Why do Dems dislike Greens?

It seems to me that they both have the same feelings about a lot, and I don't understand why dems here don't like them? I'm not a party member to any party, but I did vote for Kerry this time, Nader last time.

Far from it. In fact, if the political system in the U.S. was different and allowed more voices in it without the fear of giving power to fascists, I would probably be one of them.

I do dislike Nader intensely. I think he's a fraud and an egomaniacal jackass. But as far as I'm concerned, this no longer reflects on the Green Party because they turned their backs on him this year. I think a lot of the animosity between Dems and Greens is the result of Nader, yet another reason to dislike him.

but I vote in a practical manner. I am a Green Dem, and I believe as evidence of Global Warming continues to make itself apparent, many more people will move Green. I just hope it is before it is too late.

check out message #18 here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1612859

I think the Greens are shut out of the game cause the dems and the repubs have all the power, and are controlled by all the BIG Money. Greens don't have a chance!

I like Nader, and I beleved in him in 2000, but I didn't want to vote for him the last time, cause it was so critical that shrub not remain in office.

it's bound to happen again. Wait until the primaries roll around again. Thicken your skin now; there won't be enough time then.

I like Greens as individuals and I almost completely support their agenda, BUT--I'm a yellow-dog Dem and they are, to some degree, the opposition.

Don't you consider Dems to be your opposition?

See how it works? :hi:

job but turns a deep shade of Green when someone wants to put a waste dump next to their neighborhood.

Being southern, I'm tempted to make a joke about salt and butter, but I'm trying to refrain (I heart kale, though, so it's tough).

I don't dislike Greens. But the Dem Party is not the Green Party. It's great when we agree. But those who might like the Dem Party to become more Green will probably be waiting a while.

It's hard to tell a Green from a Socialist from anything else in here sometimes. But if a poster is writing about how much the Dem Party sucks and how it's Republican-lite and such, I'm going to start to get annoyed if I think those comments are unfair.

he hates broccoli. I love my Greens especially spinach.

In the Democratic Party in general, there hasn't been a definable platform and some Demos think that associating with Greens will hurt their image because they think that Reps think that Greens are "weirdos". The two party's do have a lot of goals in common, it just that most Demos don't jump on boats and block whalers but most Demos wish to protect the whales. The two act on their convictions differently. If we could come together on common goals and Demos accept that someone must get out in public and act up and Greens accept that Demos would rather work within the system, then we would have a lot more power and strength.

Third political parties are always inherently self defeating. They damage their own causes by drawing votes away from the party that is closest to their ideals and thereby enabling the other party.

It works both ways. Ross Perot drew votes away from GHW Bush and Clinton may not have won without Perot to dilute the Republican vote. Nader drew votes away from Gore - that is undeniable - and enabled Bush to steal the 2000 election. Now Gore was the candidate who was much more concerned with the environment, and the third party environmental candidate hurt Gore and enabled Bush.

If we wanted to play dirty tricks and make sure Democrats win future elections, we should start and fund parties that are far right. If there were an Evangelical Christian Party, for example, that would UTTERLY destroy the Republican base and ENSURE total electoral victory for the Democrats in elections at all levels.

The Green Party is fine, I admire their ideals, and I like it that they get their message out, but from a practical standpoint they dilute the voters that are needed to defeat Republican candidates.

The Republican Party started out as a "third party," and look where they are now.

It's important to have more than two parties because those minor parties that don't survive still manage to infuse major parties with some new ideas and perspectives. And if the Greens wind up turning our two-party system into a three-party system, so be it. Even Dems need their asses kicked once in a while when it comes to environmental matters.

The only sweeping generalization that is ever true, is that all sweeping generalizations are never true.

and they can't win.

Other than that, I mostly agree with them.

"can't never did anything".....:shrug:

because Jimmy Carter wasn't left enough.

And it got me Ronald Reagan.

And in 1983 one of my best friends was blown up in Lebanon in part because of Reagan's blunders.

