If the supporters of Kucinich in a given county are mostly Greens,

should they be calling themselves Democrats and advertising themselves that way?

There is a situation arising in a nearby county which is getting touchy for a Democratic party that is desperately trying to revive itself. I have been on the phone today with several from the Democratic party who are finding it a hard thing to handle.

Should this group, or groups, openly say they are Greens supporting Kucinich? Should they be pressuring the party for a place at the table?

I like several candidates at the moment, mostly Dean for now, but I don't think I can stand watching the Democratic party (IF it be this party) deconstruct anymore. I come to this board and I just get furious. No one, no one should be making fun of another candidate and then pretending they are not.

This situation near us is getting really bad, and I find it intolerable that they would do that. Is that what is happening on DU? I really don't know. I wonder.

Keep in mind that most Greens are disenchanted and disenfranchised former Democrats. If Kucinich draws them back to the Democratic table by signing on as a Democratic candidate, along with a lot of other disillusioned former Democrats, it can only be good for the Democratic party overall.

My positions is Greens should call themselves whichever party affiliation they feel is going to uphold their issues best. If Kucinich is the SOLE Democrat that does that, then what they are is Crossover Green voters. Considering the push to get the same reaction from disillusioned Republicans for the Democratic Nominee, I can't in good conscience criticize Greens for crossing over.

have them all raise their right hands and affirm that they have affiliated with the Democratic Party at the last general election, or will affiliate with the Democraticy Party and the next general election.

If they won't do that, ask them to please leave the caucus.

Better yet, fill out a form and make them sign it attesting to the same. It's a requirement to participate our state's caucuses, and I would certainly not consider it onerous to ask them to sign if.

Becuase they are Green and Simon Pure, they will probably refuse. At which point, they no longer get to play.

They are pushing to be a part of the meetings, give out literature, etc. but I am gathering from one source they don't want to be called by the name.

Still checking into it.

Thanks for the response. We have some chairs here who are puzzling a lot.

As much as I admire the strength of conviction common to Greens, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect them to affirm support for a Party whose caucus they want to participate in.

It's something I've just been putting together in the last couple of weeks, I think. There does seem to be a small group of Kucinich supporters who at the same time will not support whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being. I have to guess they are Greens. I also think this group of people are the ones who have made some of the disparaging posts against various other candidates. I also think these posts have been attributed to Dean or Kerry supporters, for a variety of reasons. Not that Dean or Kerry supporters haven't made remarks on their own, rather, it has been a backlash which may actually have been started more from the Greens in the first place. Dean going after Kerry early didn't help, but he actually never did it quite to the extent that some posters have and I think these posts got attributed to Dean supporters because of Dean's remarks at the time. I haven't gone back over 3 months of posts, but now that people are becoming clearer in their support, it might be interesting for someone with more patience than I've got to do that. And this is purely an unsubstantiated guess on my part, I have no idea of the truth of any of it. And I certainly know there are solid Democratic Kucinich supporters, Dennis is great, we just don't live in Dennisland right now. But it does seem we might want to take a moment to identify just how many Green Kucinich supporters there are and separate their attacks on Democrats from the rest.

Stuff I've seen online puts Kerry to the left of Dean, and Kucinich to the left of Kerry, with several other candidates between Dean and Kerry depending on the issue.

My perception of Kucinich is that he's taking a populist approach, and working on distinguishing his populist voting record from some of the other candidates. If populism proves attractive, the power structure will come to support him, because they're not anti-"Kucinich" as much as they're anti-"populism."

My perception of Dean is that he's moving closer to the DLC platorm to compensate for having come out of the gate a little too "anti-establishment" to be attractive to the power structure. As he does, he's losing some of his attractiveness to people who were hoping for a more progressive candidate, but many are staying due to inertia.

