When The Greens Said In 2000: "There's No Difference Between Bush & Gore."

... did you agree or disagree?

...but they were propped up as one by people externally.

An honest group of people TRYING to make a difference. I'm not a green, but I believe that. Nador, however, wasn't a registered Green. Never could understand why they allwoed someone who wasn't registered be their canidate. Anyway, he was the one who made the comments that Gore was no different then Bush. And that he rather Bush would win the 2000 election over Gore. THe GREENS didn't know that. At least, the ones I talked to at the time.

HIS (not the Green's) reasoning was that there wasn't ANY difference between the 2 partys and 2 canidates. And that Bush wouldn't cause 'really bad harm', but what harm he would do, would wake people up and get them to pay more attention to the NADOR and sorta the Greenn policys.

I could sorta understand the concept behind it. But it was the wrong election to play that game. Gore is a 'green' at heart. Seems to me that the message was it didn't matter how 'green' a person was. Gota be soilded leftie..As left, as the radical 'right wingers' are to the right. and I'm sorry.. that just won't work either.

Was he on the take? I don't know.

I do know that he LIED, and LIED AGAIN.

I'd like to tell him that to his face.

Thanks, Ralph, you liar.

I would have been interested in supporting them more prior to the election, but on Election day 2000 it was clear to me that Nader wasn't going to win, so it seemed like the obvious thing was to vote Democrat at that point. My dad, stepmom and one of my students all voted for Nader. They valued principals above all.

Back in 2000, they did.

In 2004 they all voted for Kerry.

differs from the GOP by a smidge.

The majority of the people in the Democratic Party are not heard and their voices are very different than what is being pushed in the MSM by the Democratic Leadership.

Thankful you weren't part of the smidge, are ya?

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

Ralphie didn't seem to care much about the Congressional Black Caucus either:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/nader.caucus/

again to scare people into voting a certain way.

I'm sure they're all for Bush* after all this.

...and I pointed out a difference. A few, actually. So what's the matter?

Of course what the Republicans do is scary; why do you think we spend so much time here?

I'm am sick of this asinine bullshit, and by the looks of it I'm not alone.

What is the basis for your statement the majority of people in the Democratic Party are not heard?

Are not the elected officials of the Party put in office by Democratic voters?

are chosen by the party. Case in point, Ned Lamont/Lieberman. Any person electing to run for a seat has to pass some kind of "moderate" litmus test before they are supported by the party. If by some chance a non-"moderate" does get on the primary ticket, the party money machine kicks into high gear trying to get them to drop out.

Then the electorate only has a choice between a "moderate" dem or the GOP in the general election.

Connecticut also had a governor's poll on Saturday. The DNC favored "moderate" Malloy first lost the delegate vote, but then the arm-twisters of the party went out to the delegates and surprise, the "moderate" won by the number of changed votes.

Happens the same way all over the country.

Are they not persons who are active leaders of their local Party organizations? Does not that status require approval and support by the local persons active in the Party in those jurisdictions?

The Party, Ma'am, is those persons who are active in it, and who routinely vote in its primaries, and for its candidates in general elections. When the majority of these do something that someone does not agree with, it hardly demonstrates that person who disagrees is the "real" Party.

are picked by the community's party players. The leader of each delegation leads with a heavy hand toward party line.

It happens that way in the delegation I sit on and it happened that way in Connecticut's convention. Many there said that if the vote was a secret vote, they would not have cast their vote for Lieberman.

So no, the party leadership has a greater say in who gets into the general election than the general party population does.

Is how do people rise to positions of leadership in the Party?

Surely they do not seize them at gun-point....

If a person can get big money from big companies, they are the fair-haired favorites of the party.

Surely there are some intra-party means of selection?

is interviewed by the party players. In that interview process, those who can promise big dollar donors are selected for support by the party.

How does a person become, for example, an official of the Party organization in a township?

How does a person become a delegate to the state convention that was just held?

His environmental views would be reflected in legislation, not Bush's.

We wouldn't have Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court now.

But you say the Democratic leadership differs from the GOP by a smidge. Some smidge.

Were deluded dilletantes and fools, without a serious political bone in their bodies.

s".

I think the Greens were trying to make a point that both parties pander, to varying extent, to the influence of Big Business, Big Oil, political pressures on Middle East political issues, etc. I'm not a Green, but that's what I got out of it. In fact, I still have issues with the way the Greens went about it, especially here. They are entitled to their opinions, of course.

While I think they have a perspective with elements of truth, hence the "Disagree, but with reservations", I don't see how they would be immune from the same influences except by proclamation.

PB

I looked at voting Green because I wanted something to the left of Gore. The Green platform was too simplistic and naive so I dismissed that pretty quickly. But there is no way I thought Gore was anything like Bush, I looked at the state of Texas and knew that wasn't true. I don't see how anybody who was honest with themselves could. Amazingly, after everything that has happened to this country, they're still out there. That's the truly stunning part.

What exactly are we hoping to gain by doing this over and over again? I realize it is terrific fun for some to gang up and belittle those on the left and explain to us in chorus like fashion how deluded we are if we cannot understand that the DLC is greatly preferable to the republiCons. Everyone here lived through the Clinton years, so we are aware of the differences.

Furthermore, must we be beaten with the fact that we are simpletons if we intend to mount any primary opposition to a sitting Democrat, no matter how repulsive we find that individuals record? For he or she is certainly better than a republiCon and by virtue of being the incumbent has a demonstrated winning record, whereas any newcomer might lose to the challenging R, which we could be certain you would never let us forget. But if the incumbent happened to lose, hey, that's politics!

Do I have the rules of this game about right? What is that you would have us do? Should we participate in the Party? Should we just realize this is totally fruitless for us at a National level and look to negotiate for our voting bloc, surely we can band together and gain some leverage. I can see from this site that our numbers are not inconsequential and I don't believe we should be brushed off like annoying pests.

I totally believe this present childishness is completely counterproductive and I really fail to understand why we are persisting in it. When I even see Moderators taking part in it I wonder what is going on here. Perhaps we all need to take a break and think about this a moment, please?

edit for grammar

but I did vote for Nader. I was extremely disillusioned and disappointed with Gore. That doesn't mean that I thought he was equivalent to *, but it was enough to push into voting third party for the first time in my life.

I knew Bush was going to be a disaster if he won, I didn't know he was going to be this much of a disaster though. I figured Gore might not have been perfect but would have kept us on the right track. I felt the statement made by the Greens was totally ridiculous.

This poll needs a "What one party says about another is irrelevant to me. I don't feel the need to agree or disagree."

I care about what a politician, or group, does for the issues. Actions mean more to me than rhetoric.

How about sticking to business?