Dem/Green on DU: time for a fresh start?

Ok...no, probably not, but every so often I get this urge to try to clear the air, get the barnacles off the hull, and try to actually have a conversation. I think it's important. Doomed in all likelihood, but important.

So...hi there. For the newbies, I'm ulysses. I'm a left-wing ("liberal" or "progressive", depending on definition), lifelong Democrat frustrated enough in 1996 and 2000 to vote for Ralph Nader. I don't regret either of those votes.

I'm willing to compromise and be part of a coaltion - to a degree - with moderates and centrists because I believe that it's necessary. Bill Clinton crossed my "to a degree" line in 1996 with welfare reform, thus my vote that year. I have to believe that there was a better way.

I don't want to drive centrists out of the party, but neither do I want them defining the party, my party, wholesale. Beyond the fact that an entirely centrist Democratic Party would not represent my values and goals at all, I believe that that path, in today's world, would lead to the total electoral and ideological irrelevancy of the party itself.

Can we work together? Neither side is lacking in hubris, and sometimes I wonder. Still...

So, who are you? What do you want? How much are you willing to concede?

Flame away. After 2 1/2 years here, I've got callouses to beat the band.

Everything has been said already. Everyone here is entrenched.

I've seen movement - not a lot, but movement - in my time here, at least in the willingness to get to know and talk to each other.

That said, I'm not so stupid that I think much will come of this. Still gotta try.

I'm Padraig, 20 years-old and a center-left Democrat from Illinois--- a 'prairie populist', if you will. I am willing to work with the Greens, and am willing to give them significant input into the Democratic party platform on their most vital social and economic issues. I am theoretically willing to not field Democratic candidates and support Green candidates (economically and otherwise) in 'safe Republican' districts in 2004, if Greens will not field candidates in competitive State and Federal races in 2004 (and support the Democratic candidate), details to be hashed out...

Next! :hi:

:) We should probably define what we mean by "Green", though.

It's not that hard, when the question is asked in a non-confrontational manner. :)

Can we posit that "Greens" refers to actual GP members and "Nader Dems" refers to...well, everyone else that voted for Nader in 2000?

:)

The "if you dare vote against a perfectly suitable liberal like Al Gore you're a Green" meme yet lives, even among those who know better.

Ah well.

Maybe there's still hope; perhaps the wounds are still to fresh to be messed with this time around... :shrug:

Some wounds heal. Some wounds belong to those who piss in their own wounds.

Check out Ulysses's post #58, near the bottom, "I Know This Man." Here's the whole message:

Ok, he'd easily be scared back into voting for Bush.
Know what? I give a rat's fat ass. I really do.
Here's my thought: anyone we still have to wrestle from the right wing after the last three years isn't worth it.

Here's your reward for all your willingness to compromise and make nice! All I said (read my post too, if you like) was that there are a lot of swing voters who could be easily put off by a radical left campaign, mentioning one I know well in particular, and the claws came right out. Thank God for the civility of this thread, huh?

Show me where I've *ever*, much less in this thread, advocated a "radical left campaign", then we'll talk.

I perhaps didn't put my thoughts as well as I'd have liked in the post you keep pointing to from last night as proof of my incivility. Try this - if this friend of yours would be scared enough by a moderate, but unapologetic, Democratic move back to the left, then I just can't do much for him.

and the real-world idea of moderate are two entirely different things. I think we could sell my boss on a real moderate such as Clark, Dean, or even Kerry (I fully expect Dean to revert to his moderate roots if and when he gets the nomination), assuming that not too many litmus tests have been imposed.

Remember what use the right-wing media is going to make of any stand taken by any candidate that has any whiff of socialism or radicalism about it. We have a lot of intelligent, compassionate people who have been conservatives in a teachable place right now. Let's not blow it. The morons are going to vote for Bush, just like they voted for Schwarzenegger, mostly because they can and they know it will piss us off.

On edit: but I still say you have your cool blue nerve to start a post about compromise and unity and make a big fuss about civility, and then snarl at me like that when I suggested that we need to reach out to people of intelligence and good will who are not presently progressives. Civility is only for people who agree with you, it seems.

Civilly speaking, we should not be saying bad things about our current commander-in-chief, because we won't "reach out" to anyone while suggesting that 4 more years of Bush will end-up in fascism.

I may have gotten frustrated the other night, but the premise of the thread was sincere. It still only took 35 posts to be told that I "don't belong" in the Democratic party. Again.

Reach out to disaffected Republicans. Fine. But if "reaching out" means more triangulation and more acceptance of even moderate GOP ideals, I'm not interested.

And whoever said you don't belong in the Democratic Party is a horse's heinie. The last thing we need is a self-appointed bouncer throwing people out. What we need to be doing is throwing people in.

.. we have far too many self-appointed 'augurs' who examine candidates and pronounce upon their acceptability or unworthiness as 'real' Democrats. Pisses me off ROYALLY, too!

, when RayGun beat Carter and I thought the world would end.

I'm an anti drug war, anti death penalty democrat. Does that make me a Green that votes Democratic?0
I think that the 10 key values of the Green party are the best political platform for a national party in my lifetime.

Greens come back to our party !!!

I was at a local Sheriff's fundraiser when he outlined his plan to persue the drug war as a way to fill our uncrowded county jail. I let out a loud groan and boo'ed. A couple people laughed, but almost half of the people there joined in my "protest" of this pro drug war statement.

Lets get it together, America!
:dem:

I'm quite 'libertarian' myself, on the issue of 'consensual vice crimes', and am staunchly anti-death penalty.

:~)
I'm far from libertarian.
I used to be staunchly anti death penalty, but gave up my purity to support Ho Ho 4 Pres!

:)

Hey, it's just me, Howard.

My Shakespeare is bad, but I'm another Vermont Nader dem voting for Dean.:hi:

I registered as a Green in PA after the 2002 debacle. I switched to Dem to vote for Dean. I'm far left economically. I wanna see single payer health care, better mass transit, rebuilt cities. Socially, I'm a moderate. I'm pro-death penalty, though perhaps implemented differently. I like Howie's view. I like Lieberman's take on the media. I'd like to see us take Israel to task on Palestine and England to task on Ireland.

in a sketchy part of town, dedicated to the worship of michael moore and ralph nader.

want to contribute an ikon?

When this goes down in flames, I'll let you know. :D

and we're going to put dennis kucinich in a pantheon with cynthia mckinney. it will be so cool! :bounce:

can do no wrong, i'm going to a sports bar, to bond with some football watching white guys.

call me on my cell if you wanna hook up... :)

And I voted for Nader, lol.

Pull the national democratic platform back to the left and the problem is SOLVED! Nader endorses us and we get 80% of the green vote, more than enough to oust Shrub.

IMHO, do that and you're going to lose more right-of-center traditional Democrats that you will gain in the Green Party. So you would have Greens who have left the Democratic Party and will never come back, you'll gain some Greens to the Democratic Party, but you'll lose some more conservative type Democrats to probably the Republicans. That's where Reagan got his conservative-Democrats from, that being Democrats who felt like their party had drifted too far to the left. Guarantee you, make Kucinich the nominee, and you'll see borderline Democratics jumping ship by the boatloads. I almost wish we would nominate Kucinich. I hate to say it, but after he got sluaghtered, maybe some would wake up to the fact that in national elections the further left we drift, the more we lose.

All we need is the will to do so.
I will talk civilly with anyone who will talk civilly with me. That's the deal.

Glad to see you fighting the good fight, ulysses.

:toast:

Ulysses was the first one to trip to the 'point' of that 2-part thread of mine last weekend---no fool him.:)

They did it in Germany and Schorder won.

Thanks, but don't bet on it. The thread is young.

Hope springs eternal. Civility is a start, no? :)

After a good fight, there's nothing like a laff and a pint together! :P

control what our parties do.

I can concede points with you only to be undermined by what my party actually does, and you can concede point with me only to see Nader run again.

The most telling thing is this:

www.swingstates.org
http://www.goodgovernment.org/swingstate/stats/index.htm

If you look at the site and peruse the numbers, you will see that liberals, centrists and those even slightly to the right of center could give Repubs a run for the money but for the fact that a candidate who claims both parties are the same operated as a spoiler..don't just look at Florida but all the numbers and you see a momentum wasted.

then why are we here? Why do we spend the time on DU? You say you're not back, yet here you are. You know I've tried to leave too.

Teena, what I mean is populism. Maybe you can't control what the DNC does and I can't control what the Greens do, but if it doesn't begin here, where will it begin?

Too many people seem to think that populism is a positive and progressive force for good. It's quite the opposite. It's racist, sexist, xenophobic, and isolationist, and the support populism gets on DU demonstrates the political naivete of those who promote it.

