Because of San Francisco, I'm voting Green in November

I'm sick of looking at Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Clark and whoever and figuring out who is tolerable. Kucinich and Sharpton may be OK, but if they run I know the Democratic establishment will not be with them, and will probably even secretly work against them.

I'm totally disgusted with what happened in San Francisco. They send Clinton out because a Democratic candidate is in danger of being defeated by someone running to his left. How come we don't see the same kind of energy from these DLC new Democrats to defeat Republicans? They embrace the business owners and corporate brass downtown and talk about the "danger" of a grassroots campaign with fully progressive, working class values winning would maintain. The danger is seen and the wealthy parasites unload their lucre onto the Democratic party, showering it with over $3 million to defeat this grassroots, working class insurgency.

I'm disgusted with this whole thing. You couldn't get a better picture of the modern DLC "new" Democratic party, embracing the owners of big business and vowing to protect them against the workers and progressive, grassroots movement. The Republicans and Democrats are a wolf and a wolf in sheeps clothing. The Democrats can forget about my vote and my canvassing this year, I'll be working with the Greens.

...for helping to re-elect Bush.

pigs at the trough

Not a dimes bit of difference between these. Only the grassroots are genuine on either side. Be nice to have a new party called "Humanitans"
with a platform for civil, human, national, and ethnic rights and opportunities. An economic platform that allows for free markets in everything EXCEPT health/mecicine and energy and of course the military and national security.

That's just a bit of friendly advice.

I'll simply have to wait for Dems to do the work all on their own :D

They are efficient; that's for sure.

that's the biggest indictment

We know the damage done already with Bush. You're willing to allow four more years?

You're willing to allow four more years?


A lot of folks see this round as more politics as usual. Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, and even Kerry would take the country to another place, but all we see from the Democrats here is either Clark or Dean.

Do you believe in what you claim to believe in or not?

How many times have I read something like "I really like Dennis best, but he can't win." So, YOU are willing to allow four more years of politics as usual. Maybe a different face on the cover, but the story inside is the same. It's only a matter of degree isn't it?

Yes, I want Bush out, and I will vote against him. I would like to feel that I'm also voting FOR something, but heck... this is America after all.

sorry to be rude but I am really sick of self-pitying paranoid people whining about either "unelectable Dean" or "status quo Dean/Clark"

you are totally clueless if you think Dean is a Bushbot/has any connection to PNAC/BFEE/etc: "status quo"

I like Clark very much but am not entirely certain of his affiliations. However, his speeches are very reassuring that he is a genuinely humanitarian person who would not promote or tolerate the kind of fraudulent tragic foreign policy we have now.

Did Gore and Clinton go to Philadelphia and stump for Street? He was actually running against a Republican! Philly's a big city, isn't it?

Green or any other 3rd party candidate.
The Leadership of this party is tooo pissed off at the Greens that they don't care if a Republican candidate would take Philly.
I wonder if here in Portland, Oregon -- the DLC/DNC would support Jim Francesconi(in bed with every major developer and big business) vs. James Possey(an Afro-American small business owner that is a Green) vs. Tom Potter(former police chief and limits donations under $25) vs. Phil Busse(editor of a in-city rag and limits donations under $100)...... hmmmmmm.

and probably will again, but not this presidential election. Too much is at stake. Voting for the Green presidential candidate will not help get Bush out of the White House. And if we don't, I fear there will be no more elections because this country will become a facist state.

But voting Green in the fall primary will give us four more years of President Bush.

Evaluate the costs of your pique.

edited to add, of course I meant fall election, but I guess I'm overly focused.

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

Didn't even have the guts to endorse Newsom. They didn't address this fact: it's the Democratic Party and anybody who wants to lead it better damn well support the Democratic candidates.

Can you blame Clinton for supporting a fellow Democrat over a person who stands for a party that will ruin his party and further the neo-con cause. There's a reason Ralphie was on the floor of the 2000 RNC convention--he was getting $$.

as Taffy Davenport would say.

You may as well vote for Bush. I guess you want 4 more years of our country going into the dumpster with *.

But you never intended to vote Democratic anyway. Otherwise, this little blip wouldn't bother you nearly so much. You just want to be wooed.

Bye now. Better things to do than babysit...

how do you know lancemurdoch was not going to "vote Democratic anyway"?

By the way, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

to help defeat republicans. Have fun with your exercise in futility.

