Berkley Professor warns of California's Nader(s)...

Buried in the Nader/Pie story...

"I think Peter Camejo and Arianna Huffington play a role much like Nader's role in the last presidential election," said Prof. Bruce Cain of U.C. Berkeley. "They could bleed off support among liberal Democrats into a green vote or an independent vote, and that in the end could hurt Cruz Bustamante, and it could also of course contribute to a 'yes' vote on the recall.'"

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2003/08/12/Pie_in_the_Face_at_SF_Recall_Event.html

it will only hurt their key concerns LABOR and the ENVIRONMENT. Bill Simon already spoke of targeting Workers Compensation yesterday. Don't think Arnold won't. Pete Wilson did a number on it too and his staff is Arnold's advisors.

is destroying the Democratic Party. What has the Green Party done for workers or the environment?

nothing

We have a system in which people can vote for their representatives. The recall, although apparently isn't illegal, is a challenge to that system. However, telling people who they must vote for is also a threat to that system.

If Camejo is the liberal, then liberals should gather around him. If it is Huffington then they should gather around her and so on. It seems to me that this is proof that a lot of people are not interested in electing the most liberal candidate, they are interested in voting the Democrat.

I'm getting sick of these people who think my vote belongs to them by Divine Right, and that the elections would work just fine if it weren't for the fact voters have choices.

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

other than your chosen candidate

How is that democratic?

Maybe you've heard of it. (BUt I noticed that you won't even try to defend Goldust and AL's ridiculous whines)

My whines? What are you talking about?

I also think it's funny that you like free speech but not the freedom to choose a candidate.

1) "telling people who they must vote "

No one is telling anyone who they MUST vote for.

2) "you like free speech but not the freedom to choose a candidate"

No one is taking away your freedom to choose a candidate. You sound like the people who think men in black helicopters are coming to take them away

We are interested in seeing change, not who has the most appealing set of unfulfillable promises

My point will be lost on partisans, but those interested in real change get it.

A lot of people (on this board as well as in other places) have said that we should vote for the Dem in the "big elections" and Greens in others. Why not have a united front for the most liberal candidate? Camejo (or Gary Coleman for that matter) have a very good shot at winning this election. Why not lead a campaign to vote no on the recall and yes for the most liberal candidate?

Sangha- Besides the fact that he isn't a Democrat, on what issues do you disagree with Camejo or the Greens?

1) I don't support losing
2) I want to see actual change, and not just people who talk about change
3) I don't think we should destroy the Democratic Party
4) I think there is a difference
5) I don't think things have to get worse before they get better

I have more

You are almost there! How about policy issues?

if it's never implemented.

You don't even know what you are arguing against.

What is it about the Green Party platform that you don't like?

that lead to their losing every important election

My party right or wrong. . .

Do you know any elements of the Green Party platform? An easier question, what do you like about the Democrats?

1) I am familiar with the entire GP platform
2) Minimum wage, weekends, overtime, no child labor, equal rights for all, immigration, the environment, and a host of other issues where the Dems have not only talked the talk, but also passed legislation that improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Since you are familiar with the entire Green platform, which elements don't you like?
Would you support a Green if she were running against a Dem that suported Corporate rights over human rights. Agreed with Bush's attack on overtime. Supported so called wise use of the environment. And supported a continuation of previous Republican policies?

Since you are familiar with the entire Green platform, which elements don't you like?

The parts that are missing. Like "How to win an election"

Would you support a Green if she were running against a Dem that suported Corporate rights over human rights.

IMO, politics is a bit more complicated than "corporation vs. human rights"

Agreed with Bush's attack on overtime. Supported so called wise use of the environment. And supported a continuation of previous Republican policies?

Basically, you're asking me if I'd support a Green over some fictional character. My response is "there's no difference between a Green politician and a fictional character. After all, neither of them have any hope of getting elected"

Your subject said answers but your post was missing them.

You said:
IMO, politics is a bit more complicated than "corporation vs. human rights"

If a corporations right to profit is deemed more important then people's right to a living wage, health care, the right to a clean environment, it is safe to say that corporate rights are deemed more impotant than human rights.

The Greens have done nothing to advance "people's right to a living wage, health care, the right to a clean environment." The Dems have

Why is it so hard for you to answer questions?

They contain implied assumptions that I do not accept

A lot of the Greens are Marxists who hate capitalism.

So the way that AntiLempa wrote it should have been:

Would you support a Marxist Green if she were running against a Dem who supported capitalism?

That's the real question there.

Actually, I asked what I wanted to ask. If that's your question then you can ask it.