"populist <'pɒpjʊlýst>
adjective
1 appealing to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
noun
2 a person, esp. a politician, who appeals to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people "

And this is evil how, exactly?

and see what Populism has meant in real life. And you don't have to go too far back. Just look at Gov Schwarzenegger

... of the late 1800's and early 1900's; that's as dead as the people who were involved, ffs. :eyes:

sangh0 on the one hand...populists like Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower on the other hand.

Yup. Think I'll stick with populism. Democracy's a messy thing, but what are you gonna do?

:thumbsup:

.

.

Your historic recollection of one populist movement and where it led is entirely accurate. But nowadays people mean lots of different things when they say "populist." I don't think either the dictionary definition or the historical reference is canonical.

Look at CA Gov Terminator.

And I agree that neither the dictionary nor the history books provide a definitive definition. But if you look at movements that were centered around "the people" as opposed to an ideology, both the goals and the results are not very impressive.

But the recall movement was fueled by populist sentiment, and Arnie's projection of being "one of the people" (and not a politician) helped him get elected.

I don't care much for California's take on referendums, but then I don't live in California. By the same token, I don't care in the least for Georgia's ballot access laws, but I haven't done much myself to change them. That's my fault, not populism's.

and Arnie's projection of being "one of the people" (and not a politician) helped him get elected.

That's not populism's fault either.

The Dems run Lieberman as a centrist...when in fact he's straight out conservative.

To me, Dean, Clark - those are Centrists. The only out and out Liberal in the race is Kucinich.

they are lefties too !!!

:toast:

would be if Kerry or Dean was the ideological center. They're not. They're left of it, and Kucinich is even farther left. Lieberman is an eensy-teensy bit left of center. Your political compass tilts far left, as expected.

Lieberman is an eensy-teensy bit left of center. Your political compass tilts far left, as expected.

That's true in the US, but not in the world. You do understand that the US is pretty out of synch with the rest of the world these days?

the solution to ALL of America's problems...

LIBERAL COALITION
LIBERAL COALITION
LIBERAL COALITION


It's not HARD and it will FIX EVERYTHING!!!!!

Its purely up to the greens, either they vote for greens(bush) or they dont vote for bush(dem) that's that.

Thanks for your response. Hope you don't mind if I quote you down the road.

Quote me all you want

I respectfully disagree with you, shoving all the blame on the Greens. Progressive Democrats are still Democrats. Irritate them enough and you'll bet they'll go elsewhere. That's probably how the Green party was formed.

If our party is so splintered that it has to cater to the real leftists and then the right-leaning centrists, we may as well end up with the Green Party and some middle-of-the-road party that has NOTHING to do with the DFL (Democrat-Farmer-Labor) whatsoever.

I don't know anymore and I'd probably be better off leaving DU...

But if DU is an example of how the Democratic party itself is split, I'd be liberal enough to suggest that if we can't compromise, we may all as well hang in the towel and agree to split up.

That way, the progressives can be as progressive as they like without having to be tied to the same party that'll urinate on them regardless of what they do. :-(

It's up to the whole country to decide how they want things to run. Which means it's up to all of us Democrats to set our party straight. The Greens made a chose to jump a ship that they think isn't worth shit anymore. Don't blame them for their ideology, they don't give a frick about any candidate that isn't their own.

Everybody has a role to play in society. I'm not blaming you or anybody or am trying to make enemies. I'm just so frustrated with Bush and the unsure-of-itself Democratic party and even the hostility be thrown at each other here on DU.

On the other hand, people who are urinating on the Greens are utterly sad people; something like HALF the US population doesn't even vote. Where's the hatred and outrage against them, since their inaction is clearly FAR WORSE than the 2% of the voters who don't vote Dem! I didn't know that 1% of the voting population was that much more powerful than the other 50% that don't vote...

And should key Green party members tell everybody to endorse the Democratic party, I wonder how many of y'all will support them? Somehow I don't see that happening either.

If you voted for Nader then you sold out the Democratic party. You don't belong in the Democratic party. You not voting for our extremely qualified nominee, Al Gore, shows that you don't really give a shit if Bush runs this country or not. This is how I feel, and I don't think I'm changing. Do you have any idea how much Ralph Nader has hurt this country by allowing Bush to steal the election in Florida? Bush is trying to "reform" headstart, he is giving tax cuts to the wealthy, and old Saint Ralph couldn't give two shits. He railed against corporate greed and Wal-Mart while owning Wal-Mart stock, and he talked about what a corporate whore Al Gore was. Hey Ralph, meet the kettle, asshole. Ralph Nader does not have to realize the effects of Bush's policies because he lives in his nice multi-million dollar house. Thanks Ralph, you fucker.

Had it ever occured to you that some people firmly believe that the Democratic Party sold out its base, and not the other way around?

There are different ways of looking at this issue, and rigidity will get you nothing but an ulcer.

Lighten up.

and the people who think that are nuts.

that's a number of those who get it, a number of those who get it but are wary, and one "screw this coaltion shit". Anyone else?

edit: make that two for "screw this coalition shit". Sorry, Loyal.

Time to lobby the national party to clamp down more on ballot access laws in the states, to effectively keep you guys off most ballots in the nation. I want hundreds of thousands of signatures required for you guys to even get a ballot line for governor with us on it.

then I am certainly not....but in fact you are just a bitter and hateful person ......

The purpose of this thread is an attempt to find common ground, where once there was such now there appears none.Ill bet that most Greens were once Democrats, but ,as the party moved further to the right, as the opposition to Bush never appeared more and more turned to the Green party, perhaps many simply became alienated and joined the 50% or so who never bother to vote.There is no purpose to your silly and bitter rant other than to vent your anger. While that might make YOU feel better it performs no USEFUL purpose.

Nice try Uly, but , in reality, it is the leadership of the party that makes the decisions, that excludes and silences all but its own.I see little hope for the democrats in 04 , only Bush can defeat Bush.At best we will get a democratic president making republican decisions, some change that.

The eventual nominee, whoever that turns out to be, is going to have to pick positions based on what will sell to the swing voters and the middle generally.

That being so, exactly what is it you want us to "concede"? Not the election, I hope.

This thread is based on the idea of a liberal/centrist coaltion within the Democratic Party. Your opposition to that coalition is noted.

My opposition? I just asked a question. You're the one who asked us what we're willing to concede. I just want to know what you expect us to concede, what you think we can actually afford to concede.

Do you want a left/center coalition in the Democratic Party?

What do you think my avatar means? I'd happily vote for any of the candidates if and when that candidate received the nomination.

if you wanted a center/left Democratic coalition.

"Of course" is a synonym for "Yes."

... one side doesn't withhold their vote from the party if they can't have their way.

I find the Greens and the far left green voting "democrats" to be children prone to screaming and stomping their feet if they have to compromise for the good of the Democratic party.

In politics you have to give to get.

that that applies to centrists as well as leftists?

...if the green party or far left green voting "democrats" ever field a candidate that fuels my passion, they'll get my vote.

If the green party or far left green voting "democrats" ever field a candidate that garners a major following and can win, they get my vote.

I promise! I can compromise for the good of the party. The green voting dems obviously could not.

But I don't see any moderate democrats threatening to withhold their votes if they don't like the candidate.

I DO see that from my further left brothers and sisters.

But I don't see any moderate democrats threatening to withhold their votes if they don't like the candidate.

Why are we giving them control of the party if not?

moderate democrats have always been the base of the party.

I'm sure we can argue the finer details over who is more liberal, but FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter all have more in common with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry than Ralph Nader does.

There may have been a handful of further left high profile candidates here and there, but they've never garnered enough support to matter.

That is a comment on their qualifications, but on their viability.

Would any modern, nationally-exposed Dem dare stand up for FDR's legacy? Would Roosevelt have put a five year limit on welfare benefits to appease the American right wing?

A few would or did, but I'm sorry, Clinton wasn't Roosevelt and even Dean, my current candidate, isn't.

Welfare is Johnson's legacy, not FDR's. FDR opposed civil rights legislation and refused to integrate the military. He was the greatest President of the 20th Century for moving things forward/leftward, but even Lieberman is far to the left of FDR.

FDR wasn't the progressive he is made out to be. His legacy of social programs was born from depression. Aside from his (excellent) work in that department, he was a moderate.

And I do believe that any dem would take the same actions FDR did if the economic conditions were similar.

He spoke at our Labor Day picnic, and he said people were mistaken in believing that FDR was a liberal; he took most of the actions he took because he was a 'humane pragmatist'.

that is probably the most naive thing ever said here on DU. I do not get this arguement. No matter how centrist a democrat is do you really think by running a progressive the centrists will vote for Bush*? IMO there are an awful lot of repubs who do not want to vote for Bush*. The Greens, I believe, have stated they will probably run Nader if K does not get the nod. I have no problem with them voting their ideals. Thanks U for this post. I hate all the anger I have been seeing here. Civility went out the door a while back.