Sometimes 3/4 of a loaf is better than none.

United we are strong, apart we are swept away. The worst way to advance a leftist agenda is to leave the bargaining table. The centrists can take over the Democratic Party that much more easily if there are no leftists. And combined, we are the minority.

nm

Yeah, if it werent for Nader...

members is they may think those are votes that should be going to the Democrat, and it is a wasted vote that helps the GOP indirectly. Mind I'm not saying this is my view, just one possible reason some dems may dislike greens.

why does it not work in the states?

So it's not winner take all, like it is here. They actually co-exist in Germany and most of Europe, while here, we just destroy each other.

many blame them for "eroding the base" and "costing Gore Florida"

There is plenty of blame for those things in the Democratic party without needing to attack the Greens.

Although I'm a member of the democratic party.

but I think the Greens are less corrupt then than the dems

When you have nothing to be corrupt with. Greens will be pure so long as they have no chance of gaining any real power. When that happens, well, we shall see.

I've made some points that may seem that way, now that I think about it.

There are people who talk about "tearing down" the DEM party and I've asked them to go and join a legitimate third party like the Greens, but I've probably said it too forcefully.

If you don't like the DEMs, go join the Greens, and be an honest political person or something to that effect.

I actually think that the Greens and Independents and all other flavors of Progressive are the vitallity the DEM party needs. I think the solidness of the DEM values should survive the transition is all.

but I DO wish the Greens would gain more power in the political system.
As I see it, there are too many people like Lieberman and that Southern idiot (his name escapes me at the moment) who switched to the Repubs, but I read in Michael Moore's book that he voted repub ever time anyways!

He was crazy. Seriously, he was probably certifiably insane. John McCain was on the Daily Show after Miller's speech at the RNC. Jon Stewart asked McCain what was up Miller's ass, and he replied, "I really don't know. I guess John Kerry ran over his dog or something."

I used to be a Dem before I was a Green.

Now...eh...labels, schmabels...

The Greens field candidates to run against Democrats, just like the Republicans do. Sure, the Greens aren't anywhere near as effective as the Republicans. Indeed, judging from the complete absense of Greens from the halls of Congress, one might surmise that the Greens aren't effective at all. But the truth is that the Green candidate can be a most effective spoiler in an otherwise close contest between a Democrat and a Republican.

If even a puny 0.5% of those votes would have went to Gore, we *never* would have had Bushit in the White House. Sure, Nader has the right to run and speak his mind, but I have the right to dislike him.

Third parties are usually superfluous. Any leftist candidate can run in the Democratic primaries in any state government. If Howard Dean could become a superstar with seven people and 150K cash, I see no reason why other candidates cannot. So what happens is people on the far left have their candidates rejected by the public, so they throw babyfits and vote third party, which enables the most criminal elements of the rightwing. They usually talk about how they'll get the 50% of dumbasses that don't vote, but this is a rationalization, not a reason to support a 3rd party.

I just think they're a bit naive in where they stand, believing that America on the whole stands with them on the issues or that the Democratic party would have a lot of success going to the left. I also dislike when they run candidates in closely contested races.

I'd love to live in a society where our congress and senate is made of Dems (that too liberal ones, not those like Lieberman) and GReens...but I don't see anything like that happening too soon.

But I give them credit for not running heavilly in swing states this time. This time's loss can hardly be blamed on them.

are two seperate entities. As a former Dem now a Green Party member I still feel alligned with many Dems, just not the Rethug Lite ones.

That's why I like them a lot! Good post.

Thanks for the courage in support of democracy; I wish more Dems had done as you.

Edit: that pesky big"D," little "d."
:toast:

if that schmuck had just parked his ego in 2000, we all wouldn't be in this mess. I tried to tell my Green friends back then, but no one would listen.

When you've got Repubs controlling so much of the voting machines, OUR CANDIDATE must win in a landslide. There is simply no room for a vanity candidate like Nader.

