuts for the wealthy. They have been soft on corporate crime. They have gone along in almost every issue except judicial appointments. They have cowered, surrendered or divided themselves."

The public is invited to a launch party for the Draft Nader 2004 campaign on Saturday, July 19 at 5 pm at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. It promises to be the largest progressive gathering since, well, June.

Carl J. Mayer is a member of the Green Party of New Jersey, an attorney, and author of the book Shakedown....."

Nader has a great mind, and a lot to offer. If he runs this time, that will hurt this party, not help it. I would hate to think that the party would have to nominate Kucinich or be facing another 2000.
Agreed the Democrats have to speak up, but this is not the way to do it.

and I see no reason to hold a Darth Nader endorsement against him. As far as the threat of another Nader spoiler race, I say: "Bring it on!" Apparently getting Bush elected hasn't slowed Ralphistophilies down at all, but I know a lot of Greens who are going to vote for any Democrat that isn't Bush.

consequences of SCOTUS hijacking the election.

2004 is entirely different. We now face an "incumbant". If Nader is serious about running, he is in the pocket of the RNC. Any leftie willing to waste his vote on Nader is either totally naive or secretly wants the Republicans in charge....some sort of bizarre punishment or maybe they just have a thing for Republican corruption.

When DK actually has to moderate his message to reach--heaven forbid!--independents and swing voters, I am sure that Nader will run and that his followers will jump ship and turn Green.

Your classification of DK supporters as those who will "jump ship" is patronizing and insulting. You're making some pretty big assumptions for not knowing much about which you speak.

DK talks to the issues in a way that appeals to moderates and conservatives and liberals. HIs platform is basically the Common Sense that gave the Democrats big victories in the 30s and 40s. Workers' Rights, affordable healthcare, better schools, a balance between business and labor: these are issues straight out of our party's platform, for godsakes.

If the Dems actually had the BALLS to run a "real Democrat" instead of another DLC/moderate apologist, maybe we'd actually get that majority we haven't had since the 1976 presidential election.

were able to get a "majority"? Yeah like Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were able to? All of whom--except Carter in 1976--suffered humiliating landslide defeats?

Then tell me what it does to change anything. You can stay cynical forever and never stand up for your beliefs because it's a waste of time and energy, or you can fight.

Tell me, if the Canadians suddenly decided they wanted US land and invaded, would you lie down and take it? I wouldn't.

I'm not going to lay down and take it now just because it's Americans trying to stage this coup. Screw that, I fight, and will keep on fighting because I owe it to my predecessors and my progeny. My children deserve what my ancestors fought to gain and keep. F*cked if I'll let someone else take it now!

Politics as usual does NOT cut it with me, and it doesn't cut it with a WHOLE LOT of us. If the Democratic Party doesn't get off this centrist BS it's going to go down in flames, and it will have no-one to blame but itself. So whatcha gonna do, friend? Contribute to the battle to survive or contribute to the death of the Party?

But at some point it has to connect with reality.

THAT'S the reality, and that's where we are. So do we fight or roll over and let them have the country? By them I mean the Right wing fascists.

What do YOU want? Democracy or some thin veneer of it? I want Democracy, thanks. I'll fight right alongside the Green Party for it, even if it means pissing a few centrists off.

That's the question. We know that Clintonism can win - it won twice. We know that Naderism appeals to less than 10% of the electorate.

So there's at least a reasonable chance that we could elect another moderate-left Clinton type, but there's no way in hell we could elect a gung-ho loud&proud liberal.

Now here's a question for you. I assume you were an adult through the Clinton years and the Bush II years. Do you see the difference? Do you see that there's a difference there worth fighting for? Because that's the difference we can actually get - the hope that's actually on the table for us.

If we can get moderate-left government into office (Congress and all) and make it work for people and keep it in and popular long enough, then we can start talking about left-left, because by then what is very left now will be more moderate.

But if we have to have everything we want and have it NOW, we'll never get anything. Republicans will stay in power and the country will move farther and farther to the right.

We cannot govern from the left if we do not win from the center. The votes are simply NOT there to run 'left', and we do not have enough time left to successfully educate a populace who does not WANT to be educated.

whether to run at all. He and Kucinich are friends in and outside of politics, though.