A lot of Greens are just Marxists who can't accept the fact that America will never embrace Communism.

Personally I think the term Marxist is silly. It sounds more like a theology.

And maybe that is the truth (although I doubt it) but that isn't what I was asking. If you'd like, I will post that question for you.

this red-baiting stuff is low...even for you.

The Greens can promise the utopian vision of the left because they'll never be in any position for the forseeable future to govern. They can promise everything because they'll never have to deliver.

I would love to see a Green president to try to implemenet his or her agenda. I would love to see a Green president try to deal with Tom DeLay and a hostile GOP Congress that would bitterly oppose his agenda every step of the way.

But see the Greens will never have to be in that position so they can proclaim purity because they know they'll never be in a place where they can deliver.

I'm not a Green, just someone interested in social and economic justice. Unfortunately that doesn't translate to many Democratic (or Green) partisans.

I don't care if someone is a Green, Libertarian, Democrat, Socialist, Marxist, Martian, Urantian. I want someone that is going to work for the COMMON GOOD!

please. If you were going to work for the "common good" you wouldn't waste your vote.

so the common good is the same as voting for a Democrat?

because the common bad is Republican control!

and also the fact that we're not scared of the GOP and the Corporate doners like the Dems are. We'll stay pure even if it means we don't get in office.

Dems have such low expectations and that's what allows this system to limp along. If you all decided that you've had enough of the lies we could demand change now. But everyone keeps believing that "someday things will eventually get better" and so the lies and charades continue forever.

...coming from a Democrat who still has the "Nader is a spoiler" attitude:

The CA election is a GREAT opportunity to get a green in there - seeing as nobody is going to get a majority vote, and the greens are well-represented in California. And talk about a right-wing dirty trick backfiring on them! I'm reeling at the thought of it: you get to "slap the donkey" a bit, and totally make the Rove and co. come crying home to their rat-faced grannys.

That's what I was trying to say. This is a great place for the two to wrok together. Both sides can realize that they can gain from working together.

"Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations."

I favor strong anti-trust, anti=fraud, anti-polution, and worker protection laws, not nationalizing the fortune 500. Talk about giving the government too much power. American Liberalism is about the government stepping in to fill gaps inevitablt created by the free market, not the destruction of it.

"Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage."

Sorry income capping ain't my bag, either.

"A Proportional, Single-Chamber US Congress: Abolish the disproportional, aristocratic US Senate. Create a single-chamber US Congress, elected by a system of mixed-member proportional representation that combines district representatives elected by preference voting and party representatives seated in proportion to each party's vote."

No, i don't want a parlimentary system. Let me guess. The "party representatives" bit would ensure that whatever administration that got elected would automatcally control the legislative branch. Certainly would increase the power of the presidency though, wouldn't it?

Anyone notice a pattern here? Centalized executive branch control of almost everything. No wonder a megalomaniac power fiend like Fidelity Ralph is attracted to the green party.

Not Liberal Underground.

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

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

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We Progressives are looking for progress.

I, for one, have not been enjoying Nader's first term.

Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy to see a Green running California, or Arianna having a Hell of a soapbox to beat up smirk from. But it ain't gonna happen.

And if a 2000 happens again.......It will cause even more division between Greens, Dems, and Independents.

Rove smiles.

to achieve goals. Greens are working against Democrats for their own ends.

but doesn't Democracy involve hearing the voice of the people. That, by definition, is a liberal idea.

I am interested in voting for the most liberal person that can actually win. Guess that makes me void of all principles.

Al Gore is hardly a Liberal by many folks' standards around here, but he was voted for by the vast majority of DUers.

Those people who are pushing Camejo et al are the ones whose cupboards will be full of bread no matter who wins.

Higher learning is supposed to relieve us of the illusion that these tactics are legitimiate discourse.

That is unless ... oh my ... you know it's wrong and are doing it anyway. (gasp)

I just think that this is an election where Camejo or another "nontraditional" liberal can get elected.

advantage. There is DAVIS and Bustamante on the Dems side or more liberal side. There is Camejo who has formed an alliance with Arianna on the LEFT.

They both polled in sigle digits which when added up still add up to single digits. Explain.

I'm not sure how much we can trust the polls. I just heard one this morning that said 9 out of 10 Californians plan on voting in the recall.

Besides, my point was more about the hypocrisy. Here is a chance to support a Green that has a chance. Sure he may be polling in single digits now, but his numbers would jump dramatically if the Democrats through their support behind him.

conscience didn't work well last time and claiming it is still right.

In other words I should goose step behind the center left party because no other left party has a chance?