My perception of Kerry is that he's never worried much about whether or not he'd get the support of the Democratic power structure, because his relationship has always been cordial with them. On top of this he has highly decorated service record to put up against Captain AWOL, along with being a fellow Bonesman and being able to count on splitting off some of that support from the Poseur Prince.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I like Kucinich, but I still don't think most Americans are ready for his message. They're just not going to accept a Dept of Peace right now. It's going to be hard enough to get any sort of progress on health care let alone a single payer plan. I just think incremental progress is easier to accomplish. And I've always thought Dean would move to the center and govern to the right of Clinton. Just little comments here and there that led me to conclude he isn't anywhere near being 'the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' and I can't stand games. I like Kerry best but am concerned he is actually too liberal, maybe Edwards really would be a better candidate except he lacks experience. So we'll just have to see how it all washes out.

But my post was more about posts and bashing and possible confusions over the last few months than any particular candidate. If a person said I'm a Green for Kucinich and bla bla bla against the Democratic Party; I wouldn't take it as a serious bashing post. It's a Green perspective, they're in a different party for a reason.

In 2000, it was the Greens fault that Gore lost, and they should have voted for Gore. Now, it is the Greens fault that the Democratic party is turning on itself?

It seems that Greens are to Democrats, as Clinton is to Bush - always to blame.

Why should Greens, who aren't members of our party, be eligible to participate in the Democartic party caucus?

I see a mention of DU, and a mention of "a place at the table", which COULD mean the Dem caucus I suppose, but it seems the post is more about the overall tone of the entire campaign, than just the internal party politics.

They do not want to become Democrats. They just want to be a part of the meetings and call their group that rather than Green.

That is wrong.

You also mentioned DU, as if to say that the attacks going around on DU are actually veiled attacks by Greens.

In fact I am not the only one who picked this up, as even some people who supported you mentioned DU.

On edit: Another point I would like to make - the Greens were criticised for not trying to make changes within the party but instead pulling votes away from the Dem party. Now they are trying to make changes within the party you are criticising them for that...

Isn't this exactly why the Greens pulled away in 2000?

What do you prefer, the Greens working within the party to have their voice heard, or pulling away, and thus splitting the vote again?

Or is it that you'd prefer that they just shut up?

I don't anyone should be putting down the Democratic candidates, any of them, in the way that it is being done here.

And yes, I suspect it is a case of folks not being who they say they are.

they should not go to Democratic meetings or participate in a manner that would imply they are Democrats when they really aren't. If they cause more trouble by bad-mouthing the Democratic Party and other Democratic candidates than they do in supporting Kucinich, perhaps they aren't worth the trouble. It would be better they announce themselves as Greens for Kucinich so if they were to engage in bashing behavior, people would understand where they're coming from.

I'm not trying to put words in Madfloridians mouth, make blanket accusations against Kucinich supporters or Greens; just adding some thoughts about behavior that I've become suspicious about.

It's not ALL Greens, it's SOME Greens.

Or perhaps it really is just the Dem party turning on itself due the the fact that much of the party isn't really what it claims to be anymore?

After all, Lieberman believes that the Dems don't deserve to win if they go too far left! I mean how fucked up is that? A politician for the left wing party saying it doesn't deserve to win if it acts like the left wing party?

The fact that Lieberman is not kicked out of the party for that statement alone speaks volumes.

But, no! It must be those dirty Greens! They're the ones causing all the trouble! There is no way that left wing members of the Dem party could actually be dissatisfied with the party, is there?

And so it is with Greens who believe that they're not being served properly by the Democratic Party.

As people drift to the "right" eventually they take themselves out of the big Democratic tent. As they slide down to the "left" they take themselves out of the tent to join the Greens.

But this scenario is complicated by the DLC and election pundits telling Democrats they can only win by co-opting Republican messages in order to steal some of the "20% in the middle" to win elections.

Populists act like they believe the voting electorate can be made bigger instead of buying into the 40/40/20 rule for winning elections. Let's see, Bush got 50 mil, Gore got closer to 51 mil, and 80 mil sat the election out. Looks to me like there are a lot of potential voters out there.