Of course they won't. But DU is only thirty-something-thousand and not all of us are voters.

The problem is that swing voters, regardless of how they are registered, will all swing toward Bush if we come at them with an activist candidate and a laundry-list of left-wing demands.

I know Republicans who are thinking of voting against Bush this time. My boss is one of them. He is a very polite and old-fashioned southern gentleman. We don't discuss politics much, but he knows what mine are (I spent a whole day last March in the campus quadrangle railing into a microphone about how the war in Iraq was immoral). He came to me a few months ago and told me how disappointed he is with the Bush Administration because they apparently fudged the justification for the war.

But I know this man, and I know that it would be easy to scare him back into the arms of Bush with a strident lefty campaign featuring harsh criticisms of the President.

It may seem incomprehensible to us that any sane person who didn't work for Halliburton would vote for Bush. But there are plenty of doctrinaire conservatives and people who supported Bush in Iraq who will never be able to admit their mistake (it's hard for everybody). And then there are plenty of people who don't read or think much about politics, some of them quite intelligent, and they will be easily scared toward Bush by anything that smacks of extremism. Again, you and I know that Bush is extreme, but he isn't generally viewed that way, and the media is not on our side.

Ok, he'd easily be scared back into voting for Bush.

Know what? I give a rat's fat ass. I really do.

Here's my thought: anyone we still have to wrestle from the right wing after the last three years isn't worth it.

Gotta love that civility. Thank God for the civility of this thread. The minute someone raises an issue that interferes with your vision of an easy liberal victory, it's claws-out. Hey Padraig, here's the reward for all your willingness to compromise and make nice!

Bush had an 82% approval rating after 9/11. Do you think even half of those people are going to have an easy time admitting that they were wrong? It might be nearly as hard for them as it is for Nader voters to admit that they were wrong in 2000.

thought as well. Then you hear, well they are not informed. Well, that is their fault. I have not ever been this reactive or active. Still, no matter how busy I always knew what was going on.

There's no point in pretending they don't exist. They do. And they vote. And if enough of them vote against us, we lose.

some of the problem here is that I do not consider Kucinich extreme. There are real conservatives out there who are as stunned and sickened by Bush* as we are. I can't imagine that they, who know what another 4 years will do, would vote for him at all, ever, knowing that they will go down maybe not as quickly as you and I but they will go down as well.

You're describing a guy who wants to vote Republican, but not Bush. If he can't vote Republican except by voting for Bush, he'll vote for Bush. Vote-Republican is a stronger attractor than vote-Bush is a repellor.

So what's your solution? Well obviously the Dems should offer this guy a different Republican to vote for!

That's madness.

This is an educated, decent, kindly man who is a conservative due to his upbringing (evangelical Christian). He is only just beginning to open his eyes to the cruelty and dishonesty that characterizes the modern Republican Party, thanks to the excesses of Bush. If we can get him to vote Democrat this time, it'll be that much easier for him next time. He's an intelligent and compassionate person who, by rights, ought to be a Democrat. There are probably millions who are more-or-less like him, especially in the South. But if we get in his face with our own excesses, we'll scare him back to the Republicans.

You know what's funny? I've been holding my boss's story in reserve, although I think it's an excellent object lesson in how we need to appeal to people who don't 100% agree with us, because I was afraid of cheap, snarling, ideological attacks by people who aren't able to hear any point of view except their own. But on this board, supposedly dedicated to civility and open exchange of ideas, I thought it was worth a shot. Guess I just haven't been on DU long enough, eh?

Pro-working-people policies, maybe? Constitutional rights? Civil freedoms? Equality? Choice? What?

I'm not saying we're wrong, I'm saying we're stupid if we think we can get our whole agenda at once without a massive re-education of the American electorate, which is going to take time and the advantage of elected office.

our own experience and reasoning? Why should we privilege your opinion?

Neither party has ever run to its base and won. Presidential elections are always won in the center.

It's as if we're in your car facing a 100 foot chasm. You say you can jump it. I say you can't. You say, "Prove it!" Well, how in blazes am I going to prove it? I can say that no car every jumped that far before, but I get "Well, this time it'll be different." And when I say, "No it won't," you ask why my opinion is better than yours.

The only way to really prove it is to jump the car into the chasm, crash, and die. I don't like the fact that I'm stuck in the car with you should you insist on taking that option.

But how do you know it's 100 feet? And how do you know the capabilities of this car, its engineers, and pit crew? The answer is: you don't. You're making assumptions apparently based on your personal preference for staying on the Right side of the chasm. But, lacking the grace to simply say so, you try to instill FUD.

'History supports' that no RC would ever be elected President in this proddy country. But that support evaporated in 1960.

'History supports' that humans will never fly through the air. But in the late 18th c. history decided to support instead the idea that humans would never fly in heavier-than-air craft. But history's support for that idea became shaky in the late 19th century and went away altogether in the early 20th. Now history only mutters to itself when asked about human flight.

When used about human activity, 'history supports' is rarely a cogent argument for not attempting something.

You're not talking about trying something new. You're talking about doing the same old thing that has been done before and has always failed. So the flight analogy means nothing.

I know it's 100 feet because I have eyes and a brain. If it's 98 feet, so what? It's too far for a car to jump, period. I know because I know. What I am trying to impart to you is that there is such a thing as knowledge that proceeds from simple common sense, from having a brain and eyes. If you will think about it, you will see that that must be so. You drive a car, I suppose - do you use statistics and studies and links to tell you're when you're in the right lane, or when you have to put on the brake to stop for a light? No - you use your eyes and your brain.

The difference is, with politics the effects of self-delusion aren't so immediately palpable. So it's easier to kid yourself that the impossible is possible. But on the other hand, the car you want to wreck belongs to all of us, and we're stuck in it with you. And after the wreck (if you get your way), it'll be everybody's fault but yours, again.

(first time I got to do a Boudelang! wheee!)

Not only have many state Green parties not decided to run anyone at all, among those that do run a candidate Nader still has to be nominated in a national caucus.

NO OUTCOME IS CERTAIN.

One thing that is probably correct is a Kucinich nomination from the Democratic party would get ALL the Green votes. But if the Dems can run Dean or Gep and still get 90% of the Green votes, that kind of nullifies any potential Kucinich advantage.

I have been deeply disappointed with my party's centrist (read: "rightward") drift.

Things have gotten so bad, I'm of two minds:

1) ABB. I am so soul-sick of * that a Clintonesque candidate at this point would seem a relief, if not altogether on my wish list. First step -- defeat *. Get him *out.* If that means a centrist drift for now, I am willing to concede that -- but for now *only*.

OR

2) Stick to principles. Stay liberal, and don't flex. If we go down in defeat, we go down standing up. All progressives band together.

Some days, I drift between these two thoughts several times. My only conclusion is that there must be a compromise between the two. In the end, I want a candidate who can beat *, but I'd like to have some pretty hard-line progressive positions reflected in that candidate.

Of the current field, there are perhaps two candidates who could possibly fill this order right now. Whoever it turns out to be, I would hope that he would have the backing of a coalition of centrist and liberal Democrats, Greens and other progressives who want some meaningful and serious change in this country's utterly skewed priorities.

I've been pushing for the greens to offer up an endorsement to a democratic presidential candidate. In my imaginary world, a democratic cadidate might actually pursue this endorsement and engage in a dialoge with the green party. The greens would not be defining the party platform but they would be included, and I fail to believe that common ground could not be reached on a few issues.

I still hope the green party grows into something as no other platform represents my views, and taxation with out representation is getting old. I'm hoping the greens put their effort into, local elections, and continue to build at the grass roots level. I think there are a few house seats that could be taken by green candidates if that was where significant effort was placed.

I voted for Nader last time, and I wouldn't have if I lived in a swing state. What will I do if there isn't a meeting of the minds? I'd vote for the ant-shrub candidate. But greens are mixed on this. I used to live in a small town where greens, hold most of the council seats and there's a green mayor (at least there was when I left). So from the greens I know there, I'm sure that a few more will vote strategically than did last time, a few would vote for Kucinich or Dean, but never for the others, and probably half would rather vote for Opus than any democrat. Alot of those folks though could be reached, if they felt the greens were getting consideration from a democrat (Dean has a fair bit of green support). I don't have data to back up these claims, it's just the sense I got from living in a primarily green town.

One thing is certain name calling and scapegoating will not bring most greens into the fold.