Here's the thing, as a Democrat myself, I understand Nader's concerns. If Kucinich doesn't win the nomination and Nader doesn't run, the Greens won't have a voice at all. He's got a tough choice to make, either officially endorse Kucinich and refuse to run, or commit to running either way and drop out if Kucinich gets the nomination. Either way it sucks for him.

I'm a freak. A "bleeding-heart liberal and pollyanna" unabashed and unashamed. I like both Kucinich AND Nader for their minds. No, I LOVE them for their minds. I don't have to agree to respect and admire someone's ability to think and even act strategically in a situation he/she views as a battle.

I agree with Nader about one thing- this IS a battle for Democratic values and principles. When the party ceases to live up to its core platform, folks, we have a BIG problem, and that's what I see happening. Tough love works sometimes, as much as it gives me the willies, it really does work.

We Democrats need to get a grip and realize there are some valid criticisms happening here, and Greens have a right to be pissed at the Party. More than that, after all they've been through, most have a right and even an obligation to combat what the Party has become.

Look, if my kid joined a fundamentalist anti-choice, anti-freedom church, you bet your arse I'd fight her on it! I'd pull out all the stops and do everything possible to get her to see right and wrong. That's what the Green Party is about. The way they see it, the Democratic Party feel far short of its main platform. It moved into right-wing territory, just like if my kid joined a fundy church. As part of the core of this Party, they aren't left with many choices except to get pissed and get radical.

You talk about the Green Party and how these people are core Democrats....

If you want to pull the Party left, call yourself a Green-Democrat if you need an identification label....but vote Democrat or get involved from the inside.

...why a DU moderator would 'continue' a thread that is obviously flame bait? Yes...it had a lot of posts...but why go to the effort of putting up a 'part two' for a thread that denigrates those DU has invited to post here?

- I say this as someone that USED TO post 'anti-Green' threads and had them locked for the above stated reasons. Are Greens and other 'progressive' third parties welcome here? Or will they always be relegated to the 'back seat' and treated as less than equals?

- I'm a Democrat who thinks that IF third parties are welcomed by the DU administrators to post here...they should recieve no less respect than any other poster. It's up to the moderators to enforce these rules...not contribute to the 'anti-third-party' hatred coming from some of the same Democrats who claim to belong to the party of the 'big tent'.

Precisely why should we sit back and remain silent in the face of CONSTANT flaming of our candidates by the Green element here, pray tell? Are we supposed to sit here and say "Thank you, sir! May I have another, sir?" for all eternity? :eyes:

...Greens and others are welcome. Yes...you DO have to sit back and listen. Either that...or convince the DU administrators to change the rules and kick out all those you don't happen to agree with or like.

... the Green party and Mr Nader's past actions and current posturing are 'flame bait', then so are questions about Gen. Clark's past associations with repukes, Gov. Dean's past statements about Medicare, John kerry's IWR votes, etc., etc., etc. . One man's flame bait is another man's legitimate topic, it seems.

We could also express our own opinions. We could reply to posts that we don't think are reasonable or accurate or fair. Why does this alternative not occur to you? Why do you assume that we have to either exclude Greens or shut up and accept everything they say?

...to make me look like the bad guy. Won't work. This thread is the best example of flame bait I've seen in a long time. It's an intentional ATTACK against posters DU has welcomed here and gave space to present their own opinions.

- This is a gang on the green thread. The intent is clear: to blame, to belittle and basically tell Greens and others to tow the line or shut up.

- There's also a subliminal suggestion that Greens and other progressives shouldn't be allowed to post here because of their opinions on how the Democratic party is running the show. This outright hatred towards fellow DUers shouldn't be encouraged or promoted by this board or anyone else with an interest in fair play and open debate.

- Free speech for some?

And one we need to discuss. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to mention.

- The enemy is GWB and his faithful cronies. Yet...you devote so much energy in picking fights with anyone and everyone BUT the Bushies. How is this helping our cause?

- I believe we're obligated to treat all DUers with respect. It's disgusting the way you and others have made them feel unwelcome while you puff your chest and act superior.