There were at least 30,000 registered Dems in FL who voted for Dubya. The would have still voted for Dubya whether Nader was in the race or not.

Even if Nader were not in the race, there were many other people who would not have voted for Gore or Dubya, because neither one spoke to their issues. The dismal voter turnout that year (barely 50%) says more about that race than anything Gore/Bush ever said.

Instead of blaming Nader for Gore 2000 campaign's ineptitude, maybe we should work strengthening our own party before we start tearing down the Greens.

I've decided to wait and see what happens to the party. I have major respect for David Cobb after his valiant efforts in uncovering the fraud. He and Dean remind me of each other in their passion, honesty, integrity and commitment! And Ralph stood up for us too...I wish they'd all join forces somehow. Dean had lots of support from Greens and from Naderites too as a candidate.

If The Rethugs had not cheated and if Gore had won his own state he would have won.

its really that simple.

It isn't.

Gore knew Nader was running. He made almost no effort to reach out to those voters. In fact, Gore, not unlike Kerry, made little effort to reach out to any new voters.

They were both too busy pandering to the established democratic constituencies to ask people who might have been open to their message for their vote.

One thing I'll say for Bush, he always asks people for their vote. Do you remember Kerry or Gore saying the word vote before November?

The fact that Gore never called Bush on his lying about his plans, that he was a wolf in Clinton clothing, lent credence to Nader's claims of Republicratism.

Gore could've stopped it, should've stopped it, and he failed miserably.

You can't blame people who didn't vote for Bush for Bush. Nader has as much right to run as anybody that fits the requirements.

Blame the ignorant, selfish, obnoxious, hateful, spiteful, xenophobic, homophobic Bush voters for Bush.

progressives who voted for Bush get much of the blame. There were huge differences in policy. Yet they bought the claim that the two candidates weren't very different. And it made the difference in that election.

you weren't listening. By reaching out to greens, he may have cost himself moderates. It was a no win situation and it was painful to watch.

They need to get serious about advancing their agenda.

I now consider myself a strongly partisan Democrat. In the past I have registered as a Green, given small donations and voted for Greens. The one vote I regret is my vote for Nader/LaDuke (even though I lived in thoroughly blue state). I regarded it as a vote for the platform and not for Nader the man. In retrospect I feel that was naive.

People like Nader and Camejo do tremendous damage to the causes they profess to be committed to. The Green Party has paid a heavy price for Nader's celebrity. It has not done enough to protect itself from unscrupulous political opportunists and interlopers. This is maybe a bit ironic since, like the Libertarians, the Greens see themselves as a organized around a core set of convictions rather than being driven by personalities, money and politics as usual. The truth is, however, that they are not above the fray. That was evident five years ago. In 2004 it was plain ugly.

I still have respect for many Greens and would consider supporting individual candidates, but the criteria I use in evaluating candidates have changed. I want to see evidence of willingness to play the game, to actually do something to advance the agenda.

Anybody can say, to pick just one item, the war on drugs is a failure. That's a long way from a comprehensive set of policy solutions to what most voters regard as a genuine problem. The Green platform contains the kernel of a comprehensive policy, but it leaves many questions unanswered. Presenting such a policy requires more than hammering out details. It involves making choices about what's truly important, what compromises can be made, and, finally, it involves having a good sense of the public sentiments surrounding the issues--a fine sense, really. The Green Party is a home to candidates whose position seems to be "Legalize it, man. I'm a pothead, and I'm okay"; and also those who say, "As a practicing physician, I know that the problem of drug abuse is essentially a public health issue that cannot be treated through the criminal justice system alone. We know what kind of programs work to rehabilitate offenders and lower the incidence of drug use. Higher rates of incarceration are not solving the problem. We need to make better use of taxpayer dollars. Etc. etc."