Not likely. I hate Bush and what he is doing, but I will continue to work against unjust policies. I'll vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (unless it's one of the more toxic candidate that I won't name), but they will not be given a free pass.

The recall election is wrong and needs to be eliminated. But it also provides the opportunity to vote for a Green candidate. Many Dems say that they would support a Green if they had a chance. Why not form a coalition? This is a great chance for the two parties to work together.

The Green Party candidate supported the recall with energy towards it PRIOR TO the recall which probably supplied signatures.

If it is wrong and needs to be eliminated then voting NO on the recall and keeping the state DEMOCRATIC in exchange for greater input on policy would be the best arrangement. Why doesn't Camejo say that? The DEMS have not been the deal breakers in Sacramento.

I'm not a green Camejo was wrong to advocate that. I haven't heard that until now and I disagree with him. If that is true, then I would say it is extremely hypocritical of him.

I'm not saying that the Greens are perfect. A lot of them are just as stubborn as a lot of Democrats. A lot of them are as open minded as Democrats. I have a hell of a time working with them (especially since I'm not one).

I don't know how willing the Democrats would be to work with Greens. A lot of them are fed up with Democrats plicies over the years. As is demonstrated on this board, a lot of healing is necessary. Many of the Democrats won't even listen to a Green. A lot of people also insult Nader for saying something that would garner applause if a Democrat said it.

did and is respected. Audi Bock did and then changed back to DEM although I am unclear of the reasons why. The point is they weren't treated with animosity and are both respected. They didn't get to where they were by DIVIDING the liberal vote at a CRUCIAL time and more often than not voted the DEM platform.

That was a coalition since their only other choice on the assembly floor was to vote the REPUB program. That is the reality.(politically, of course)

In other words I should goose step behind the center left party because no other left party has a chance?

I'll say it slowly

No...one...said...you...should...goose...step...behind...anyone.

it may be you, but it doesn't become you

"...green whines"

Poor Enki23, who now acts like he is being persecuted at DU. Even though the admins and the moderators go out of their way--more than I personally think they should--to please and to protect the Greens, they still aren't happy and are ungrateful. That should say a lot about the true mentality of most Greens.

i don't feel particularly persecuted. i just like pointing out hypocrisy. i don't require, or want any moderator protection. any such protection that truly exists isn't for "the greens," bud. it's for everyone, to keep a more civil tone on the boards. i'm not particularly grateful for it, though many are. i just look at it as "the way it is." that you choose to define it as some special green protection is interesting, though.

perhaps they're defending *you* from *me* eh?

nice chatting with you, but i've another "how much do you hate al gore?" poll to respond to.

;-)

oh yeah, i've gotta say it *is* pretty funny how you've come to the rescue of patronizing bullshit with, more patronizing bullshit. you've truly not lost your touch. :)

You do seem ungrateful. The admins and the mods have gone out of their way to give you and the rest of the Nader extremist contingent here plenty of slack and yet you are still ungrateful for it. That says a lot.

It is just clear that the Greens are the enemies and Sangha is right on the money. She doesn't deserve to deal with the likes of you.

i'm no nader extremist, you cute little thing you. (never voted for him, probably never will) though i often wish i had, sometimes tell myself i would have had i thought about it harder. in real life, i'm just an anti-you extremist, as well as an occasional anti(anti-nader extremist) extremist. ;-)

as for being grateful... i'm grateful to the mods for their hard work, for sure. i'm also grateful to the admins for *their* hard work, and especially for banning me yet. the only thing i'm not grateful for is being prevented from calling you names.

You're also anti-ME ME ME!!!

.

Even his supporters, like you, seem to think he needs help from an opposing party in order to win.

And make no mistake, Gore would be President if only the Repukes had thrown their support behind him.

What do you have against a liberal coalition? I'd like to see the Democrats and Greens work together.

Gore would have won the election if he had a different VP candidate and didn't reinvent himself at each campaign stop. Tipper didn't help much either.

Dems undermining other Dems in order to do what the Greens think is best is not my idea of a coalition. It's my idea of how the Greens constantly misread the political environment.

PS - Your blaming Gore, who won more votes than any other Dem candidate in history, for not winning the election (which he did, in fact, win) is a good indication of the sort of "coalition" you envision.

My coalition would include Democrats, Greens, Organized labor, environmentalists, People with disabilities, immigrants, migrant workers, LGBT. . .anybody interested in progressive values.

Yes, I blame Gore, but I also blame Nader and anybody else who doesn't think that a coalition is necessary.

The Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich campaigns are currently reaching out to Greens and other disenfranchised lefties, why can't the partisans base?