There's nothing to be mad about.


That was how democracy was (almost) supposed to work. Fascism was left on the sidelines. And you have to believe that Newsom is going to remember that 48% of the voters wanted someone more liberal than him, and that 45% of them were probably Demcorats.

I also bet you anything Gonzalez would happily vote for at least 7 of the likely Democratic nominees.

who else wouldn't he vote for?

who just happens to have a "D" after his name. Newsome couldn't have won running as a Republican, but eveidently, running as a "Democrat" while espousing Republican policies will get one elected.

As for 48 percent of the voters wanting someone more liberal than him, well, taking Nader's votes into account in the 2000 election, Bush had to be aware that a majority of the country wanted someone more liberal than him. Did he give a shit? Niether will Newsome. He owes a LOT of favors.

You remind me of a guy who refuses to have a cancer taken out because he's mad at the doctor.

n/t

When you call in to C-SPAN, you begin by saying "As a lifelong Democrat......"

I'm totally disgusted with what happened in San Francisco. They send Clinton out because a Democratic candidate is in danger of being defeated by someone running to his left.

I must ask, would you be equally disgusted if someone like Nader went to SF to back the Green candidate?

and Newsom exacted no mandate from the people, even after all that

San Francisco, an intelligent, liberal paradise wouldn't vote for just anyone. Obviously Newsom was the better choice.

what do you not understand?

The DU thought police might brutalize you.

I wouldn't vote for Nader under any circumstances. IMO his big lie, that there is no difference between the two parties, is the reason we are in this huge mess now.

I'm no Gore fan but no WAY would we be where we are now if the rightful winner was in the White House; and that wouldn't even be an issue of Nader hadn't convinced so many people that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

I would have voted Green in SF but I am glad that they will be able to use SF as a Dem Money & Power base because let's be realistic, it will take LOTS OF MONEY to defeat Bush. It's sad that it's come down to Whoever Buys The Most 30 Second Ads wins but that's most of winning elections these days.

If we could get some campaign finance reform passed, we could start seeing more progressive candidates in the future, that will NEVER happen with BU$H in there. First priority: kick him out.

Is that effective when supporting the Dem Nom!! That makes me hopeful, although I would have voted for Matt myself.

Do you really expect the party that under Clinton brought us that unconstitutional monstrosity known as soft money to actually do more than pay lip service to CFR?

The ONLY party on the national political landscape that is actively working for more egaltarian and effective CFR are the Greens. They take no money from corporations, so the only people that they have to please are the people that elected them. They are actively working to bring pulic financing of local, state and national elections, something that 88% of the public supports.

Our electoral system has deginerated to a two party, same corporate master system of doing business. Expecting the very people who benefit from this system to reform it is like expecting a thief to participate in a home security seminar. The only way to purge this poison that is eating away the very fabric of our society is to throw all the bastards out of office and vote in a party that will bring about REAL change, the Greens

I understand you might be a Green supporter but Clinton is a Democrat and not a Green so he had every right to go into San Francisco to help a fellow democrat--who may not be as far to the left as the Gonzalez but is also pretty liberal too. The Greens are an opposition party and it should be expected.

Former Presidents and Vice Presidents always get involved with mayoral races and support candidates backed by Bechtel and George Schultz. It makes perfect sense.

:eyes:

Orlando's run in the last two mayoral elections. The glossy mailers with George W & Babs grinning out at all of us did NOT help him at all.

He lost both times.

was Orlando Sanchez also backed by the AFL-CIO and the Sierra club?

If not, the comparison is moot.

The new Dem mayor in CA reportedly has ties to the likes of Bechtel.

From these two examples, it seems Repubs back repubs and Democrats back repubs.

:shrug:

Clinton and Gore campaigned for Street in Philly, Bush down in Houston for their Republican mayor.

you wrote: "Kucinich and Sharpton may be OK, but if they run I know the Democratic establishment will not be with them, and will probably even secretly work against them."

Not sure if I understand. Because the democratic establishment will not be with them, you can't support them? Is the democratic establishment going to be with your Green candidate?

no way...not in my mind anyway...we need bush transplanted, we all know that right? the democratic establishment does as well

Although they don't have time to respond to you personally, you can rest assured that your contribution to help President Bush get re-elected will not go unnoticed!

Voters like you really 'turn the crank' over at places like the Heritage Foundation, the Project for a New American Century, and the American Enterprise Institute.