The problem with such concessions is that the bad guys aren't going to go away. If Smirk is defeated this time, he'll be back next time. So do we give in then, too? How about when Jebby steps into the picture? Concede again?

I'm not poking at you, honestly--it's a very serious problem.

But I think we kid ourselves if we say 'just this once'. The problem is that this problem isn't going to go away, and we are so close to the edge right now that this election itself might be the one that tips us into The Pit. And if SmirkCo does start up in Korea next summer, and the mad bastards use nukes...?

Since coming to DU in the spring of 2001, I have been frustrated beyond words at the amount of vemon spewed by Democrats and Greens toward each other. Never have I seen a thread where the issue of a coalition between the two parties was debated seriously and civily.

This thread has started out with reasonable discussion, for the most part. I hope it continues.

I am a 51 year old lefty that has been active in progressive causes since 1968. My beliefs are so far to the left that I have never been satisfied with a Democratic presidential candidate except for George ('redistribute the wealth') McGovern. However, I have always voted Democratic in national elections because I am realistic enough to know that America is not ready to elect a "George McGovern" or a socialist. Maybe someday they will be.

My heart is GREEN, and I would love to be able to vote my convictions. But with Republicans like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush on the ticket, it is necessary to compromise for the good of the country.

Dems and Greens need to put the their emotions and egos aside this year to make sure Bush is not reelected.

In my town, this is what is happening to a large degree. Many Greens and Dems are working together for Dean and Kucinich. Most of the people I know that voted Green in 2000 understand what's at stake in 2004. Most will do what they must to rid our country of the Bushistas.

For you Greens and Democrats that are still hostile to each other, please consider what is at stake this election and try to work together.

Our democracy depends on it.

Peace.

Don't know that it's made any difference, but the irrational idealist in me has to keep trying. ;-)

oh yeah...

a vote for kucinich is a vote for dean.
dean can't beat bush.
vote kerry, the only one who can beat dean, who can't beat bush. and stop holding the party hostage electorally with your ultra-liberal activism in the primaries.

voted for Nader {indy} in 2000 and I am thinking about leaving political thought and the United States in only 3 years of political activation.


I am only willing to concede when I know that a democrat is actually progressive in his/her world views. If a democrat has no kind of progreesive platform then that person will be regressive in policies. I will ony vote for a progressive.

Some greens will be able to work with democrats some will not, it's all about where one is going {direction} politically.

... if one is not willing to compromise - and they only hold a minimum amount of power (greens - itsy bitsy amount) - then they will forever languish.

Sure, they may be able to affect an election's outcome, as in 2000, but the outcome will be a detriment to them.

And, if I had to make a prediction, I would say if Nader runs in 2004, he will only receive a fraction of the support he got in 2000.

After four years on Bush, most of us on the left know the score.

and more importantly counter actack those on the right in anyway except for deception. The democrats will compromise without really fighting they give up, they believe in nothing, they are the perfect being designed by corporate power.

If Nader runs in 2004 so what?, If any democrat that is a centrist wins the next election they will have little or no effect on the next republicans reign on America. You can slow down facism by voting centrist but you will not stop it. You still have hope? I dont!.
I'm Cypher without Neo in the Matrix.

..dems come in all stripes. It isn't just Green leaning or Centrist.

You still have hope? I dont!.
I'm Cypher without Neo in the Matrix.

You said you were 23, right?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:pals:


P.S. I certainly hope the Greens and Democrats can find enough common ground to beat Bush next year. But both sides have to give something.

:shrug:

... I seriously doubt, given the situation this country is in, that the Greens will get much support in '04. Certainly less than in 2000.

I say the Greens have nothing to bargain with.

typical

Oh, they have nothing to bargain with...that's why you people keep acting like they should shut-up because they have too much influence!

I mean really, what is it?

After all, we all now know that their votes did not make a difference in 2000. (they say so themselves, rather loudly)

My experience also strongly suggests that the far left is quite underfunded.

If you listen to them, in the final analysis, if the Dem candidate is not up to spec, they will bolt and run their own candidate anyway.

So let's check down the list again. The greens are offering:

No significant vote (does not affect the outcome)
No significant money
No dependable volunteers

Am I missing something here?

If all they have is their ideas, those are published and in the public domain.

and they have a significant influence on people of like minds in the community, including quite a few people who wouldn't normally be involved in politics.

Democrats? They just make things worse. Like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden. Democrats proclaim to understand everything, then do their best to fuck-up a free lunch. I'd like to understand why I should support the Democratic party at all.

no matter what...because a vote for Green is a vote for Bush! We need to get this asswipe out of office NOW!! We need all the votes we can get. sorry, Greens, but you're NOT going to get everything you want. You can support the Dem, or get Bush again, who will set your cause back 30 years...take your choice, dumbasses.

Stick with the "dumbasses" thing - maybe it'll work eventually.

I'm Green. Think I'm a dumbass? Very nice.

Your note is incredibly immature and shows a wilful ignorance. I hope that you outgrow it.

They Greens should support ABB (i.e. the Democratic presidential candidate) and not challenge Democratic Congresional candidates.

Concentrate instead on local positions and state positions.

Greens would win a lot more friends that way.

waiting for their political brothers to shit or get off the pot.

I still say that the Green party wouldn't exist but for the radical rightist trend of the Democratic party. Address that.

The only reason for my suggesttion though was that no matter how bad the Democrats are making things, the GOP is infinetly worse.

At least if the Democrats are in power -- or not totally weakened -- we will have a more civilized arena for the progressive ideas of greens.


Also, the Greens should find it in their own interests to focus on the grass roots. They can build a base there, and work up from that. If the Greens overreach now, and willingly help re-elect the GOP, they will be perceived as arrogent twits who are irresponsible....Which frankly they will be if they do it.

And keep the Republicans in power for ever and ever. Why is that good?

The question as you have constructed it allows only one rational answer: it's not good at all. However, not everyone constructs the question the same.

Splitting the progressive vote would be impossible if the Democratic Party did a decent job of representing the progressive agenda. What's progressive about voting for a pro-death penalty, pro-economic globalization candidate whose rhetoric panders to religion? It would be very easy for the Democrats to make the Green Party unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is that the whole country is drifting right, and that is just the natural order of things, so - oh well! - the Dems will just have to follow the center which drifts ever rightward. Meanwhile, we simply abandon the discourse of the left.

What the heck is progressive about that?

Any political party, to be viable, must be a big tent. It must accommodate a variety of views. Yes, this applies to the Republicans too - we're just so far to the left of them that we see them "edge on" and it's hard for us to see the spectrum on their side.

Nothing futile is "necessary." If it can't and won't help, it's not "necessary." An anchor is not "necessary" to a drowning man.

You offer the Democrats the usual Green choice of murder or suicide. The nation is simply not ready for the Green brand of progressivism. If Democrats adopted it, Democrats would lose practically everywhere all the time. What you dismiss as "conventional wisdom" is ironclad fact.

You've perhaps heard the saying that politics is the art of the possible. Practical politics demands that we work for what we can get now, and hope to build on that. Progress by little steps. It's been done before and can be done again. Clinton, for example, was rebuilding trust in government and a belief that government can do good things for ordinary people (like the Family Leave Act), until the Starr inquisition. And we won't be caught flat-footed by that strategy a second time.

The issue is patience. We can't demand everything we believe in at once - we'll end up with less than nothing. That is, we won't even be able to curb the worst pathologies of our opponents, so instead of progress we will get regress.

We have to be practical. Idealism will not get the job done.

I feel as though you have addressed my points in only a superficial way.

For what, praytell, are we being patient if the direction is ever-rightward?

This is not a matter to dismiss as murder vs. suicide or Greens wanting everything now. Both are hyperbole that miss the point. Simply put, abandoning the discourse of the left will ensure that that glorious future moment for which you urge me to be patient will never come.

If we can make small steps to the left. We already know we can't make big ones - the electorate won't support it.

And nobody is asking you or anybody to abandon the discourse of the left. But a splinter party is only going to split the vote. Why not keep the discourse inside the party? It's the leftest viable party we've got.

I think it boils down to the can't, can't, can't problem of earlier posts. You can't admit a mistake no matter how reasonably it is explained to you. If you don't have any counterargument left, you dismiss the explanation as "superficial." Reality is not superficial. It is all we have to work with. And it's too important this time to protect our pride and indulge in debaters' points or dismissive attitudes.

If you do not think that the discourse has been shifting rightward, then we are not seeing the same thing when we both look.

"And nobody is asking you or anybody to abandon the discourse of the left. But a splinter party is only going to split the vote. Why not keep the discourse inside the party? It's the leftest viable party we've got."

You are mixing issues here. Of course the argument is to abandon the discourse of the left. That is the very strategy that is supposed to capture the rightward-drifting center. That is the crux of the centrist, pragamtic, moderate, or whatever other adjective argument. This has nothing to do with the obvious point that Democrats are to the left of Republicans.