- DUers have been trashing Greens for three years...ever since the Supreme Court helped Bush* steal the 2000 election. This intimidation and resentment of third parties has replaced any meaningful debate about the crooks in the WH and the harm they visit on our nation every day.

- No wonder one Bush* scandal after another goes unexamined and unpunished. Some Dems seem more worried about the opinions of those posting on DU. Such distorted priorities.

Look it up, or else have someone to whom you'll listen explain it to you. My definition suffers from the Green-ness of the speaker.

Can you present any example from this thread, which you find so offensive, that has asked you or any other pro-Green poster to shut up? Because it seems to me that you've been given the same opportunity to post your views that we have been given to post ours.

If you feel that this thread is in violation of the rules, try Alert or Ask an Administrator.

You may not like the opinions expressed here tonight by some Democrats, but they are clearly consistent with the purpose and guidelines spelled out in the rules. And frankly, I am just more than a bit tired of seeing then reframed and redefined by individual Green participants to better fit the Green Party and agenda at the expense of the Democratic Party and candidates.


WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.


SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION

Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president], then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

"Greens are killing the Democratic Party" threads. Because if it's OK for you to tell me what's wrong with the Democratic Party, I sure as hell have a right to make my opinion known as to what I think about the Green Party. :-)

I have no problem discussing the issues, but you shouldn't whine when the majority here disagree with your assessment of the political landscape.

...I posted about a year ago. I was told by DU in no uncertain terms that I couldn't post such things because Greens and other progressives were WELCOME here.

- Have the rules changed and no one told me?

The fiction of the "constant flaming" to which you refer just boggles the mind. I expect this wacky persecution complex from Republican princelings who rail against the inheritance tax for millionaires, but not from people who supposedly are progressives.

Let us compare our own examples, eh? Who wants open discourse more, and who wants more to simply denounce? Do you have an answer rooted in reality? America wants to know.

The Greens are far too 'pure' to ever flame anyone. :eyes: The fact is, they flame Democrats constantly, but don't even realize it for what it is.

About as much insight as I'd expect from the devoted worshippers of St. Ralph.

I expect that with such a weak case, anyone would run from my question, though.

Yes indeed, respond to my challenge with puerile insult. That is exactly the example to set before the new dawn and another glorious day of bipartisanship.

It's about as peurile as your facile dismissal of the BLATANT Democrat bashing the Greens engage in. Et tu, Brute?

Which one of us started a thread devoted to denouncing the entire class of "other?"

Game, Set, Match.

Nice Shakespeare quote, by the way. Now try Alexander Pope:

"Satire or sense, alas! Can Sporus feel?
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
Yet let me flap this bug with gilded wings,
This painted child of dirt that stinks and stings,
Whose buzz the witty and the fair annoys,
Yet wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'er enjoys."

The thread was started to voice my *opinion* about whether jumping through all the Green 'hoops' is worth it, and my opinion was, is and will remain that it is NOT.

...and I'm a friggin Democrat. What's next? I'm not really a Democrat because I criticize the Democratic party? I'm not loyal or pure enough?

- Sometimes we just have to buck up and tolerate the views of others. You should be asking WHY others have negative views about the Democrats instead of trying to shut them up.

THEY should be asking why they bring out such a lopsidely hostile reaction among those who DIDN'T desert the party.

...and I have to say that narrow-minded center-right bigotry such as yours is one reason that I might well desert the democratic party after 30 yrs as a registered, loyal democrat. Today's democratic party is not the one that I've worked for the past 30 years. Or maybe my blinders are just coming off.

Have you EVER read the Green Party platform? Do you actually know anything about the political party you love to trash so much? The Green platform is dominated by traditional democratic values. What do yoiu value, Padraig? Winning at any cost? Or do those democratic values that the Greens are defending more fervently than the dems mean anything to you? Did they ever mean anything to you, or were they always just barginning chips in the great game of politics?

It's calling a spade a spade. The Greens gave FL to *, the political equivalent of a knife under the 5th rib. For this I am supposed to be GRATEFUL? I'm supposed to be 'understanding'? Sorry, not happening...