In short, yes, there is a hell of a lot worse than Howard Dean. And you are helping it along.

Interesting.

a read an article and a smaller percentage than i thought was indicated when crunching the numbers re: how many green votes would have gotten Gore elected...i agree you may as well vote for the shrub...

but as kermint says: "it's not easy being green"

not easy, not productive...

one love
spike

A refreshing change from the nauseating plethora of candidate threads.

News Alert: They are running!

Maybe you'd do better, intead of threatening us with your vote for Bush, to get off your ass and go campaign for somebody.

They're running in the primary election, so obviously there's only one election where I would imply they're running would be conditional - the general election. What do you think they're running for?

the simple fact is, that after 4 more years of Bush, the American people will listen to Dennis next time

and the Democrats will eventually quit running centrists, the Green Party will grow every election

those of us that are ideologues, well, it really doesn't matter if we get power now or 4 years from now...the present means nothing and the future lasts forever

candidate? That doesn't make any sense. If Gonzalez had run as a democrat he probably would have won the seat.... and Clinton might have campaigned for him too. Or maybe he wouldn't have had to campaign there at all. Either way you could have had your working class insurgency in California and we'd all be happy.

No time to waste on Quixotic crusades, I need to concentrate on getting rid of Bush!

Come back anytime! No hard feelings! :)

he said he's been working Dem precincts, but not anymore

It's the "not any more" part that get's to me.

Fine, let him go an get out of the way. If he wants to come back, I welcome him, if not, at least let him not spread dissent among Dems.

Why does that bug you?

There might be a stampede if the sheep wake up and see how they're being screwed!

Dems can dissent, but who needs outside help?I have zero tolerance for this brand of "principled" ignorance.

There is NO ROOM for some outside dissent among Dems, not this year. Take your sarcasm and eat it. If you don't want to vote dem--Good Bye! See Ya! Adios!

I don't care. Just don't sit around here and spread your hate. Dems have a tough job to do this year, they have to end Bush2 before it morphs into "The Fascist States of America."

So - Help, follow, or get the fuck out of the way. :)

Don't you get it yet? Don't you have a clue? The vast majority of that "outside help" either were Dems or still are. We're not here to spread hate, we're here to try and WAKE YOUR ASS UP to the realization that the leadership of the party that we all dearly love is nothing but a bunch of corporate whores selling you down the river. C'mon, think. Does it really sound like a Democrat when they advocate welfare "reform", media monopoly, corporate control of governmnet through soft money donations, NAFTA, WTO, GATT, and on and on? Think man! This is not the Democratic Party of our youth, not the party of Kennedy or FDR.

We have seen where this suicide cruise is going, and decided to get off. Two parties, one corporate master is not good for this country, yet that is exactly the primrose path the Dems want you to follow. If you are foolish enough to follow them, well that's up to you. But don't think you can silence those who have woken up to the realities of what is going on. First of all, this board is open to Dems and progressives of all stripes(or haven't you read the rules). There is also a little matter of the first amendment.

So no, I won't be helping you on your suicide run, nor will I follow you. And I never, ever get out of the way. I'm a fighter, something the Dems seem to be sorely lacking as of late.

have you watched what's going on lately?

If you can't afford people who agree with you their dissension, what have you got left?

It's all about persuading white-male voters with either Dean or Clark, right? So, the right-wing literally defines who we must appeal to and you just go along with it, tra-la-la, la-la...

Some people want real Democrats in the democratic party.

Bye. :hi:

:nuke:

He decided to leave based on a freakin' mayoral race, ffs! :wtf::nuke:

he's entitled to his opinion too

Hell, after you've seen the vitriol surrounding the Gore endorsement, you can hardly claim that the Democratic side of things is all beauty and light.

After all the arguments and bashing are over, people still make personal choices based on their perceptions. There are a lot of solid Democrats who feel like they have no party to support anymore.

Fer chrissakes...people are trying to label Dean as another McGovern and that's an insult to McGovern!

This is all very disappointing.

This person gets miffed over a local election, and vows to fight against Dems in the GE for Prez?

If that's our base, we don't deserve to win in 2004.

And you know that, but pretend otherwise. Good for you.

Those sorts of people never were our 'base'.

Well, buddy, it's time for a little soul-searching then. Is the Bechtel corporation your base? How about Reagan's Secretary of State? They and you were supporting the same guy.