The latter statement is more likely to get my vote because it's more appealing to a broader chunk of the electorate. There are dozens of points on the political spectrum between the extremes of those who favor free drugs for everybody and those who favor public execution for drug users. The art of politics lies in knowing where to draw the line. Politicians who draw the line at decriminalization of marijuana have a chance of winning in many districts, provided that they frame the issue well, enjoy other advantages, and don't have competitors siphoning off voters who have been convinced to settle for nothing less than full legalization of marijuana.

That brings up another problem with the Greens: They don't always pick their battles wisely. In a close race dominated by a liberal Democrat on one side and a conservative Republican on the other, the entrance of a Green candidate can only be realistically seen as a spoiler. It only advances the cause of the conservative Republican. I'm sure that some who have called themselves Greens in the past know that only too well. Other committed Greens like Cobb seem to understand it too. But the US Green Party as a whole does not seem to get it.

My view of the Greens' usefulness is thus extremely limited. They have a role to play where Democratic candidates have veered too far to the right--too far not as in I disagree with their stated convictions, but too far as in they have alienated the majority of the electorate. Those cases are not nearly as numerous as Greens would claim. Naturally they believe they have a much greater role to play. I simply feel that they haven't earned it. They have their work cut out for them if they want to be counting on my vote. They ought to be asking themselves whether they couldn't accomplish more by working with and within the Democratic Party.

The New Democrats finger the Greens and even the activist progressive Democrats, while they kiss up to the Repugs. The Repugs are more natural kin to the New Democrat. The Left, and everything it traditionally represents, is attacked and rejected by the Repug-lite centrist.

:puke:

Like the way they have learned to loathe those who do speak out in their interests, in favor of those whose policies more closely resemble the Right? Amazing how they drink the koolaid and all the while wonder how the Right can keep folks voting against their own best interests.

According to your logic I just think what the DLC tells me to think. Except, no, I don't.

The problem with Greens is that they field loony candidates who don't have a farmers chance in hell of winning nationally, yet split off enough votes to put the repugs in power.

What's to like about them? They are SO out of the mainstream that they don't even hold sway over the Dem party (a la Howard Dean), so what good are they?

You claim to hate Republicans, but whose views reflect your own more closely and whose are more apt to reflect Republican policy? The Greens or the DLC?

Now think, who does the DLC attack, the Right or the Left?

Had the DLC pointed the finger of blame with even a small percentage of the disdain they reserved for the Left, then maybe the priorities of the Democrats wouldn't be so lost. Maybe people would recognize what they stand for. maybe people would see them as something other than boosters for Republicans.

I'm not a fringe leftie, nor am I republican lite. And stop kidding yourself, Bush is in the WH because of the Green party.

There most likely wouldn't be a Green party threat if the Democratic party was of any merit.

It is the Right that marginalizes the Left as "fringe" as a smear to discredit the policies most likely to benefit YOU. Unless, that is, you support the policies of the Right. If not, you are just drinking their koolaid and doing their footwork.

Bush in the WH by acting as a spoiler to split off progressive votes and if I recognize that fact I support the policies of the right? Take a class in logic.

And secondly, take responsibility. All the loony lefties who weren't satisfied with Gore, who was the most liberal candidate to run for president since Carter, PUT BUSH IN THE WH.

Deal with it.

as if they had some monopoly on logic. It is the extent of their argument.

Excuse me, but when Gore hit a more populist, less corporate tone, his numbers went up. If Gore wasn't running on the heels of the Clinton scandals, if he had run a better campaign from the start, if the election hadn't been rigged in Florida--from disenfrachised voters to rent-a-Republican mob preventing recounts, to a corrupt Republican party under Bush family control, to a criminal Supreme court overturning the State, to a Democratic party who laid down and continues to lay down, to loser Kerry, beat by a spoiled AWOL loser on his own military reputation...All these things factor into Democrats ongoing pattern of defeat--yet you, you would cherry pick what those whose approach accounts in large part for the losing pattern, would lay the finger of blame on--The Greens and the activist Left. Were the Democrats again proud enough to stand and forcefully sell their message, without apology, withoust self-loathing, without guilt, they could again point the finger back at the Republicans instead of at their own who they drove away.