Why not keep the discourse inside the party? Because it isn't supposed to be controlled and silenced. The far right doesn't keep their discourse inside the Republican party. It's out there in public! It has been shifting the whole political dialogue of the country to the right. It has redefined where the center is. I thought we agreed upon that.

"You can't admit a mistake no matter how reasonably it is explained to you."
That personal comment really doesn't have anything to do with anything. I am sorry that you felt the need to issue it.

It is too easy an out to personalize the issue and accuse me of pride or not listening or whatever. Listen, I'm not debating for practice. I thought here on DU that I could find people interested in an exchange of ideas. In that, I have no intention of being the passive recipient of objective truth that you (or someone else) will just "explain" to me until I "get it." That ain't how the deal works.

Your argument has collided with the reality that the strategy you recommend doesn't do what you think it does. It is magical thinking to suggest that a slower move to the right brings us progressive policies one day.

You do have some good points, but as long as we're not seeing the same tidal changes in this country's political landscape, we will not reach a common understanding.

you're never going to change your mind, no matter what. That's not necessarily a virtue. That's just an observation, not a personal attack.

The center is moving right. We both know that. It doesn't necessarily have to continue moving right. We both acknowledge that. It would be desirable to make it move left. We both acknowledge that.

We differ over methods. I believe that practical politics is the only methodology that offers any hope. We have to get Democrats into office to (immediately) curb the excesses of Bush and the right and (longer term) move the agenda leftward.

The right has not formed a splinter party that is threatening to split the right vote and put the Republicans out of power. The right reliably votes Republican. This is why the right is getting what it wants, to the degree that it is (wingers on both sides never get everything they want).

The left needs to realize that what works for the right would also work for the left. Work with and support the Democrats and you'd become a valued constituency. The more completely the Democrats came into power, the more they could and would do for you. But as long as the left votes Green and says that Democrats are just Repuke-lites, why should the Democrats want to do anything for you at all?

There is no hope, there is no future, in holding out for purity when the center is moving away from you. The time to call for ideological purity is when your party is in power. The time to split the progressive vote is when progressives are riding high, when the right has become all but meaningless - like when the Democratic Republicans split into the Democrats and the Whigs because the Federalists were dead and gone.

It is magical thinking to believe that righteousness and purity is going to get us anywhere in the present climate. It is magical thinking to put your faith in a party or a movement that commands the assent of less than 5% of the electorate. It is magical thinking to expect that wanting the nation to move left will make it do so. It is magical thinking to abandon practical politics.

I certainly can and do change my mind. You do not neutrally and dispassionately "observe" qualities of my individual character. Pretending to do so has only led you into an error.

Yes, we differ over methods. I think that we also differ over what constitutes practicality.

The ideological purity jazz is a straw man.

Just as you describe one hopeless scenario, I have another: accomodate the rightward drift until we win, at which point the winning strategy is its own justification for continuing. I am done with that one, thanks.

By my and others' insistence upon putting the discourse of the left into the public discussion, we are being better allies to the moderates than we'll ever get credit for. I hope that one day you'll see that.

Just as you describe one hopeless scenario, I have another: accomodate the rightward drift until we win, at which point the winning strategy is its own justification for continuing. I am done with that one, thanks.

Yup.

for moving the country to the left? What's your scenario?

Mine, I've already shared. Get Democrats into the White House and Congress, pretty much any way we can, until we have a working majority. Pick issues that command broad national assent and that generate betterments for ordinary, nonpolitical people that they can feel and appreciate. Capitalize on the resulting trust and good feelings to move left, carefully, on "harder sell" issues like the environment and the death penalty. Small steps and building on victory.

What's yours? How do you see the country moving to the left as a practical, real-world matter, and how do you see yourself contributing to that move? You mentioned getting leftist discourse into the public discussion, but on DU for example you're preaching to the choir. Do you write or speak regularly in a more general forum? That might be helpful.

I can assure you that I am politically active when I can be, with work and family coming before political action. And no, I do not consider reading and posting on DU to be that. DU is a luxury that I can fairly easily fit in around the cracks in the day.

Most of my activity is local, as is, by the way, the overwhelming majority of Green political effort. However, I request that you simply trust me on that self-report. I use my real name here and don't want to spill all of my beans.

Most of my broader strategy is like yours, except that I do not offer automatic support to Democrats but rather automatic support to progressives.

I think that we have explored this train of thought almost as far as it can go, but I have a question for you now: is ulysses' intent of improving Dem-Green rapport constructive or a waste of time?

We need to work together as much as we can. Our side needs to let go of the anger and your side needs to admit its mistakes. As you can see from the board, that's not going to be easy, and there's been plenty of unhelpful rhetoric from both sides. Not much good comes from pointing out the speck in our neighbor's eye and ignoring the log in our own.

Regarding your activity, good for you. We learn so little about each other on these boards except for the sum-total of the words we write and read.

Regarding strategy, if yours is "like mine," that means you are committed to winning elections (because you can't accomplish anything if you're not in office). Can you give me an example of a progressive candidate you're supporting who you think will win?

For Royal Oak City Commissioner, I support Gary Lelito. He is a progressive candidate (and a Dem!) who has a good chance of winning. There is no progressive up for mayor, nor can I think of any for higher office from the major parties until we get to candidates for President. I fully expect that Greens and Socialists will have an overwhelming majority of progressive candidates, and other individuals in other places might be too.

I think that electoral politics is just one element of making important changes, and often electoral politics lags behind other efforts.

I don't suppose I could interest you in supporting a candidate who might win in any race higher than Royal Oak City Commissioner?

Lemme ask you this...just why is it that the Democrats aren't able to unify the "progressive vote"

So, it is incumbent on progressives to be loyal to the Democrats, but we're a bunch of fringe leftists if we actually want true progressive reforms?

liberal Dem hoping Dennis gets nommed but will vote for a Dem no matter what.

I tried. Again. You see the result. Let me know if you have any more luck.

I'm surprised at the number who ARE willing to try it, though; maybe there's some hope yet. :)

Did you read posts #56 and 58? What do you think?

fuck em'

When they lose in 04 they'll blame somebody else again...no doubt

People may not b e happy with this, but this is Camejo's take after the October 7th debacle...

THE RECALL

BY PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO

October 14, 2003



SYMPATHY & RESPECT
Because of the Green Party’s participation in the recall election we have
gained new respect and sympathy from millions of people in California and
throughout the United States.

The Green Party made history in the recall election on several levels. In
part because of the 5.3% of the vote we received in November 2002, and in
part because of the nature of the recall, we were immediately considered a
major candidate by the media.

This status resulted in a historic breakthrough. A third party gubernatorial
candidate was included in televised debates. The Green Party has reached
this status not because of any one specific event or candidate but because
of our overall following and successes in California.

DEBATE STRATEGY
The televised debates allowed millions to hear and see a Green candidate for
the first time. In the first debate on September 3rd, I decided against
trying too hard to make an impression. For instance, I avoided humor. This
was because many listeners expect a third party candidate to be peculiar,
unusual, shrill or single issue focused and desperately seeking attention.
We needed to appear exactly the opposite; sensible, serious, calm, and with
a clear message.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

3,000 words, every one funnier than the next, cannot blow smoke over the only provable fact.. the green vote..bwaahhahaha...was cut in....bwaahahhaaa..half...in...BWAAHAAAHAHAHA....californiaBWAHAHAHWAHAHHAWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Good night sweet princesses.

Adieu. Adieu. Adieu.

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

I hope you've noticed that no one on this thread was willing to give Greens a WHIT...they wants the Greens to give up everything and THEN they wont be mad :nuke: :nuke:

...deep down, "we" are defeatists who promote a “slave” mentality. "We" Accept and "only serve to" please the master or "we" will only anger them. "Our" Resistance is hopeless.

So I'm told......

:shrug:

Check my initial post before you say no one was willing to give the Greens anything, Terwilliger...

BFHD

But people see what they wanna see, I guess... :shrug:

like you're doing

fact of the matter is, your're asking Greens to give it up while you offer them issue influence. Hell, they have more influence than that now.

I think you should concentrate on your own party since you have no interest in what Greens want.

I propose a first step toward a harmonious compromise: The greens do not run a presidential canidate, slough off the embarassing ball and chain named Ralph, and knock off the indistinguishable bullshit. In return, the dems promise not to completely ignore them after we win or target them with well funded candidates against them in the local elections they love.

If they actually work to help get a dem elected, we'll put a prominent green or two in mid level positions at EPA, Labor, or maybe even HUD.