ENOUGH of the bullshit line that the Greens "gave" FL to Shrub. Go read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, and reference the suit the NAACP won against the state of Florida for wrongly removing many LEGAL African-American voters from the registration rolls.

Everybody knows that the 2000 election was stolen by ShrubCo and family-- the evidence is overwhelming to anybody with an ounce of inquisitiveness. But if you want to continue that tired excuse the DLC has been using for the last few years, feel free to do so.

And nowhere in the book does Palast deny that Nader got 97K+ votes in a state where *'s margin of victory was 537.

but Florida Greens left the door unlocked and the key in the ignition.

your platform counts for zilch. Meaningless gestures aren't worth the trouble in politics.

But I'm smart enough to realize that there is only one other option, voting Republican. Any "3rd way" is a counter-productive. You have a far better chance of getting the Green agenda on the table, discussed, and possibly enabled with a Democratic majority in the Executive and Legislative branches.

Or you can maintain ideological purity and stay shut out of the process.

most of those accused in the mccarthyesque green-baiting here are democrats. i think there are very few actual greens here. i see no reason not to support both parties...greens locally, democrats nationally. that strategy has worked well for me :shrug:

Greens and leftwingers in the party have been chosen as the target to attack so that skill will be sharpened and honed in case it is ever determined that attacking the Republicans is necessary. ;-)

They always wait until the "radical" Dems start the attacks. Then when they see it is safe they jump in the waters. It was not very long ago when it was hard to find a prominent moderate Democrat who would speak out against the Bush junta.

Or maybe it is that they have strong Republican sympathies. The same posters who are defending their candidate's vote for Reagan and Nixon, as well as his praise of the Bush administration, seem to despise progressives.

But the moderates may be correct. They may actually have more in common with moderate Republicans then they do with leftists. That is what I am starting to be convinced of by them in these threads. I think that is what the subtext is here.

I think this may be my last year as a registered Dem. I owe my vote to NO party. Odd these posters become angry when it is even suggested they court leftist votes--yet they think LEFTISTS OWE THEM A VOTE. They will attend the funeral of the Democratic party and blame Nader instead of themselves for the death.

never was a Democrat. You can consider Greens the same as the same as Republicans, except that I not only agree with what many of you say (and not what the party typically carries out), but I entertain voting for your party all the time.

When they run a candidate against Wellstone, that is that areas Greens running it, not all Greens (which are in every country, basically).

I won't respond to flame, but you can say we did this, and that, cause some people voted for Nader (an Independant), but I don't feel the same towards you, although enough of this might sway me.

Greens have had no affect on Government policies that got us here... who has?

Actually, the MN state Greens almost nominated Wellstone as their candidate, but could not as there's really no cross-party nomination setup in the state.

Needless to say, I saw many more "Nader/LaDuke" and "Wellstone" bumperstickers on cars than I ever saw "Gore/Liebermann" and "Wellstone" bumper stickers together.

And that's not even counting the "Greens for Wellstone" signs/stickers.... :)

I am not as anti-Democratic as some Greens are... I guarantee you there would some Greens left in the party if FDR emerged from the grave and ran, but they are a small contingent. My local Green chapter always talks about Greens issues in relation to how Democrats are doing, we reached a consensus on Kucinich, Sharpton and possibly Dean. They are 'in the process' of reregistering Democratic to vote Dennis in the primaries, I already sent in my form.

I see the thread below dissecting Nader as if he was the epitome of the Greens... haha. The Greens are attempting to become a national progressive movement... because, and I agree, this world needs massive change to save our future, not just in this country, but in every country.

For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn't about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of “heightening the contradictions”. It's not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It's that he's actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can better.

Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that the Reagan-era interior secretary James Watt was useful because he was a “provocateur” for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club's membership. More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here's the Los Angeles Times' account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, California, last week: “After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilise us.'”

Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. “When {the Democrats} lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters,” Nader told an audience in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months ago, according to a story in the Nation. “We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes.”

That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked “about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party”. Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. “I hate to use military analogies,” Nader said, “but this is war on the two parties.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

Last Thursday morning CNN showed Nader voters ecstatic and unapologetic about their part in the election mess. “I'm a part of history,” burbled one woman.