You claim: "logic" is always the claim the Right uses as if they had some monopoly on logic. It is the extent of their argument."

Really? Where? Give me one example of that, because reality is that the right despises logic or anyone using their brain to come to a conclusion about any issue. They are faith based, not reality based. So are you just pulling this stuff out of your backside or what?

Now you can give all kind of excuses for why Gore lost, but the facts are pretty simple. Over 90K loony lefties voted for Nader in Florida and Gore lost FL. by 527 votes.

Case closed on why I don't like the Greens.

and by being so right all the time they threaten to break the entire progressive movement in half...which will basically kill both parties and, thus, the progressive movement itself. Its kind of a catch-22 when you think about it.

We all better hope Dean sets the democrats strait by 2006 or we're fucked for a very, very long time.

I will, however, hate Nader until I die and I was very, very angry for a long time, at those Greens who didn't see where Nader was taking them and as a result, taking the nation. And yes, I do blame Nader for Gore's loss. He wasn't the only reason, but the fact remains without Nader in 2000, we wouldn't have had Bush. Without Bush in 2000 we might still have some semblence of our country and a chance to progress rather than to spend the rest of our natural lives trying to undo some of the damage he's done, if we ever get that chance at all.

And Nader did it all with lies. Telling people that third party politics at the presidential level can work in this country, under our system, in the way that he was doing it was a lie. And, he went back on all his promises not to campaign in swing states and push the election to Bush. So, I will always blame Nader right along with Bush, for the abominations that have followed.

It's easy to say you're for all these wonderful things and to take the best positions when you aren't ever going to be delivering on any of it. All he accomplished in 2000 was to give us Bush. The rest was just talk.

way to much (which the existance of the Greens signifies) so instead of properly analyzing why the DEMS have lost support they remain in denial and lash out at the Greens for syphoning votes at election time when the reality is that people are NOT impressed with a party that attempts to be a sad imitation of the GOP.

Nader isn't a Green though, he just used them because they had an established operation in 2000.

Yes, it is that simple. People who voted for him ARE responsible for the Bush reign.

Seems to me that you're ignoring Republican disenfranchisement of 90,000 plus voters, a fact that Gore knew about, yet didn't mention at all. You're also ignoring the role that the Supreme Court played in appointing Bush. You're also ignoring the dismal job the Gore campaign did in the recount process in Florida(which turned out to have more votes for Gore than Bush, but by then it was too late). You are also ignoring the dismal campaign Gore ran in Florida. Gore alienated 198,000 registered Dems, and 398,000 self described liberals with his support of offshore drilling in the Gulf. He pissed off these people so much that they decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush instead. But hey, if it eases your conscience to blame it all on Nader and the Greens, well, enjoy your blinders.

Greens are hated around here because they speak truth to power on both sides, 'Pugs and Dems. They also act as a convient scapegoat for the Dems, thus enabling them to continue to deny how far right the Dems have gone, and how truly the Dems every action is controlled by their corporate masters.

Greens aren't above cravenness themselves. Yes, they have been very instrumental in saddling us with this junta for 8 years. So much for the moral high ground.

Thank you for proving my point, that it easier for some Dems to put blinders on and simply blame the scapegoat du jour than look at their own shortcomings and the roles that various Dems played in the '00 and '04 debacles.

And speaking of selling out to the 'Pugs, isn't that what the Dems have been doing for the past five years? The IWR, the Patriot Act, the prescription drug bill, the continued funding of this illegal, immoral war, NCLB, the list goes on and on. Who was it who had the spine to go into Ohio and start screaming fraud? Oh, yeah, the Greens and Nader, with Kerry and the Dems showing up a day late and a dollar short.

So how have the Greens be instrumental in saddling us with Bushco for eight years? And how does a party that pulls down only two percent of the national vote(or less) wield this great monolithic power? Inquiring minds want to know.

more than a decade and ignoring their constituency. I never said there wasn't blame enough to go around. You could see the trainwreck of this administration coming from miles away. I hold that 2% of Greens and Nader responsible for willfully tossing the nation on the tracks to begin with and standing by snickering while people got mowed down.