A candidate who resonates with the voters on some core level, no matter who it is (take Ventura or Wellstone for example), will bring out people who normally wouldn't vote, and turn the 40/40/20 rule on its head. (That "means" something for the Democrats and populism.)

Meanwhile, the caucus rule is usually that you have to promise to vote Democratic. That's a pretty low bar, and if one can't meet it, then one doesn't really know how to play well with others, does one?

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I didn't say any Democrat should be kicked out the Democratic Party. When Lieberman says something, we know exactly what it means. When the DLC says something, we know exactly what that means. And we also know they'll both support whoever the Democratic candidate is. Under the presumption that elections are fair for the moment.

The same is not true of all Kucinich supporters. Some are Green and for the purposes of this board in particular, they ought to say so. It will save alot of divisiveness when someone posts they won't support the Democratic candidate under this or that situation. Whether it's all Greens or some Greens wasn't really my point, I was trying not to stick all the Greens up in the same pine tree. But if you prefer it, it's fine with me. And if any left member of the Democratic Party wants to qualify their Presidential vote, they can go climb a tree right along with the Greens. Expressing views is one thing, creating conflict when you don't intend to support the Democratic Party in the long run is another.

It's the Democratic candidate or Bush. That's the reality we live with.

This is a joke, right? You mean the way they 'supported' Gore?

Goddess save us all from more such 'support'.

I do consider myself a Democrat, but I am intrigued by a lot of Kucinich's policies. However, I'm also a realist and know that if he registered under a third party, he would not have a chance at winning the election.
That's why I vote Democrat. Lesser of two evils, yes. But also I agree with more of their ideas than the Republicans.

I don't mind the Greens saying they're supporting Kucinich if they're not running competing candidates in local contested races. It's up to them who to support for President. Likely, however, that if Kucinich does not get the nomination, those votes wouldn't be Democratic votes, anyway.

I also generally don't mind the discussion as to where the soul of the Democratic Party lies. The DLC would have us co-opt enough of the Republican message to convince some of the "20% in the middle" to vote Democrats into office, eschewing the populism that helped Democrats carve out a niche for themselves with labor, the environmentalists, personal privacy advocates, and others.

The Greens would serve the interests of the more "pure" on the so-called left.

Democrats, if they learn how to come to terms with a simple message that counters the Republican message of "Me First" with a populist platform as simple as "Everyone First," can take a lot of the attraction from a Green Party serving as a safe harbor for people who would otherwise respond to a populist candidate.

The Greens should have their table, and the Democrats should have their table. What really matters is how one of the two major parties is going to respond to the need of the nation for a real populist.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Then it's like several others have said - if one is not willing to "become" Democrat, one no longer has a right to play in the pool. Simple as that for caucus purposes.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I am a Green who supports Kucinich and plan on voting for him in our primary. I am handing out litature for him and have a bumper sticker on my car. Here in North Carolina, if you are registered "unaffiliated" (we can't register Green here) you can vote in either primary. I want him to win but I would not think of trying to "crash" a Democratic caucus or party meeting. Just because I support a Democrat does not make me a Democrat and I really don't want to play in their pool.

If the Greens are planning to join the Democratic Party and vote in the primary, the more power to them. Perhaps they will turn the Democratic Party back into a majority party. We need to stop the elitism and encourage the growth of our party.

come fall if their candidate isn't their prefered Democratic nominee. The point of the Democratic party is a union of like minded people and at the end of the day, the consensus is that the party members choose their nominee and stick behind him or her despite differences. The idea that we should allow people from a different political party to participate in our politics only to have them campaign for another nominee come the general election is not a matter of exclusion but a matter of promting party cohesion. In that sense, should we let Republicans join our primary fights only to have them turn around and support Bush afterwards?

I have no problem with the Green party (other than the Green party of California) and no problem with Green Kucinich supporters. But one cannot expect the Democratic party to be inclusionary of people who will campaign for another candidate come November.