Along with that woman CNN showed another Naderite who shrugged off the prospect of a Bush presidency with the following: “I believe things have to get worse before they get better.”

That seems to me to adequately sum up the belief of Ellen Willis who, in a Salon piece supporting Nader last week, wrote: “More and more I am coming to the conviction that Roe vs. Wade, in the guise of a great victory, has been in some respects a disaster for feminism. We might be better off today if it had never happened, and we had had to continue a state-by-state political fight. Roe vs. Wade resulted in a lot of women declaring victory and going home.”
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/15/nader/

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.”
“If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.” - Nader
http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

The only prominent Democrat who Nader seems to believe offers the party any chance for redemption is Russ Feingold, the maverick senator from Wisconsin who cast a lonely vote against the Bush Administration's antiterrorism legislation. Feingold is a rare Democrat who consistently says things like, “Ralph Nader is talking about issues Democrats should be talking about.” But the mutual admiration goes only so far. Nader rejects the idea of backing a Feingold run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. “I'll say a lot of good things about him, but we're not trying to build the same party,” he says.

Nader admits he experiences “lots” of frustration with the Greens. He warns that the party is not running enough candidates to achieve critical mass at election time, and he says it must do so--even where that means challenging relatively liberal Democrats.

Does Nader worry, even just a little bit, that another candidacy might divide progressives and produce another Bush presidency? “Look, I'd rather be engaged in the nonpartisan work of building a civil society. For me, there has been a gradual commitment to getting involved in the electoral process, and I still cling to this civic, nonpartisan vision of how to do things,” Nader says. “But if you do an acute analysis of why things don't change in this country, you come back to what has happened to the Democratic Party. When I look at how the Democrats have responded to Enron so far, it seems to me that we all have a responsibility to try to jolt them into an understanding of what is at stake. If Democrats respond effectively, there will not be much point to me or anyone else challenging them. But if they do not, something has to give. People realize that. People know what the Enron scandal means. This is a test. Are Democrats capable of addressing massive corporate crimes effectively? If Democrats cannot, if they are in such a routinized rut that they are incapable of responding, then how could anyone make a case that they should be given deference at the ballot box?”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020225&s=nichols

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because “that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray.”
In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

In a recent Time magazine interview, when asked if he felt any regret about the 2000 election, Nader responded, “No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican Congress with Gore and Lieberman.” -- Time magazine, 8-05-02

“Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy.” -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

“I'm just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It's absolutely amazing. Not a minute's sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It's just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?” -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001
http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

Contrast his statements above with some information on the two pre-Nazi Germany liberal parties:
In 1930 the parliamentary coalition that governed Germany fell apart, and new elections were held. The biggest winner in these elections was Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party. From twelve seats in parliament they increased their seats to 107, becoming Germany's second largest political party. The largest party was still the Social Democrats, and this party won 143 seats and 24.5 percent of the vote. Communist Party candidates won 13.1 percent of the vote (roughly 50 times better than the U.S. Communist Party did in the 1932 elections), and together the Social Democrats and the Communists were large enough to claim the right to make a government. But Communists and the Social Democrats remained hostile toward one another. The Comintern at this time was opposed to Communists working with reformers, and the Communists believed that a collapse of parliamentary government would hasten the revolutionary crisis that would propel them to power.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

...of how the Democratic leadership is directing the party?

- Some have made him the Democrat's version of the Clinton scapegoat. He's given much more credit than he's due...and neoDems are still bringing him up three years later at the risk of pulling attention away from the clear and present danger of the Bush* fascists.

- It's amazing...all this energy devoted to Nader and Greens...while the Bushies are getting away with crimes that would mean impeachment for a Democrat. Dems just can't seem to keep their eye on the ball...while the real opposition plays our leadership like cheap violins or the objects of bipartisan 'date rape'.

- Don't look now...but the Bushies are kicking our asses. They're doing serious and permanent damage to our country and Constitution. But the focus of your ire is Nader and the Greens? Welcome to the petty minority party.