You know, writing off longtime loyal Democrats because they retain a shred of their principles is no way to build a party. I realize that you can't accept this message from a big bad Greenie, but ask someone who you'll believe whether running against the base is good for a party, any party.

and it tells me that Bush is in a league all his own, and there is nothing in the 2004 election that has ANYTHING to do with politics "as usual." The ONLY thing that counts is ending Bush's occupation of the Whitehouse

You may marvel at this, but you can take "principles" and send them to hell, if all your principles do is give us another 4 years of Bush.

If that IS the case, then it's not the Dems--but your principles that are non different from Bush, it's your principles that will help destroy this country.

well, I've heard the reverse

And I'm not in the least bit concerned with what you claim to have heard. You are not exactly an objective, unbiased source.

Again, help, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

If you can't face the facts about the SF mayor's race, take refuge in generalities about national politics.

because I was. The original thread starting post stated that, due to the SF election, the poster was going Green in the GE in november.

The entire post was specific to presidential politics as a knee jerk reaction to a green loss in SF.

I agree, it is a non-sequiter. It just doesn't follow....

Your note #92 refers to my post #86. To refresh your memory:

"Well, buddy, it's time for a little soul-searching then. Is the Bechtel corporation your base? How about Reagan's Secretary of State? They and you were supporting the same guy."

That's the critical incident, and it's about supporting Republicans, and it's not the Greens who are doing so.

Of course, this sets aside the matter of whether arrogant sanctimony is any way to approach someone in your party who is having doubts. But hey, they didn't listen to Cassandra either.

Deal with it.

At least when you confine yourself to the realm of inarguable fact, we have a chance to agree.

As to your efforts to get me to stop having an opinion and expressing it, no, I don't think I'll stop. The emperor has no clothes.

The left leaning/ populist/ Green side of the Democratic party has traditionally been THE base of the Democratic party. Go read your history, look at the the leftist coalition that put and retained FDR in power. Go look at the far left coalition that supported Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ into office. Predominantly Northeastern(as opposed to the Southern Dems/Dixiecrats), well educated, energetic, able to get out the vote, union members, and donated LOTS of money to campaigns.

Somewhere along about Carter the DNC decided that they had to emulate Nixon's xenophobic Southern Strategy, and this position was crystalized into virtual law with Clinton. Throw in the DLC's corporate whoring ways, an ongoing Stalinesque like purge and marginalization of anybody to the left of LBJ, and voila, the Dems get rid of their traditional base.

You wonder why these people are leaving, why we're going Green. Well it has been made abundantly clear that we're not wanted, just our votes("where else ya gonna go?"). Well, we've found our own party, and between the ever increasing flight of the Dem base, and the Dem's own suicidal rush for both the center and corporate cash, I expect that the venerable Democratic Party will fade into obscurity in the next twenty five years or so.

Hell, if FDR tried to run today on the same New Deal platform he would be kicked out of the party and labeled as a Greenie-Socialist-Commie.

The base is to the left, I have no doubt, but a base that bolts the party when they don't get their way, like a spoiled kid who takes the ball home when he isn't picked first, is a weak damn base, and we don't need such a unstable base on which to build a party.

I don't care if you leave, I don't beg for your vote, I don't sympathize with your methods.

Again - help, follow, or get the fuck out of the way so the Dems can defeat Bush.

NOTHING else matters.

Now let me fill you in on a little more history. We didn't leave the "first time we weren't picked". Once again, read your history(I lived it so I don't have to). We stuck around through Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton. We worked our ass off to get these folks elected, and yet watched the party drift always rightward. Under the DLC we saw the purge begin, and most of us stuck around for the Gore debacle(including myself). But now we watch in horror as the Dems continue to roll over and pee all over themselves in an effort to please both Bush and their corporate masters(one in the same), and we've finally had enough. A spineless Dem party is about as useless as tits on a boar. It is time for it to go the way of the dinosaurs.

And I really don't care whether or not you want to leave your blinders on, but I'm going nowhere and you will have to deal with myself and the rest of the digusted Dems who went Green. Get used to it.

"I'm totally disgusted with what happened in San Francisco. They send Clinton out because a Democratic candidate is in danger of being defeated by someone running to his left."

Last time I checked, Clinton does not get to appoint the mayor of San Francisco. The voters made their choice, and they chose Newsom. Part of being an adult is realizing that you don't always get your way. Sadly, you don't appear to have learned that lesson.

I would love to see Bush out of Washington. However, blaming Greens for not winning in 2000 and maybe in 2004 is wrong. It's my vote. Most voters are independents. It is the job of the candidates to win over the voters. If I believe the Green Party Candidate can be a better president than either GWB or the Democratic Party Candidate, I will vote Green.

I admit the initial poster has some bad feelings regarding the SF Mayoral vote. That isn't a reason to vote green and not democratic.

I'm tired of hearing that the Green's(along with the Supreme Court)lost the election for Al Gore in 2000.

We need a candidate that will energize this country. Maybe Dean has done this, but he has also turned many off.

Dean wins the nomination, Nader will run again or recruit another candidate. DK? Just a thought.

If I vote Green in 2004 and Bush wins. Not my fault. Give me a leader. Someone who can bring us into the 21st Century.

DemOutWest (Maybe GreenOutWest)

I agree that that in itself is not a solid basis to change parties, but just look at the reaction.

We may be witnessing a temporary disappointment turn into solid alienation because condescending centrists can brook no deviation.

are that it is better, just this once, to vote in a corporate centrist than it is to risk letting a evangelical, fascist fruitcake back into office.

B-) :hi:

I applaud your pragmatism. Idealism must always be tempered with pragmatism or else you risk losing due to pure hubris.

if we were looking at McCain vs. Dean, I would have more of a struggle deciding whether or not to vote for the Green or Socialist or whoever most tickles my fancy.

But in the case of Bu$hco, I have no qualms about voting him out. I am sorry that the Supreme court and Katherine Harris put him there. And I get so sick of repubs telling me to stop whining over that! please! If they had found in favor of Gore, the repubs would STILL be appealing. And whining. And Crying.

I can't wait for the day someone fixes this electoral system. I really can't. Dean said he would do something about it. So did Kucinich. I hope one of them takes the nod and wins. (Esp Dennis!)

I know our nominee is likely not going to be even close to your concept of an ideal candidate, but it is heartening to see that some from the Green Party understand the truly desperate peril this republic faces in 2004! :hug:

Again, thank you!

to the upcoming presidential election, as opposed to the SF mayoral race?

Question: what's the difference between a coprporate centrist" and an
"evangelical, fascist fruitcake?" Is it a religious thing? Because for both coprorate centrists or evangelical fascist fruitcakes, the religions of Mammon and Moloch are largely the only ones they practice.

he plays evangelical fascist to appeal to his base

is more than just speechmaking to appeal to the religious right-wing. It is showing ing up in his policy making.

Dean might listen too closely to corporations during his policymaking than I might like.(Say, he might put together an energy bill that favors big oil too much.) But I don't see him as sending our kids into battle in Iraq and training them with the Israeli army on how to raze homes and destroy families for the sake of searching out "insurgents". In Bush's case, that stems from _both_ his greed for corporate monies and his desire to appeal to the "apocalypse now" evangelicals.

Iverson tried to point out the obvious, but based on posts made later it seems to need repeating:

"Former Presidents and Vice Presidents always get involved with mayoral races and support candidates backed by Bechtel and George Schultz. It makes perfect sense."

People, we're being PLAYED.

I read Iverson post. I knew what was said and what it meant.

Why must i be stupid because i disagree? Can't i just disagree without being stupid?

Hubris: Look it up.
The Professor

Way to kneejerk, Professor Defensive. :eyes:

You say you 'disagree'. What with?

One must define one's term if one is to have rational debate.

Something tells me you're not interested in that, anyway, so...

A little collegiality would be welcome.

have you been watching the meltdown here lately?

They voted for a Democrat. That is what they wanted. I am sorry that what they wanted is not what you wanted, but that's how it works.

is not what they're getting.

got 'em a pig in a poke!

is a pro-LGBT rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-woman, pro-workers' rights, pro-small business, pro-support for the arts candidate.

What did you think we got?

only to pave the way for eight more years of Jeb Bush. I can't fucking wait to see the fruits of your morality.

There are two kinds of greens... the kind who are sick of the status quo and want to see progress. Then there are the greens that just like being rebels... for this second group, they don't give two shits about who wins the election or what happens to the country. They care only about being against everything so they can be all proud of their moral superiority. It is about feeling superior to everybody else. Like the vegetarian who gives meat eaters shit about how bad meat is for them… as they light up another cigarette. Or the vegan who won’t eat animal products, but has leather shoes.