You're just imagining I said it, the way you imagined someone telling you how you MUST vote.

With the exception of long shots, the Dems wont be "reaching out" to the Greens, many of whom have made it clear that their goal is to destroy the Democratic Party. If you want someone to blame for a lack of a coalition, blame the Greens and their demands for ideological purity.

The DNC, which includes pols like Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman AND Paul Wellstone and Al SHarpton, has proven it is capable of forming coalitions.

you are not seeing due to the actions of YOUR party not the Dems (at least in California where DEMS vote LABOR AND ENVIRONMENT every time)

and I'm not one today.

.... when the Greens and Dems could have probably forged a coalition. After 2000, I don't think that time will ever come again.

Looking at that half-loaf of bread in the cupboard:

- Dems are happy they still have that half of loaf left and just want to try to preserve it...never mind that it will eventually be eaten or go stale.

- Greens look at that half loaf and realize that one day it will go stale or get eaten, and so we are looking beyond that pathetic piece of bread.

But you will make sure that no one has bread for generations in the hope that one day the Lord will come back and do a miracle with the Manna.

we call "useless daydreaming"

i'm a liberal, but i'm voting for the best dem to win. that would be cruz, imo. i refuse to be a spoiler.

If you vote for the Green Party you will be changing California from a Democratic Governor to a Republican Governor, so at least you can say you made a difference.

Why can't Democrats comprehend the basic principle of democracy?

And who said anyone owes their vote?

whatever.....

No one has said that anyone OWES anyone their vote. Please restrain your hallucinations.

conscience and if your conscience informs you that the things you value dearly have suffered for your last vote...maybe it's an omen.

How's that for ideological purity?

and the things i value dearly have suffered. i think 'ideological purity' is a slur that can easily be used to describe why many democrats vote for democrats, and of course, why many republicans vote republican. frankly, i don't think it sheds much light on why people vote green...much heat is generated though.

ONE election for me in which the winner of a PLURALITY NOT MAJORITY gets the vote.

I am not waxing philosophical about the Green Party I am cautioning about THIS ONE ELECTION. There are FAR more Repub votes to split among their three candidates than there are potential votes to split among all the REASONABLE liberal choices.

i'm still sad nobody took my bait when i started my "a vote for kucinich is a vote for lieberman" thread.

somebody will start one in *earnest* eventually, or an equivalent.

or does the (D) next to their name mean Divine proprietorship?
Are The unwashed peasants (working class) indentured to be thankful for allowing us the priviledge of casting our vote for the blessed Democratic Party?

You just reworded your other post.

(see above answers)

I wasn't talking about the professor. I was being sarcastic about the people here at DU.

and ms. huffington, and hell... bustamonte's appearance on the ballot will likely lead to quite a few "yes" votes on the recall. can i hate him too?

i'm gonna bulk order some pies.

but I don't think anyone will object if you do.

Answer - no stance at all. And this to me reduces them to any other political party using this Republican coup of a recall election as a grab for power. Nearly all liberals alike agree that this election sets bad precendence and despite one's dislike of Gray Davis, he hasn't done anything to deserve a recall. Yet, browsing through the California Green party website you see no opinion whatsoever on the recall, whether it be positive or negative. Why? That's becaues the Green party of California, despite their supposed candor and honesty, is just like any other political party. They'll use this rediculous hijacking of Democracy, the 2 million dollars Darrell Issa spent, the money the GOP spent promoting Nader without thinking twice because it's good politics.

Where's that political integrity now?

(sorry. couldn't resist.)

well... it makes *me* chuckle.

If I were a republican, I would be happy too!

And is it true that Greens want to eliminate the Senate?

I don't know if Greens wat to elminate the Senate. Try asking a Green or check their website.

Excerpted from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20010111.shtml

The two most important policy developments of the Clinton years were the enhancement of free trade (NAFTA, GATT, normalized trade with China) and welfare reform. The former happened because Clinton favored it and most Republicans, unlike most Democrats, supported it. The latter happened because he did not dare to veto a third time what Republicans persisted in sending to him. Regarding two things he would never compromise about, racial preferences and abortion on demand, he was on the cutting edge of 25 years ago when he and those policies were young.

Clinton's greatest effect has been on his party. He repositioned it as the servant of the comfortable middle class eager for more comforts. He reaped his reward where the comfortable live, in the suburbs, where Republicans won between 55 percent and 61 percent of the vote in 1980, 1984 and 1988. Political analyst Charles Cook says Clinton carried the suburbs by two points in 1992 and five points in 1996. In 2000, 43 percent of the votes were in the suburbs, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore by just two points.

denise majette....a two examples.