They're not worth the trouble; there are MANY more votes to be had elsewhere. Let them be Greens and worship St. Ralph on their own, and let's quit wasting time trying to appease them.

Saving a copy of this. Mind if I quote you? :D

While I may not agree with the methodology, I have to admire the logic and strategy shown by these quotes. Nader is a brilliant mind. I like that. So sue me and run me out of the Party.:shrug:

If "winning" is more important than putting a candidate into office who shares our beliefs and values, why not just say screw it and vote Republican?

It's quite simple: WE save a pile of dough that would have been spent on contesting the election. In return, we get the "sense of victory" that our candidate "won".

What would the difference be, anyway? We'd still end up with a Republican (be s/he a true Republican or the "New Democrat" Republican-Lite variety) who STILL won't stand up for the people of this country in the face of big business and big intrusive government a la John Ashcroft; who'll pay more attention to the boardroom than the classroom; who will bend over backward to give away our national treasury to the rich while preaching "responsibility" to the poor.

By God, let's make this year a WINNING year. Vote Republican in 2004!

entreched emotion aside, in 2000 the GOP was the party with the power of:

-the media
-scotus
-choicepoint (katherine harris & jeb bush)
-the florida legislature

all factors in the 2000 debacle...and much moreso than nader or the green party. and why: they lied, cheated, and twisted the *spirit* of the law..and were prepared to do even more, that's why!!!!!!! :wtf: why are democrats so afraid of competition from greens when: THE GOP STOLE THE ELECTION AND INSTALLED BUSH!?!?!

now they have the executive branch, and the senate...

THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PATHETIC COUNTRY: THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ALLOWED THE GOP TO EXECUTE A COUP WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST PEEP OF PROTEST (EXCEPT OF COURSE THE CBC). AND WHO IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS: GREENS?!?! :wtf:

something is VERY wrong with AMERICANS.

The Greens did it! They did it all.

J/k Noriet, you always have a beautiful way of putting things. Sadly, mnany a thread of this ilk will come to be in the future.

as the downward spiral continues...and "no difference" continues to become less of an epithet than a comment on current reality...who will be to blame then?

Nobody knows what the blazes you are talking about.

Reading through these 2 threads, on thought just keeps coming to the forefront over and over: I see all manner of explanations, rationalizations, Herculean contortions of logic, etc., to defend or attempt to ameliorate or explain away what Nader and the Greens did to Gore and the Democrats in 2000 while at one and the same time I see elsewhere non-stop, vicious attacks on Gen. Clark for speaking well of former Republican co-workers, against Howard dean for something he said in 1995, against John Kerry for his vote on the IWR, etc. .

Am I the only one who sees a HUGE logical disconnect here? Hello, RN and the Greens ACTIVELY sought to defeat our candidate 3 years ago, and obtained enough votes in FOUR competitive states to give those states to *! These are people we should 'solicit' and enlist in 2004?

Hellllllloooooooo? :wtf:

- Just the fact that these things happened THREE years ago shows that you're either out of touch or just plain obsessed. But you sure seem to have gotten over all those other rotten things that happened in 2000 and afterward.

- I believe you're purposely trying to divide the board and drive away those with 'unpure' politics. In other words...you're acting similar to how RWingers acted when they fought to drive the moderates out of their party. Perhaps studying American politics from 1980 to 2000 will give you a hint?

- Better yet...do a bit of research on the 2000 election. Gore had enough votes to win no matter how many votes third parties received.

- Please understand that I don't give a shit that you don't like Nader or Greens. It matters little in the broader scheme of things. It's your misrepresentation or outright ignorance of the facts that raises a red flag. You're giving a free pass to those who blatantly manipulated a national election...slanting and perverting it so that the actual loser was able to take office. This is a disservice to country and party...and helps the propagandists get away with their crimes against democracy.

- Know your enemy. It's not third parties that are only participating in Democracy. Our common enemy sits in the WH...smirking at the thought that Dems can't get their shit together.

...Nader the the Greens but you have no problem with us 'getting over' the real reasons why Democrats have lost their asses for over a decade.