That's exceedingly generous in light of the fact that they're not much use to anyone unless the race is Florida close and it's probably really best for America to let them go down the long slide next november since what little effect they have on electoral politics is to make life easier for Karl Rove.

But hey, I'm a magnanimous softy.

To demand supplication is to have no interest in real exchange at all.

I really don't get it, Iverson. All I proposed was that the GP stop lying, not enable chimpy, and find a figurehead other than a guy who profiteers from the corporate criminals he rails against. I also proposed that Dems will in return not seek to destroy the green party and, in fact, give them a real voice in government if they work to get a dem elected president.

Believe me, that deal's better than any deal the dems'll ever give the greens in real life. And it's infinitely better than the deal the greens have earned on the basis of electoral success.

But it's not good enough? Go ahead and verify the impression greens around here have been making for years: That what you really want the dems to do is commit political suicide by adopting major features of an agenda rejected by more than 98 percent of america.

Maybe the dems'll make the greens a deal, maybe not. The greens will probably reject it, especially if the let ralph nader's ego become the determining factor.

Sorry, my friend, the alternative to coming back home seems to be oblivion.

until I came to DU, I didn't know that Greens were the enemy. I always thought of them as fellow progressives. And I agree with the Green Party platform, myself. I'm a registered dem. I voted for Gore in '00. But I sure never blamed the outcome of that election on the Greens. Unbelievably, it is DU itself that has tried to teach me to view my natural allies as enemies. Fortunately, I've failed that lesson. As far as I'm concerned, Greens are my allies, not my opponents.

100%

...defeating Bush should be #1- issue coalitions come next...

Considering that it's going to take a coalition to DEFEAT bush and his army of corrupt ballot machines...

we're either stuck in a non-start loop... or we get off our asses and promise to vote together in exchange for cabinet space/ leniency on 1 or 2 issues.

It's not difficult!!

There are a few roses to be found amongst the thorns in this thread. Can we find some more? :hi:

Surprised that I would have Green friends? Well, I do, including our best 'couple' friends, a gay couple from Urbana who are also students at U. of I. It takes no great feat of imagination to understand how the events of November 2000 and their aftermath came close to driving a wedge into our friendship; thank God that my boyfriend--- who's also a cop--- is a big believer in 'alternative dispute resolution' and has training in various techniques to achieve it. After one particularly heated 'discussion' with our friends about Florida and NH (enough said), he suggested that we start over, but approach the issue from a viewpoint of "The major mistake *I/we* made was...". Damned if it didn't get interesting. :P

I went first, and the biggest mistake I saw in retrospect was our party's failure to appreciate the importance of the disenfranchisement of an entire group of likely Gore voters by Jebbie and Kruella; Jesus H. Christ, we knew they had done it, and we did ZIP about it! We had a *Florida Democrat* as Attorney General (and controlled the Justice Department AND its Civil Rights Division), yet we didn't lift a hand to do anything about it! How INCREDIBLY stupid! I truly believe we could have obtained an injunction (at minimum) to force the FL authorities to let those folks wrongly stricken from the voter rolls to vote, and could have put 'monitors' in place to see that yet *other* likely Gore voters were not disenfranchised.

One of my Green friends went next, and he admitted that Nader should never have said that there was 'no difference' between then Democrats and Republicans, because there *clearly* was. He believes that this statement caused many Green voters--- especially new and first-time ones--- to not think strategically about casting their votes in States like FL and NH, where they would very likely have changed the outcome; he conceded that only the most rabidly destructuralist Greens would have voted for *--- a minute percentage of Greens, overall--- and enough would have held their noses and voted for Gore to change the outcome in his favor in both states.

After that, it became easier and easier...

No one's hands are completely clean in the matter of 2000, even though each side has *legitimate reasons* for believing their conduct to have been correct at the time. What made BushCo's 'hit' so effective in 2000 was that none of us saw it coming, and we each did things that, in retrospect, we might and likely would do differently had we possessed the rueful knowledge we do now.

Can we not agree to disagree, and bury the hatchet somewhere else besides in each other? We have a common enemy--- one who represents a threat much, MUCH greater than the largely-fictional threats we represent to each other--- and we must focus on that. The Greens have legitimate political apsirations and an agenda that is not entirely at cross-purposes with our own, and we Democrats must concede that; in turn, we Democrats have legitimate concerns about what it is the Greens would have us do to bind you to us as allies, and at what 'price'.

There is common ground, if we approach it with good will and open minds on both sides. :hi:

Not to hijack your post, but what you said about "alternative dispute resolution" sounds much like the Peace Department that Kucinich proposes. We would all be well served if we could do as you suggest and try coalition building however I do not think that is going to happen until we have a candidate. I plan, as a progressive, to push the progressive agenda with whoever gets the nomination. It will be interesting to see who it will be and how they will respond. I keep hoping that the more centrist candidates, if they get the nod, will then move to the left or if they win will move to the left. This will be a determining factor for me. As someone who respects Greens and shares much of their ideology I will have no problem considering working with them. I want to remain a Democrat but if we move further to the right I do not know if I can. MY choice, I expect there to be flames in my direction for this but at this point I no longer care. This was a nice thread in its thought, wish it could be as you suggest.

It's fine and dandy to vote your conscience when Bob Dole has no chance of winning, but as distasteful as it may be we MUST do whatever necessary to overthrow George II. Period.

First I would recommend that all Centrist Dems go to the Green Party website and check out their 10 core principles. GUARANTEE that at least 2 of those will be defining issues for a candidate (personally I'd prefer Publically Financed Elections and Universal Health Care) and you'll have my vote for sure and probably about 90% of Green voters.

Continue to ignore every issue we care about while demanding our vote will result in more Green candidates.

Does this sound fair?

I support them both. :thumbsup:

Give me a democratic candidate with that and you have 90% of the green vote.

To the Green haters pay attention-see how much easier that was. Much more effective than 'all Greens are the enemy and should die!' isn't it?

and 1% of the Dem vote. Not a fair bargain imo.

Can you articulate exactly why those ideas are so intolerable to the Democrats of whom you speak?

Thank you in advance.

Off hand, I don't know any Dems who would object to either one...

What happens in the general election? Do we want Harry and Louise back? Do we want the socialist label in an election that is bound to be about conflicting definitions of patriotism?

Besides, litmus tests are the kiss of death. Clinton broke the "traditional Democrat" mold when he refused to kowtow to Sister Soulja. That and similar moves probably got him elected President in '92. The Democratic nominee most notable for the number of hoops he jumped through and the number of litmus tests he passed was Dukakis. Do we want a repeat of '88?

Publicly financed campaigns will not win one vote for the Dems, and will lose thousands of votes for them, if not millions.

And when it comes to Universal health care, the jury is still out as to how much of a vote-getter it is.

IMO, the price of Green support is too high for too few votes. Besides, I suspect most people who voted Green in 2000 will be voting Dem in 2004.

1)We don't know how many votes PFC would win for us because no major candidate has ever ran on it. But it would definitely win most Green votes and might even do a bit to bring in some of those 50% who don't vote because they realize both sides are corrupt with our current system of legalized bribery.

2)Guess you didn't see the Wash. Post poll yesterday that said around 65% would favor a universal coverage system?

3)Maybe you have a better idea, but I don't how constantly beating that rotten decaying old horse of Medicare, Social Security, and abortion for another fifty years is going to bring a lot of voters to the party. Funny, it doesn't seem to have done much of a job of keeping people in it either.

1) There are reasons why no one campaigns on PFC. One of those reasons is that it won't get many votes. Campaigning is about getting votes. If an issue gets votes, then candidates would campaign on it.

2) Asked in the absence of a well-funded campaign against UHC, it always does well. But as we saw during the Clinton years, a well-funded campaign can scare people by making up lies about the details.

3) Even if you're right, and "constantly beating that rotten decaying old horse of Medicare, Social Security, and abortion for another fifty years" won't bring in votes, that still doesn't mean that the answer is going Green. You're refuting an argument (ie "we should keep beating those old horses") that I didn't make. That's known as "a straw man" argument.

1)Or maybe people don't campaign on PFC because they're quite comfortable with our current system of legal bribery.

2)Unfortunately Clinton's plan wasn't a true UHC plan, plus now we have the nation's doctors on the side of UHC which should do much to change it's chances.

3)People are going Green because they're ready for something new. Believe it or not, not every Green voter is 'ideologically pure', 'uncompromising', or 'hopelessly idealistic'. Most of us just recognize that the Democratic Party is going in the shitter because it hasn't offered any new ideas in the last 40 years. Many Green voters like myself were hoping that maybe a stagnant party would realize that it better get its act together and come up with something new if it hopes to keep our votes.