They'll vote Democrat on election day. That's why we've got to pick someone whose great on the issues - like Kucinich.

I am a democrat for the record.

but if Dems are going to start saying we can't criticize our own candidates during the selection process, maybe it's time for me to go Green.

While I do not support Kucinich and am uncomfortable with some of his supporters, I give him credit for running as a Democrat and trying to bring the party back to the left, rather than running as a third party candidate and sabotaging a Democrat's chances. I have long said that if Nader really wanted to change the Democratic Party the way he claims he does, he would be best off trying to do it from the inside. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that Kucinich will get the nomination, because most Americans and even most Democrats are not that far to the left. But I give him credit for working within the party, and presumably accepting the results of the primary. (I have not heard of any plans for Kucinich to run as a Green or independent if he does not get the nomination, so I am assuming for now that he does not plan to.)

and you know what that little man with the big heart almost got Al Gore the state of Ohio, Ive heard he worked real hard. See hes like me he can handle Nader but hes a bonafide democrat all the way. He doesnt want to leave the party, he probably thinks like me, I cant leave this great party. That said if he moved indepedent as a congressman he would be like Bernie Sanders.

We are no longer in the majority guys. The non-Democrats outnumber the Democrats. So are we going to be nasty and turn our would-be frinds and former members away? Or are we going to win 2004?

At an area meeting of Democrats? This group, though not Democrats, was allowed to speak about their candidate, Kucinich. Each candidates' supporters had a little while to speak.

I know of 3 people who contacted me separately, plus my husband, which makes 4. The person speaking was nearly screaming instead of speaking. Everyone was polite, but getting upset.

At the end questions could be asked of the speakers. The question to them over and over, was "if your candidate is not the nominee, will you support the one who is?"

The Kucinich supporters, except for one, said a very definite NO. They said would only vote for Nader or a Green candidate.

Everyone was still polite to them, but people are still talking.

My opinion now is that if this board is any indication, we can't win anyway. Not with all the anger and divisiveness. I did not feel that way for a while, but I do know.

His supporters, Green or whatever, (I say whatever because some said they were Republicans) should support the candidate who is nominated since they are using the Democratic meeting to be heard!

On the one hand, people outside the Party have no business using Party events to make their case. (BTW, I say this as a registered Democrat) On the other hand, as I mentioned up-thread, many of the third party voters are disenfranchised former Democrats. How will we build a better Party if we exclude them when they come to us wanting to be heard?

I'm kind of stumped on how the Democratic Party should handle it, to be perfectly honest. I believe Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic Candidate who has a prayer in hell of bringing these former Dems back into the fold. It's what every Green I've spoken to says, along with other third party voters I've spoken with. That being said, maybe if the Democrats really want to win in 2004 we should be welcoming our disenfranchised back into "the Big Tent" and nominating Kucinich since he will most assuredly help re-unite the party.

I know what that sounds like, and let me make clear I do not want to pressure anyone to switch candidates, it's just a point that nobody seems to be considering. We can't keep driving the disillusioned out of the Party and trying to exclude them when they get fed up. We've got to accept and understand their anger and frustration and try to resolve these things if what we really want is a unified party. We can't blame THEM for sticking up for their principles so strongly they feel compelled to leave the Democratic Party. If anything they should be commended for their strong stances, whether you agree or not. If the Party ceases to represent those issues that are critical to these voters what choice do they have BUT to leave?

I guess what I'm saying is that people shouldn't be pissed off at Greens, and certainly shouldn'tblame them for the fracturing of the Party. The Party itself did that, not the people who defended the issues that matter most to them. That's Democracy, folks, and if the Democratic Party stops respecting true Democracy, we're in BIG trouble.

His supporters just should not have it both ways. Most people there at the meeting were pretty much of a good mind about Kucinich and his views. Most were not set on any one candidate.