- Did you know that Harris was the co-chair of Florida's Bush* campaign? Did you know that she allowed GOP operatives unsupervised access to election computers during the recount? Did you know that Harris allowed illegal absentee ballots to be 'corrected' and counted?

- You're like the guy who worries that his car needs washing as his house burns down. Your ire against Greens distorts your vision about what needs to be done to counter the Bushie propaganda and win in 2004.

- Third parties are a very minor part of the equation. A major part is that the Bushies are lying to the American people and GETTING AWAY WITH IT because they have very little Democratic opposition.

- I've had my problems with the Greens in the past. But I left all that behind to try to find a dialogue with them in an effort to work out our COMMON problems.

- Your bigotry is insulting to all of us that prefer to work with our fellow lefties instead of the blind hated you show towards them. That you fail to understand this makes it clear that you would rather make enemies than friends.

I want to be sure thet *are* friends FIRST! What are they bringing to the table? Can and will they say "ABB"?

...when it has nothing to do with what Greens are 'bringing to the table'. The important thing should be what the Dems are bringing to the table and the direction of the party.

- It just seems to bother you that Greens are allowed to post here. Well...to quote the NeoDems: get over it. They have every right to post here. Try countering their arguments instead of bulldozing over them.

- They're not obligated to say 'anyone but Bush*' any more than Democrats are obligated to say it. It's silly trying to intimidate people into voting against their conscience.

I, in turn, am free to call it like I see it. Furthermore, they *do* need to bring something to the table, if they want a voice in who Democrats nominate for President. This is a "potluck" event; if they don't bring anything TO the table, they should have no expectation of receiving anything FROM the table.

My theory is that there are a few here who really work as loyal operatives of the RNC. This is an anonymous posting community right?

The trick is to appear partisan in your overall attacks on the Democratic candidates. It's quite easy for a dozen people or so to chose a "favorite" candidate and then post to destroy the rest. Avatars are cheap, no?

Same with "Greens"...who really knows their motivations? If they really cared about changing the country, they'd be first electing Anybody But Bush...then worry about the minutae of policy differences. Fact is, they ought to realize that we need even more substantial voter numbers in 2004 because the Republican machine will no doubt exercise even more control of the outcome, the closer the we are to a deadheat. If 2004 is not the year to put ideological differences aside, there never will be a year....this may be our last chance to have a chance at Democracy in our lifetimes.

I am not persistent in order to be divisive, etc., but rather to determine what it is *exactly* that the Greens are offering AND seeking; so far, I have seen little in the way of rapproachment or detente on THEIR part (in ANY thread, not simply these 2), so I am puzzled about why a *Democrat* who has never left the Democratic party should be castigated for asking "What gives with the Greens? Can we trust them? Is their support worth the asking price?'.

I also see nothing whatsoever untoward in pointing out *precisely* what the Greens did in 2000 in factual terms; apparently MANY, MANY, MANY Democrats who remained in the party agree with me, if the number of unique posters and their sentiments on the present topic are any indicator. If it is not 'fair' to ask "What are your intentions?" of a party whose standard bearer attacked OUR standard bearer and urged his defeat just 3 short years ago, may we EVER ask that question of ANYONE? If that makes them uncomfortable, too f*cking bad!

I want to know, dammit, because the stakes in 2004 are exponentially greater than they were in 2000; this election is about whether or not we reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance from the crypto-fascists, and I have every right to know where some putative 'ally' stands before I let them guard my political flank. We must NOT depend on an ally who cannot pledge themselves to our party's cause; we have better ways to spend our energies than looking over our shoulders.

then call them "middle moderates" like we did in 2000!! Only problem is they voted for Bush.

Your battle cry shouldn't be "Anyone but Bush", let's face it, that's disengenous....what you should be affixing to the back of your cars is "Nobody but the Democratic Nominee".

RC

Another thread wonders about the fixation of the Right on communism as the font of all evil, but here you have Dems who'd much rather spew venom at progressives (who at least know what direction they are facing), than oppose the Right. Everyday we read or hear about another blow to undermine our Rights, our environment, our institutions, our livlihoods, our children's future and still this juvenile misled lament about the Greens who barely register a blink in consciousness in these mean times.