For the second group, feeling that they are better than everybody else because they’ve taken a some kind of ideological stand is the most important motivation.


Now I was in the first group... sick of the dems moving to the right and sick of the special interests controlling my government. But since my concern is progress, and not feeling ideologically pure, I was willing to vote for Gore, and now for Dean. Sure they're not perfect, but they represent progress in the right direction and that’s what is important to me. Like Dr. King said, we probably won’t get there in my lifetime, because this is an issue of long term progress.

That’s the real difference... what is more important to you, making progress or feeling self-important.

since your vote will do the same thing whether you vote for Nader or not.

I thought we lefties learned our lesson in 2000...I know I sure the hell did...never again!

Did you use to have a user name that was just Absynthe? If so welcome back, i missed you.

I am an independent who recently joined the Democratic Party because of Bush. I'm not saying that I am voting Green. However, if the candidate put forth by the Democratic Party cannot bring the Green Vote out, that is the Party's fault.

We all agree here that the country is in a mess. We need a serious leader who can guide us and make this country great again. I am sorry, Dr. Dean is not that person for me. I believe we will have a whole new mess. I will vote for who I consider to be the best person to lead us. Kerry is on top. This is the best candidate when it comes to Foreign Policy. Environmentalists endorse him up and down the spectrum. He is a progressive.

Most of the other candidates will also be better. I am sorry, you need to convince me that Dean is the best person for the Presidency. I am tired of voting for someone because the other candidate is worse.

Most independents will agree. Give us a leader who knows how make our country strong again.

The primary hasn't even begun. The serious voters will soon be turning out and they will see what I see. John Kerry is the Real Deal.

DemOut West

Good idea.

(edited due to stupidity)

not "despite"...

Despite, that's pretty funny.

;-)

Although I don't plan to follow your path next year, you're absolutely right to ask this:

How come we don't see the same kind of energy from these DLC new Democrats to defeat Republicans?

How dare they not agree with me?!?!!?!?!

and then enjoy 4 more years of bush*

Then go start GreenRepublic.com

:cry:

I wont follow the same route...yet.2004 will be the last time I vote for a Democrat.

that 2004 won't be my last time voting for a Dem. I really hope they see the writing on the wall (their own obsolescence).

But if things continue on this downward spiral, I can really see that being my last Dem vote.

How awful! We should never forgive them for this outrage! </sarcasm>

But seriously, if you're going to throw a fit and vote Green because your loony lefty idol lost in San Francisco, then you might as well get ready for four more years of Bush and Cheney.

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

"Have you even looked at Newsom's platorm?"

Are we talking here about the platform that leads to the barge in San Francisco Bay that the homeless are supposed to be on?

"you can take your self-indulgent tantrum and fuck off..."

You're not the only poster here who is so fond of using "fuck" as part of political discourse, just the latest one. Funny how all who do so have been on Newsom's side. Did this come with the Bechtel funding or no?

You're not the only poster here who is so fond of using "fuck" as part of political discourse, just the latest one. Funny how all who do so have been on Newsom's side.

There was an article in Salon just the other day about the all the nasty tricks the Greens were playing in San Francisco. They even called Mayor-elect Newsom (who was supported by a broad coalition of whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics) a "racist pig" and heckled him at a rally. Not to mention how they threatened his life.

I've been paying attention to the SanFrancisco media and haven't seen that. I suggest that you provide support for your claims.

I do recall subtrefuge from the Newsom campaign sending out a bogus e-mail to try to get Greens to protest. They didn't bite.

Also, finding objectionable behavior by distant others is no excuse for objectionable behavior here in discussion. Or do you think that it is?

let me repeat:

San Francisco has just elected a pro-LGBT rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-woman, pro-workers' rights, pro-small business, pro-arts candidate as mayor. Has democracy fallen?

Funny how all the tantrum posts about taking their votes and going away in 2004 today are coming from Greens. Your egotism and obstinance (surpassed only by St. Ralph himself) will go a long way to Dubya II...thanks in advance.

It's like not voting. You aren't voting for Bush but you're not going out and voting against him to stop his right-wing agenda.

DU is not intended to provide a soapbox for opponents of the Democratic nominee.