...acknowledge that we're all human, get past it, and get about the healing process??

NGU.

You are blaming a party that has no power above the state level, making them responsible for the demise of our nation, yet ignore such glaring mistakes by the Dems such as Gores refusal to pursue the disenfranchisement issue in Florida, the role of the Supreme Court in appointing Bush, Gore's inept Florida campaign that repulsed 400,000 otherwise Democratic votes, and the complete foolishness of the Gore campaign during the recount process? It must be a special world of denial that you live in friend, for even Al From, head of the DLC doesn't blame Nader and the Greens for the '00 mess. "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Look friend, if it this kind of denial that lets you sleep at night, fine. But everybody has to face reality once in a while. I suggest that you come up for air and do just that. Otherwise your bitterness will poison will seep into all corners of your life, and effect everything you do.

...rather than making amends and moving forward with defeating the real enemies?? The Radical RW are rubbing their pasty white thighs with glee.

NGU.

And quite frankly, after watching the actions of both the Dems and the 'Pugs the past fifteen years, I consider the entire two party/same corporate master system of government to be "the real enemy". However, there are a vast swath of people who wish only to do away with the Republican side of that equation, leaving corporatista Democrats like the Clintons free to continue to screw all of us at the behest of their corporate masters.

Many refuse to face the fact that the 'Pugs wouldn't be getting away with so much if the Democrats would stand up and become a true party of opposition. Instead, they prefer to blame people who are completely out of the loop, like the Greens and Nader. How crazy is that?

...rather than making amends and moving forward with defeating the real enemies?? Or are you saying the Democrats ARE the real enemies?

The Radical RW are REALLY rubbing their pasty white thighs with glee.

NGU.

When Nader approached the Greens in 2004 to be their nominee, they said "no thanks".

After Kerry rolled over w/o knowing whether the poll numbers were supported by ballots, the Greens demanded recounts.

Gyre

Had it not been for the Greens and Nader, we wouldn't be suffering the distruction of the US at Bush's hands. That's not a good enough reason to dislike Greenies -- a totally selfish, impractical, loony lefty group that put us in the spot we are in now? I think it is.

Some of my favorite Progressives are Greens.

NGU.

...to stay together where we belong.

NGU.

I like the greens. I wish they would come into the Democratic Party and help move the party to the left. I think some Democrats do not like the Greens because they think in most cases the Greens cannot win elections. They think that by the Greens getting into races they cost Democrats elections. I have never voted for a Green, but I have gone to a meeting.

probably would vote democratic if it weren't for the greens. I feel that is debateable--some might, but others might not vote at all or vote for another third party progressive candidate.

Of course leaning more green now after the last election. The early concession of Kerry, failure to be proactive about voting machine fraud, and now folks like Feinstein supporting Condosleeza. We keep getting contribution requests from the Dems, but now all our money and activism goes toward green causes.

Mostly down the ballot. I fully expect, if we get another DLC backed candidate in '08, to be voting Green starting at the top.

or, maybe it didn't from THEIR standpoint. They believed that things would 'have to get a lot worse before it could get better.' Kahuna to Greens: Happy now? :eyes:

Why they would risk for us all, two oilmen in the white house, an all repuke government, and repuke appointed supreme court justices, is beyond me. They wanted this (for things to get worse so they could get better). They got it. And now they bitch the loudest. I reject the arguument that they are a part of us. They are a part of a different and separate party.

They just stepped into the void left by the Democrats. The Democrats assumed the role as moderate Republicans and the Republicans became the "fringe".

Tell me, specifically, what about Gore was moderate republican in nature? What specific policy positions did he hold that were not progressive or liberal enough for you? I hope you can name a pantload, because thanks to loony greenies we got extremists from the right in office all over the country.