We're trying to keep the ones who want to do just that from prosyletizing successfully on DU.

You 'get it'. :thumbsup:

proving Nader right OVER and OVER and OVER again

- Jeez...I'd be ashamed to admit such a thing if I were you. But that's just me.

- It seems to me that you'd have better success at 'stopping' third parties from opposing YOUR candidate if you opened a dialogue about theirs and your concerns.

- Trying to shut people up is decidedly 'unAmerican' and unDemocratic'.

If they're not Democrats, they're opposition. "Same whore, different street corner."

fact is, Greens aren't opposition...they're better Democrats...THATS your problem

*THAT* is the problem. If they want to have input about the Democratic party nominee, then they should join the Democratic party, or pledge support for him/her, if they want a Green/Democrat 'fusion' candidate. What's so hard to understand about that?

is this where the whole thread came from?? Greens making their feelings about their choice of Dem candidate? What is you malfunction then?

But to suggest they're not Democrats at all is just goofy...they're Democrats who couldn't stand the rightward careen of the party. The Greens who are not more unified with Dems are still to the left of Dems, and not anti-thetical to the goals of the Dem party. The Republicans ARE the opposite of the Democrats, but you want Dems to be more and more like them. You don't see the disconnect there, do you?

Your assumption is inherently flawed: Greens are NOT Dems--- they're GREENS!

Whether you wish to recognize the fact, or not, the fact of the matter is that for 30 years, presidential elections in this nation have ONLY been won in the center. There can be no hope of governing from the left unless and until the reins of power are placed in our hands.

I don't seem to be the only one with a disconnect.

Sometimes you can be so far left, you end up facing right.

I chose my words very carefully. I said that we are trying to stop Greens from proselytizing successfully. That's not the same as saying we are trying to stop them from proselytizing at all, which obviously according to the rules of the board, we can't.

Refuting an argument isn't censoring it. Free speech is also the freedom to disagree with someone else's free speech, and say so.

Let the Greens post within the rules. At one and the same time, let me be free to express my grave doubts about allying ourselves with them under the 'conditions' most Greens want us to accept ab initio in order for that political marriage to occur.

...to the rules? Such subliminal garbage.

- I believe you're inventing an issue where none exists. I've seen no organized effort by Greens or anyone else on DU to set 'conditions' or force you into 'allying' with them. You're tilting at windmills. I hope you're entertained.

So what's this "subliminal" noise?

The "issue where none exists" was raised by you, who accused us (me, particularly) of trying to stifle your freedom of speech, apparently by disagreeing with you.

Nobody made any of the accusations in your last paragraph. Maybe if you'd read the posts "liminally," i.e. looking at what the writer actually wrote, it'd help.

...so what was YOUR rant all about?

If you don't think they have, then you're either naive, or oblivious. They prostelytize here CONSTANTLY with the 'real Democrats' rants, etc.. If it's not a 'come join us' effort, I don't know what it IS! Or how about those "Well, we plan to vote Democratic as long as it's Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton (usually)"? If that's not subtle intimidation, what is?

You have your opinion, and I have mine.:eyes:

...you're complaining about. Looking more and more like 'windmills' to me.

- And what the Hell is wrong with voting for those DEMOCRATS you mentioned?

I wish they'd try their hand at converting some of the fencesitters at FreeRepublic....

- The Greens? All third parties? Me?

- Two things you should know: I've always voted Democratic and plan to in 2004. / I've posted at this board from almost the beginning and Greens and other 'progressives' have always been welcome here. This means their opinions are also welcome.

- And speaking of FReeperVille...this is the type of thread one can usually find there: threads meant to single out those with a different point of view for ridicule and establishment of a 'pecking order'.

(1) Naderites
(2) Greens and other Independents who won't vote Democrat
(3) Poster's who ID themselves as (1) or (2) and post threats that they'll only vote Democrat if we select our weakest candidates (my opinion).

Thise are the people that I wish would spend quality time draining Republican votes at FR.

Just wanted to say hello :hi:

:hi:

ALL of them no matter which dem gets the nod! :7

Tell them "thank you" for me. :thumbsup: