What's your opinion on the Green Party?

What's your opinion on the Green Party? Like them, don't care, etc.

Personally, I don't understand voters who will vote Green in 2004. Face it, the Greens have no chance. They don't even have a candidate out yet, and they're not even an official party. Have they even started fund-raising? And if they have, how much money do they have? I understand the voters' desire to have a more open election, with more choices therefore more competition and progress. But in such a cornerstone election in 2004, in which it's obvious none of us want Bush, why do they essentially take away a potential Dem vote just b/c they perceive none of the Democratic candidates as "perfect"? And I think that's a very ignorant assumption. There are plenty of very good Democratic contenders, from Kerry to Dean to Gephardt to Kucinich to Edwards... Are these people actually believing the media about how the Dems have no chance?

I empathize with and applaud Greens who would never vote for Joe Lieberman.

I am baffled, confused, and irritated by Greens who are trying to ruin reelection for Barbara Boxer.

If normally-Democratic voters move to vote Green if Lieberman's nominated, I'd do the same. But other than Lieb, every Democratic candidate is a significant and positive departure from Bush.

and seek office, but I just wish that they would try to run for public office within their range: try local govermnent (Legislature...Govenor) and then work up to bigger things.

I don't have any problem with the Greens. I just wish they wouldn't support Ralph Nader. They need to be a little realistic.

The Greens already have some congressmen in. How about a Green governor? A Green-majority state? I think they should work on that before grabbing the big cheese. You have to feed and breed a strong and trained army before taking down an empire. Sporadic skirmishes do nothing, or in this case, weaken the Democrats which means empowering the Republicans. They're striking when their iron is ice cold. They have to make it hot first

I know there is at least one Independent, Sanders of Vermont. I know of no Greens on the federal level.

The Democrats, if they really wanted, could easily eliminate a GP Presidential Candidate by making it easier for the Green Party to gain permanent ballot status. One of the primary reasons the Greens *must* run a Presidential candidate in 2004 is because the majority of their state GP parties would lose ballot status without it....it would mean suicide for teh Greens, so naturally they're not going to sit it out. However, the Dems could easily change those laws in the states where they own the legislature....

I believe in what they WANT to represent, I just disagree with some of their methods. Just as I don't agree with some of the methods employed by the DLC.

However, I hope Nadar does not get their nomination in 2004. If he does, I think the Greens will just be seen as the party of Nadar (like the Reform Party was the party of Perot). Also, I would consider Nadar a hypocrite because I have not seen him take action to prevent this administration and, trust me, I was looking for him. I never saw him speak out on the war or on the Patriot Act and any of the other bizarre policies Bush & Co. have enacted.

I like Nadar, but if he comes looking for my vote, I will have to ask, "Where have you been?"

Ralph Nader has been organizing efforts to research the impact of depleted uranium used by the U.S. in weaponry on the health of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. While the Cnn-Fox News-General Electric axis won't report on it, it has been covered in the progressive media. Either Mother Jones or The American Prospect had an article on his efforts.

Um, I hate to mention this, but Nader was speaking out, virtually every week. He spoke at many of the huge peace protests, and was touring the country talking about Bush's attack on virtually all progressive ideas.....even when the Democrats were giving Bush whatever he asked for.

and I did not see Nadar once. I look at many independent news sites and Nadar was not there. I looked at his web site and nothing was on it. If I missed it, then I guess I missed it, but I have not seen him anywhere.

Please provide a link concerning his anti-Iraq efforts. Thank you.

Well, try going to United For Peace and Justice's website (unitedforpeace.org) and search for Nader. Or go to the Green Party website (gp.org) and read through the media articles from the antiwar movement. You'll see that Nader was definitely involved in the peace movement.

In fact, United For Peace was co-founded by the Green Party.

And I found nothing about Nader and the war.

Please note that I did not say anything bad about the Green Party, I just did not see Nader do anything to help fight against the war, the "Patriot" act or anything else Bush & Co. have done. I haven't even seen him speak up in the recent gay rights debate. Where is he? If he comes around looking for my vote right before the election (just like so many other politicians), I will not give it to him.

If the Green Party nominates someone else, I will look at their stance on the issues and decide then if I will vote for her or him.

If you got to unitedforpeace.org and search for "Nader" you get five articles on his involvement with the antiwar effort. Here's one of them, about the major teach-in that was held, at which Nader spoke.

Iraq War Critics Gather To Continue Their Fight
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1740

The articles on the site search were thrice redundent and two were not directly related to peace, but were consumer advocacy efforts that discussed the impact of efforts in Iraq.

A google search turned up (front 10 only) your link and then issues dating back to 2000 that happened to have peace and Nader in common. I just don't see him heavily involved in the anti-war movement - particularly since he has some major culpability in our current straits.

Although I like almost everything I hear the Greens say, what decided it for me was I just could not imagine a Nader Administration (not a successful one, anyway).

I still like what the Greens stand for and think right now they have a better chance of building a following by going after local and state offices before going after national elections. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

And all the Dems have to do to keep Greens from running national candidates is to offer national candidates that Greens can support. If Dems nominate Kucinich, I and virtually all other Greens will certainly vote Dem for president.

Think how arrogant it would be to expect Greens to vote for a 'lesser-evil' candidate because Dems refused to nominate the best candidate. It boggles the mind.

n/t

seriously!

I not only voted for nader but I help setup and build a county group...what a mistake, however I am ready to make that mistake again if Lieberman get's the nomination.

There is not much to understand. The greens vote according to their values not who is electable. There is no DLC tell people how they should vote.

If I can get 60-70% of the ten key values I'm happy. Then with Dean I get other things to GO DEAN

here are the ten key vaules.

Grassroots Democracy

Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another. Therefore we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations that expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

Ecological Wisdom
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must have agricultural practices that replenish the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law. Nonviolence It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and

global peace.
Decentralization Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system that is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

Community Based Economics We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living, for all people, while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights, broad citizen participation in planning, and enhancement of our "quality of life". We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that spread out resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

Feminism We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control, with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the -sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

Respect for Diversity
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms and the preservation of biodiversity.

Personal and Global responsibility
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the

health of the planet.
Future Focus and Sustainability Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counter-balance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions. Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.

My understanding is the Green party was happy to have a celeb in Nader, but he was still a moderate compared to the baroque Green platform. Insofar as Nader was a "Green light", Nader voters were supporting the candidate over the party like the "reform" Buchananites or "libertarian" Howard Stern supporters of yore.

I guess my point is the Greens minus Nader couldn't fill a trailer park, so even purists have to compromise to get that <5% unless they employ the Pol Pot school of coalition-building.

I agree w/ their principles and I strongly support certain parts of their platform -- I'm a big proponent of their political reforms. I love the idea of proportional representation in the u.s. house, I want instant runoff voting, I want easier access of third parties to the ballot, abolition of the electoral college, and public financing of -- though the idea of having a "none of the above option" on the ballot doesn't do anything for me.

I also agree w/ a lot of their environmental and human rights stands, though they are to the left of me on those issues -- i tend to be somewhat more moderate and pragmatic, though I definitely favor a strong environmental platform.

Basically, outside the political reform thing, I'm a mainstream moderate-liberal democrat (not a centrist, but not a left-liberal either, in between the two), so I'm not a Green, but I have a lot of respect for their views and their positions -- I just wish they would set their sights lower and attempt grassroots change on political reform, and instead stay out of presidential politics and even cooperate with the Democratic party to get their progressive message out.

They would rather lose than win. The far right, on the other hand, swallows its objections over candidates they don't see as perfect more often than not.

The logic of the far left is different. They demand 100% loyality. Even though candidate X votes their agenda 75-80% of the time, they will vote "their conscience" and "send a message" so that someone who only votes their agenda 25% of the time, if even that much, gets in.

It's an all or nothing mentality with them. They would rather have nothing than only partial success. They don't believe in compromise.

Remember 1992?

Watch what happens when Bush nominates Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. You will see visceral anger and defections from the far right. The far right has made a devils bargin with the Bush administration. They supported him but demand a payoff in the form of criminalized abortion.

1-The Greens I know personally are great,intelligent people who care deeply for the country...far more than all too many Dem politicians I see.

2-I agree with most of the Green Party platform.They seem like aggressive Dems,and I like that.

3-The people they tend to piss off are almost always the ones in life that need pissing off the most.Defenders of the status quo :puke:

now I supported Gore all the way in 2000, I am a big time democrat but my politics are green like except labor is to me what the environment is to them, I am still pro environment and all, so my point is that if the party returns in ways to the party of long ago, I think we can reclaim some green votes or even see them working together with the dems. Many of them really like Kucinich I hear.

and I'm working on some others :)

Kucinich would be a front runner if he got press and heres to having Kucinich at the popularity of Dean :toast:. I really like DK really, his legislation is something that would be like medicare and social security are, we cant live without them really so if DK is elected we will be able to thank DK that health care is efficent and affordable and that all children young and poor can go to pre school and college, and our country will become smarter. If he is elected and gets this done, we will regard President Kucinich as how President Roosevelt and President Kennedy are regarded, that is as an innovative man who cared about everyone's well being and did the right thing. He's the biggest environmentalist in the race let them know that and I think maybe they could identify with him being hes a vegan and I see a lot of Green Vegans,

so I like the Green platform. But Howard Dean is my man this election cycle. I hope Nader won't run when Dean gets the nomination.

The only difference between them and people like me is that people like me are delusional enough to think the Democratic Party will ever change.

What people need to understand about the Greens is that they are in the process of building a much needed third party. How long does the Democratic Party want them to wait to start? Until that cold day in hell when Democratic Party gets its act together? Or even worse, finally merges with the Republican Party ?

It's rank hypocrisy to keep talking the big Democratic tent when the Democratic leadership has NO intention of ever letting a true progressive win the nomination; cheap, hollow rhetoric which costs the Dems 0 dollars, 0 cents, is tiresome and insulting.

No one here, no one who is a true Democrat, has the right to deprive anyone of their right to build a separate party more in keeping with Liberal values.

There are fundamental issues important to many progressives that we are tired of seeing sacrificed because of greed, corporate interests and pandering to the right for a few centrist votes.

The short-sightedness of the people advocating the disastrous Centrist policy astounds me. How many progressive votes do we lose for each elusive swing vote possibly gained? 2? 5? How many voters won't bother to vote because the issues have swung so far to the right that they can't even tell the difference between the 2 parties anymore? 3? 6?

And how many voters won't even bother to register because they see more clearly through the charade than all the people yelling "But there's a difference, there's a difference! We throw you a few more crumbs!"

Field a candidate like Kucinich and progressives will FLOCK back to the Democratic Party. Field a candidate like Kucinich and people will be encouraged enough to get out of bed at 4 AM to go register!

But no, the Centrists would rather push their agenda on people and say "X is too extreme" "X is unelectable" and lose all of those votes because they believe in having the Democratic Party just as beholden to corporate interests as the Republican Party is.

Because of that, I respect the people who finally walked away and said, enough of this BS. THAT's how democratic voting works. If we won't represent the people, we have no right to count on their vote and most of all, no right to bash them when we don't get it!

That said... I love the Greens and SINCERELY THANK THE ARIZONA GREEN PARTY FOR ENDORSING DENNIS KUCINICH ! If Kucinich loses and the Greens once again turn their back on the Democratic Party for trying to steal their vote for a centrist candidate, I for one will not hold it against any Green for they have already shown that they are willing to work with the Democratic Party. When will the Democratic Party get off its laurels and realize it has a responsability towards its progressive and liberal supporters? When will the Democratic Party understand that votes are earned?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=52397&mesg_id=52397

Internet rumor.

If the Democrats can have a strong interest group like the DLC, I think the GreenLC could bring a lot of good to the party and help represent the liberal base. By splitting off they have only made both parties and goals weaker.

Um, the majority of Greens have never been Democrats...they have either been Independents or were not registered to vote.

Former Democrats comprise just over a third of the GP membership; registered Republicans accounted for more than 20 percent of Nader's 2000 vote total.

I think they're good people, but they
aren't willing to fight for their place in
Democratic Party. They don't like the fact
that both parties are indebted to commercial
interests, but they don't pitch in and try
to take over the party machinery to stop it.

If they decided to become an "affiliated" party
like the Minnesota Farm-Labor Democratic party
so they could do their thing but keep Republicans
out, I'd be much relieved.

The Dems often get accused (wrongly) of having no plan. Do the Greens have one? Whether they like it or not, they're going to have to face war and international conflicts.

The Greens are waiting to see who the Dems nominate. If they nominate a DLC-candidate like Lieberman or Kerry, expect an all-out campaign. Probably the same for insider Gephardt.

If Dean makes it, I think the Greens will still run a hard campaign, but might soften it (but still run) in swing states...but only at the last minute. Remember, Dean was NOT a friend of the Vermont Greens.

If Kucinich makes it, then the Greens will probably have an emergency national meeting to figure out what to do....I see them running only in locked states and having at least a few joint-appearances for the general.

Nader said on CNN that he felt that of the nine Dems, only Kucinich, then Kerry appealed to his taste. Kerry's the Greenest when it comes to the environment with a long record. If he got nominated, why would the Greens try and take him down? If I was a Green, I'd be hoping that Kerry gets the nod. I can't really give Kucinich a realistic shot at winning.

Nader has already said he liked Kucinich and also Kerry.

Greens whose priority is the environment and anti death penalty would be happy with a either of the Special K's, Kerry or Kucinich. The antiNAFTA crowd would like Kucinich and Gephardt. Antiwar belongs to Kucinich.

Those who preferred to hear the Dems bashed with hot rhetoric would be attracted to Dean.

...but I think they should become Democrats and try to change the Democratic party, instead of protesting Democrats. Michigan Attorney Generl Michael Cox, Rep. Bob Beauprez of Colorado, and Bush are all in office because some Greens decided it would be nice not to support the Democratic nominee.

I think the Greens should support the Democrats, and try to invoke some of their ideas into the Democratic platform.

and I haven't had a problem with them. But, it would be nice if the dems and the greens merged, and it moved the dems back to the left a bit more in exchange for their vote. Oh, and Nader didn't cost us the election in 2000...remember, we won that...

:D

and part of this has me supporting Kucinich because he can unite us I truly think.

Philadelphia. He spoke the truth, but did not attack any of his fellow candidates, this time. I do not think this is the time for this. These guys have to hang together and support each other and go after the Bush* cabal. I don't know if I ever told you that Kucinich is my first choice, as well. I had liked what he was saying, then learned that I agree with his views 100%, according to the SelectSmart test. I am just afraid he cannot win. We need to choose the candidate that can defeat Bush*, even if we only agree with him 75%. Anyone is better than Bush*. I think I told you that I could support Gephardt, who just may be centrist enough to appeal to more than the left, like us, and win. I would support a Gephardt/Kucinich ticket. What do you think? Could you?:shrug:

message is decent. But it is not new.

I joined them because they fit my beliefs, particularly where separation of business and state is concerned.

They make me feel BLUE

In Europe, particularly Germany, where they have porportional representation, the Greens are a viable political party which grew out of specific German poltical conditions and a certain political culture that came out of the 1960s....

Not sure if this is really transmittable to the USA.

Their platform reflects many of my positions. There are many greens switching over to the dems for the 04 election. They see that the first order of business is to fire the bush administration. Many are working on the Kucinich campaign. As long as the dems nominate somebody reasonably progressive, I think many greens will be with us in the general election. If we get a repub-lite candidate, we'll probably lose them to 3rd party candidates.

Go, Dennis, Go! :^)

I see Dennis as giving all who have felt disenfranchised by the mainstream parties a chance to participate at the top tier. Those who have moved to 3rd parties, those who have just quit voting, and those like me, who have voted without hope for so long. Dennis can get out the vote.

When I first took the SelectSmart test, I received 100% agreement with the Green Party candidate. The last time I took it, they came in second for me, so they are still very close to my views. I will not vote for a Green Party candidate, however, because they just cannot win. I have never voted for a third party candidate. We need to evict Bush* from the White House and a Green Party candidate just cannot do it. We need to come together in support of the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. That's the only way we have of removing the ``squatter in chief.'':-)

pick a candidate who likes civil liberties and the environment - someone like Kucinich.

Of all the candidates, I like most what he has to say.:-)

as a party, not their political ideology.

by nominating Kucinich. Let's not blow the chance to re-unite our party.

I've never been a Dem, but I am going to register just for the Primary so I can support Dennis.

People from all parties are rallying around him.

They are accomplices in all of this. Blood is on their hands.

They are the Veruca(sp?) Salts of the political world: they want the whole world (ie, ideological purity), and they will never be happy with anything less.

Personally, I was at war with the Greens a couple of years ago. But its time to mend fences and work for what we want - not for what we don't want.

I suspect that a lot of them cared enough to see the inner working of the Democratic Party. The thing's like a social club and it takes a lot of resolve to keep working from within the Democratic Party. The Democrats need to clean house and kick out the people who want to do nothing but throw parties and who want to keep the party from growing or promoting good causes. Closed-down local party officals need to notice they are turning people off. They also to care. It's not Davis that's unpopular in California. It's the Democratic Party. It's time the progressives got together and took the party back. That may be very frustrating for some until enough progressives get involved and the progressives may be treated very badly by the conservative in-crowd but, if enough people do it, the party will become what it once was.

inviting Nader was not a good fit and he dominates Party discussion still. Nader is too fixed and uncompromising to adhere to any one party.

Seems a legitimate, young and wet behind the ears party. Sadly, no real small party can survive the GOP takeover. Without reforms there is no room for positive variety in the national debate. It is too Manichean between the two behemoth structures that are chewing up politics and people like a rag doll.

If the Dems win with enough of a moral mandate left in their soul and adequate numbers in Congress, reforms will help third parties thrive. As much as any incumbents fight giving rivals a chance this is still a legitimate hope. With the GOP third parties are irrelevant and without hope. Their issues will be spun, twisted and ruined.