This doesn't mean the Dems have to give us all we want. Hell they don't have to give anything we want, just something new, because spouting the same 40 year old ideas isn't going to bring us any new votes, in fact it's only sending them away.

... specifically limited to those two items. Trust me, I have nightmares about the horror that I'm certain Rove *already* has planned for whoever we nominate, so I get your point. :)

Trust me, I have nightmares about the horror that I'm certain Rove *already* has planned for whoever we nominate,

We can split hairs all the livelong day, trying to mold the perfect, unassailable candidate, and they'll still be targets.

No matter who it is, they're already in the Mayberry Machiavelli's gunsights--- change a name here, a position on an issue here or there, and the all-purpose 'slime suit' will be ready to wear...

Oh, I have no doubt that Rove et al are ginning up the lie machine to use against whoever we nominate. But there's no point in giving them ammunition. Whatever smear they try has to have some basis in fact, or it'll only convince the morons who are going to vote for them anyway. But publicly funded campaigns and publicly funded healthcare won't gain us any votes beyond those we ought to get anyway, and they push the "socialism" and "tax and spend" buttons. Regarding healthcare, people say they're for it in the abstract, but present it to them as a possible reality and they panic - remember Harry and Louise?

was successful only because Clinton's health plan was so half-assed and yet so complicated that it was easy to attack. People couldn't figure out where they fit into it, and those who were already under "managed care" knew that they didn't like it.

A different health care plan that was easy to understand, covered everybody, and actually saved money would be harder to attack--especially if the Democrats took the crucial, often overlooked step of fighting back instead of curling up in a corner and whimpering when the Republicans attack.

that the Clintons bollixed it when Hillary went behind closed doors, refused entreaties to meet with congressional leaders, and didn't come up for air for six or so months. Bill had promised action within his first 100 days.

Repubs and special interest groups had plenty of time to sow fear and doubt, and Dems couldn't muster an effective response, since no one but she and Ira Magaziner knew what was going on.

Fixing national health care was one of the big issues that won Clinton the White House. He blew it.

It's easy for the right wing media to scare the public about ANY plan for "socialized medicine."

Clinton had the opportunity, but allowed the package to be developed in secret by his missus and a small team. So he couldn't muster much of a defense other than "just wait, it'll be great." He blew it.

Which was that the right wing media can ALWAYS cause a public panic over any proposed "socialized medicine."

90% of the green vote is about 4% of the Dem vote. There may be more democrats than greens, but democrats are lazy and dont vote. All greens vote all the time. Just look at the last presidential election.

Gore: 50,992,335
Nader: 2,882,897

Green votes are votes you can count on.
Democratic votes are about as reliable as a slot machine.

it isn't enough for us to win on if we lose the middle.

:)

Today's New York Times column by David Brooks, says what I am thinking about all of this Green-Dem fighting garbage...

"John Edwards has the most persuasive theory. He argues that
most voters do not place candidates on a neat left-right
continuum. But they are really good at sensing who shares their
values. They are really good at knowing who respects them and
who doesn't. Edwards's theory is that the Democrats' besetting
sin over the past few decades has been snobbery."

BTW I am NOT a Edwards supporter, but he has a point. Al Gore was just a little too snobby - as are many of the candidates. Left, Center, or Republican clone, that is the problem our party faces, not the GREENS.

"I don't think politics has anything to do with left, right, or center. It has to do with trying to do right by people."

-Paul Wellstone


:dem: :dem:

:)

I'm a registered Green, but I have significant disagreements with the Green program.

The Democratic Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party. It has never been the "party of the people". It went from being the party of southern wealth to the party (along with the GOP) of big corporations.

Both parties are parties of the rich. We need a third party -- one to establish the political independence of the working class. Essentially, I'm advocating an American Labor Party.

A few years ago, just such a party was founded -- but it's doomed to failure. The union bureaucrats want it to serve as nothing more than a pressure group for the Democrats.

The problem with the Green Party is that it's basically a party of the middle class. It glorifies small business and a largely mythical era of "national capitalism". And a lot of them are just Luddites.

1) Nader was not the only problem in the 2000 election. Others have mentioned the lack of attention by Florida Dem officials to the false attribution of felon status to large numbers of black voters, the "Jews for Buchanan" votes, and other stinking irregularities.

2) The Greens get taunted about their small numbers, but if Bush had not been such a scary opponent, those numbers would have been larger. I knew a lot of Greens and Green-leaning people in Oregon, where Nader ended up with 7%. In the early part of the race, all of the Greens and about half the Democrats I knew were planning to vote for Nader, because they thought that Gore was too conservative. As the election drew closer, and as the polls indicated the possibility of a Bush victory, most of these people reluctantly switched their votes to Gore.

Based on this admittedly small sample, I believe that Nader would have gotten 10%-15% of the vote in Oregon if the Republican opponent had been less horrendous. This is not outside the realm of possibility, since the Oregon Democratic Party is very liberal and went 39% for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary.

Remember also that in states where Gore stood no chance of winning, a vote for Nader did no harm and served as a useful protest.

3) I believe that the conservative Dems who keep repeating the mantra of "too liberal" are buying into the Republican worldview. I would like to see which policies in particular are "too liberal" for them. Let's set aside Republican spin for a moment. We could run Zell Miller, and Karl Rove would still try to paint him as "too liberal." Any candidate worth his salt should be able to spin his positions in the opposite direction. If he can't, he's not worth having.

Note that the Republicans seem never to worry about whether their ideas are "too conservative." By running away from the label "liberal," we are playing into the Republicans' hands.

4) We have a shortage of leaders in the Democratic party.
A leader does not monitor the polls or the comments of the media pundits before deciding what he "believes."

A leader does not allow himself to be defined by the opposition: he defines himself.

A leader does not merely react to the opposition's latest initiative. He crafts his own initiatives.

A leader is not dependent on existing public opinion. Instead, he shapes public opinion by presenting new ideas in ways that people can understand and accept.

In the past twenty years, the Republicans have shown all the leadership (evil leadership, but leadership nonetheless), while the Dems have mostly reacted. That's why I cringe every time a Democratic elected official says "Me too" to a Republican policy.

Dems need not worry about the labels. Perhaps I'm naieve but for god sakes, people out there in the real world still judge candidates on things that have nothing to do with policy, such as

Is this guy (or gal) like me? Is he or she sincere? As mentioned above, is this person a leader, with new ideas? Does this person have convictions, or do they just vote how the electorate feels?

Short story - Two war votes - different outcomes -

Here in Iowa, we have a congressman named Jim Leach, who is a Republican. His district is NOT one that should be Republican, but still could go either way. Jim Leach voted against the war, against his party line, and was the only one in the state delegation to do so (including people like Tom Harkin.) This gained him votes with many Democrats, not just because he went against the Republican party line, but because he was the only one in the Iowa delegation with enough courage to vote that way.

In Minnesota, Paul Wellstone voted against the war, despite his seat being up for re-election, and him trailing Norm Coleman in the polls. (barely) His war vote actually helped him among many Minnesota republicans that I talked to who normally didn't like his policies and votes but could see that Paul Wellstone was someone who voted his heart. Then we all know what happened. Grandpa Fritz came in and just couldn't pull it out.

Simplistic stories, but the point is that Democrats need to start voting in what they believe and things won't be all that bad. It's not always about left/right positions, it's about charecter.

:dem: :dem:

People had problems with Al Gore, mostly because of the RW spin but they HAD problems. He was not like them, Georgie was (they thought). At this point I would be inclined to believe that character and reliability and a true campaign with people based policies would win big enough that the machines can't change it. Bush* was essentially an unknown good ole boy who spoke of compassion. Gore was known, not really trusted by many and not like most people. HE STILL WON! Now Bush* is known and some still agree with him but I can't believe that his time in office hasn't soured many of those who voted for him for whatever reasons. I do not think this is coming down to a RW, LW vote entirely. It will most likely be about trust and proven responsibilty to the people.

My issues (foreign policy, third world debt, various IMB/WB issues that are designed to be boring to conceal their lethality) had no discernable difference between the two candidates.

I wasn't going for it because Bush might kill a few more or less people than Clinton did or Gore would have through their tender mercies.

Other issues just aren't life and death and if one person realized that because Nader got on their TeeVee and said so my vote wasn't wasted at all.

Pissed off Clintonista's can save the flames, I've heard it all before and let me tell you in advance I'm disinterested in hearing your polemics.

All you can do is work for your causes and if those and the democratic candidate match up I will be delighted and if not I don't mind tilting at windwills. Sometimes the idealists win against all odds. Anyone suggesting pre-WWII that there would ever be a day when good German and English sons wouldn't be predisposed to kill each other in conflicts would have been dismissed as a damn fool but that came to be.

A better world really is possible and sitting on your ass typing "I hate Bush" a billion times and chanting "ABB" isn't going to get you there folks.

This isn't Green Underground, it's DEMOCRATIC Underground. If you're actively supporting another party, especially a laughable, pathetic party like the Greens, you don't belong here. Period.

Furthermore, we Democrats need to realize that Greens are our enemy. Their childish stupidity in 2000 led to the "election" of the worst president we've ever had, a president who has plunged the world into war, recession, and misery in only three years. I'm not about to forgive them anytime soon. And remember, these idiots actually ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone last year! That says a lot.

Greens need to put down the joint, grow up, learn about how our political system really works, and face the *reality* that America is not and never will be Berkeley or San Francisco. Once they do that they should come to their senses and join the only progressive party that actually has a chance of getting things done, and that's the Democratic party.

...

that jsw_81's post followed Sesquipedalian's like that. They made a nice pair of bookends, as the bottom line of both was "If you don't agree with me, f*ck you!"

If you live in Michigan, please invite me to your 14th birthday party.

of Greens remind me of the following situation:

A and B are in a romantic relationship. A starts taking the relationship for granted, and begins ignoring B to hang out with more prestigious people, dissing B in public, constantly dismissing B's opinions, and failing to defend B from criticism. Sure, B can be over-enthusiastic at times and a bit impractical, but A seems more concerned about what the neighbors will think than about trying to work out a modus vivendi with B. Despite such shabby treatment, B stays with A, not seeing any alternative except opting out of relationshps altogether.

Enter C, who is new in town. C thinks B is just fine as is and agrees that A has treated B poorly. After a while, B finds much more in common with C than with B. After some wavering, B moves in with C.

A goes ballistic and accuses C of "stealing" B. A demands that B come back and follow A's house rules. B asks for some say in how the household is run. A says that the only possible option for B is to come back and do things A's way so as not to upset the neighbors. When B once again asks for input, A accuses B of trying to "run things." When B then declares the intention of staying with C, A accuses B of being the enemy.

All in all, A cannot accept any share of the blame for the breakup of the relationship with B.

Does this sound like any situation you're familiar with?

A discovers that C is planning to murder B outright. A tries to warn B, but B, bitter about past slights (some of which are imaginary) insists on sticking with C anyway, and refuses to listen to anything A has to say about the matter.

There are several tens of millions of people under that tent, so you can't claim it for yourself. Given the fact that the DNC claims such a large membership, the logical candidate would probably fall within a notch or two of, you guessed it, Bill Clinton - not someone like Ralph Nader who is so far out in left field, he's almost in the bullpen.

The centrists and center-left are there to keep the far lefties (who we also need) from scaring off the independent voters (most of whom are centrists) we need to win elections.

So Clinton's support of welfare reform crossed your line. I can respect that. You must admit that life was better with him running the show, and using his veto pen to keep the neocons from destroying the country, than with the idiots in charge. You must also admit that we would have been worse off with Bob Dole in the White House from 1997-01, letting Newt Gingrich have his way with the country.

I do claim equal ownership with everyone else, however.

Given the fact that the DNC claims such a large membership, the logical candidate would probably fall within a notch or two of, you guessed it, Bill Clinton

While my point here isn't that we must nominate a hardcore progressive, I don't think that your logic here quite follows. Yes, it's a large membership, but it's a membership that, it seems to me, largely benefits from truthfully understood liberal/progressive values and ideas. So, not Nader perhaps, but Clinton? I think we can do better if we fight back and speak truth to conservative lies.

You must admit that life was better with him running the show, and using his veto pen to keep the neocons from destroying the country, than with the idiots in charge. You must also admit that we would have been worse off with Bob Dole in the White House from 1997-01, letting Newt Gingrich have his way with the country.

Sure, but I posted a while back to the effect that simply being Better Than Bush (tm) is not good enough. I still believe that.

We need to win. Can you give me an example of a candidate from history who would have been acceptable to you and who won?

Leaving aside the complexities (Perot and his own personal charm, for starters) of both elections that Clinton won, I'd name Carter and Kennedy and, for their times, Truman, FDR and Wilson. Hell, I'd even throw in Clinton in 1992, although he wasn't my primary choice.

You'll never accept it, but the "ideological purity" thing really is pretty threadbare.

Carter was a conservative Democrat, for his time. Remember Teddy's anybody-but-Carter movement? Party liberals tried something similar in 1976, too. John Kennedy left as little difference as possible between himself and Nixon on the issues, although he moved left (at least in his rhetoric) when he got into the White House. Don't forget that he was an inveterate cold warrior.

FDR's liberalism has been exploded earlier on this board. He blocked civil rights legislation and integration of the military, interned Japanese-Americans, cut veteran's benefits and public payrolls, and subsidized private banks. Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, other than integrating the military, does not have a strong liberal record of accomplishment. Wilson was quite conservative.

So what gives? You're citing a litany of centrist and conservative Democrats as justification for nominating a flaming liberal this time.

If you're okay with the current equivalent of FDR, Truman, and/or JFK, you ought to have no objections to any of the current candidates except possibly Lieberman, who has a snowball's chance of getting the nomination.

I know - I really do know - how much you'd love for me to be a two-dimensional figure. Sorry to disappoint.

You said "acceptable", not "ideal". I've never said that we have to nominate a "flaming liberal", at least by any kind of true standard of what a flaming liberal is. Carter was a conservative Dem for his time, true, but in our age he's the poster-boy for "flaming liberal" and he looks pretty good to me, warts and all, compared to the DLC's outlook. Kennedy played hardball, but had the cojones to take a stand on civil rights. Truman dropped the bomb, but (and here's a little liberal heresy for you) probably saved more lives on both sides in the process than he took, AND he integrated the US military against no small opposition. FDR's faults are duly noted, but he at least had the sense to back a watered-down version of economic socialism that probably saved the nation and definitely saved a lot of people. Wilson is always dicey given his ugly racial issues, and I hesitated putting him in, but his opposition to war and backing of the League of Nations - as naive as it is in retrospect - get some respect from me. So it goes.

What's the common thread between all these? Hint: it's not their overwhelming liberalism.

What are we still arguing about? If you are saying that centrist Democrats are acceptable to you, then where's the sticking point on ABB? It doesn't mean that you have to vote for a centrist in the primaries, for chrissake. It means a commitment to vote for the nominee, whoever it turns out to be (and it won't be Lieberman, fear not) once the primaries are over.

So what is the continuing objection? If it's to the purely abstract proposition that "better than Bush" is "good enough," then let's drop it. That's like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If we can agree to ABB in the general and to each his own in the primaries, then we're there. Aren't we?

is to the continuing slide rightward of what constitutes "centrist". Bill Clinton, as I understood the candidate in 1992, was acceptible. Bill Clinton, as I understood the candidate in 1996, was not.

I believe in progress. I believe in the need for progress. I wouldn't vote for Woodrow Wilson today because we need to be doing much, much better in 2003.

So what is the continuing objection? If it's to the purely abstract proposition that "better than Bush" is "good enough," then let's drop it. That's like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If we can agree to ABB in the general and to each his own in the primaries, then we're there. Aren't we?

No, we're not. Far from being purely abstract, it's an entirely real subject for discussion.

What you seem to want is for us to nominate a candidate who can't win because he or she is too far left of political center. Every time the Democrats run to the left in a presidential election, we get crushed, no exceptions. Lists of names of successful nominees who weren't liberals and didn't run to the left are irrelevant.

How is it "progress" to help George W. Bush to four more years in the White House?

What you seem to want is for us to nominate a candidate who can't win because he or she is too far left of political center.

No. I want to nominate a winning candidate who is functionally to the left of Bill Clinton. I want a Democratic Party that, top to bottom, throws liberal stereotypes back in the faces of conservatives and redefines the political language to suit its own purposes. I want a candidate and a party red in tooth and claw that fights the right wing on every possible front.

Fight and lose and end up nowhere.

I might remind you that the DLC has failed miserably and the Democratic party is losing congresses, presidencies, state houses and governorships...and this is ALL due to the third-party ramblings of the "third-way" and their splitting of the left vote

Even if it were, though, I think I'd rather fight the good fight, lose and wind up no where than give in, "win" and wind up a moderate Republican.

How is it, exactly, that fighting back against the right wing means that we lose? How?

We can fight to win, or we can fight to show how right we think we are.

The corollary is that a win can be meaningful or not. Winning by becoming the other is dissolving where one stands.

Or at least no meaningful difference? Clinton won by "becoming the other," i.e. Bush? Do you really believe that?

Yes, before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, I know you didn't bring up Clinton. I did. I think we do best this year by nominating someone Clinton-like and winning. You appear to be saying that such a victory would be meaningless. I am trying to address that point.