If his supporters want to use the very limited auspices of the party here (not much left, trust me), then they have a responsibility to support other candidates who might be the nominee.

I got upset with the Democrats here, and just had nothing to do with them for ages. There were many good reasons. Now, I feel if my husband and I are to have a say in things, we need to start donating again, both time and money.

My first post was made before the meeting, and this episode happened after the first post. I now feel more sure of my stance on this, because of the things that went on at the meeting.

You are welcome to mixed feelings. That is part of being a Democrat.

BTW, we like Kucinich, and I don't think he would have approved of the other evening. He has too much class to approve of that.

That's why I said mixed feelings. On the one hand, we need them to have some willingness to compromise if it doesn't go their way, and on the other we need to understand their frustration with the Party. Am I making sense.

I suspect you're probably right about Kucinich not approving if these people were shouting at their audience. One of the things I work hard to keep in mind when I speak to people about him is whether he himself would do/say what I'm considering doing/saying. Everything I say or do reflects on his candidacy and while I want people motivated by anger, I want them angry at the right things and people.

as long as they adhere to certain basic guidelines set by Kucinich's HQs.

If the supporters of Kucinich in a given county are mostly Greens,
should they be calling themselves Democrats and advertising themselves that way?

I thought about this a few minutes and while I sympathize fully with your concerns, what jumps out at me is that the supporters in that county are mostly Greens.

If that's the case, Kucinich can not possibly win without their help so best for DK HQs there to radio for guidance and informal guidelines immediately. Or somehow rouse enough Dems to balance it out.

I'm almost ashamed to admit this but here goes... in my liberal area, where anything goes, we have some DK supporters who look like a little... too... alternative. I don't have a problem with that for me (yeah, some of my friends are...) but I see the reaction of more conservative people when approached by someone with a nose ring, a tongue ring and hair they have neither washed or cut their hair, nor changed clothes since the last time Mars was this close to the earth. "This is shallow and should be a non-issue Tinoire because the mind and heart inside..." YES, YES IT IS, it's shallow and ridiculous but I witness the damage as I see some people grab the literature and dismiss DK because they can't take someone looking like that seriously.

I don't even know how to bring this one up.

And this comment coming from someone about to get a small, discreet, sexy nose ring!

You are not allowed to participate in any Democratic functions, including promoting candidates at Democratic meetings, unless you are a registered Democrat, and EVERY MEETING the county register is brought and this is the official document about which partyyou are registered in.

You cannot vote in the Democratic caucus unless you are a registered Democrat 29 days before the caucus. That's the law here in New Mexico.

Kucinich is getting a tremendous amount of support from Greens here.I registered a man to vote today who had not voted since the '60's. He is pulling in a tremendous number of disenchanted voters, labor, the unemployed, college students, people concerned about the deficit, people concerned with their loss of liberties, those fighting NAFTA, the WTO, and the IMF and their ideologies....

We are welcoming Greens even into our steering committee meetings, in which we plan actions, outreach, events.If they are committed to DK, we welcome them back into the fold. Whether the Democratic Party can keep them or not is up to the party.

I personally ask one thing of Greens, whether they decide to stay in their party or switch to the Democratic party: "If you like his ideas and policies, contribute even a few $$ to his campaign.This gets his ideas out there to be shown as popular and adopted into the Democratic platform, which the next President will be bound to support."

BTW, the person who just volunteered to be the faculty sponsor for the "Kucinich for President" group at the local university is a GREEN.

Edit: The county here is 14% Green.How many other counties have that high a percentage of Greens?

And the Green canididate for GOVERNOR in 2000 is working on DK's campaign in Santa Fe, at the headquarters, and e-mailed Greens all over the state that he recommends DK, and will come down here soon to speak to both Greens and DK supporters.

We are so Green here that when the Governor comes here, he starts every speech with, "I know a lot of you didn't vote for me, but..."

Actually it is not something that is usually dealt with here in this area of great conservativism, and no one is sure what to do. We all need each other.