Missouri: Progressive Party qualifies for ballot

[Robbien]

Missouri election officials on Tuesday certified the Progressive Party as the fourth political party that will appear on the November ballot. The Progressive Party will join the Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians after supporters turned in more than 12,000 signatures.

The party will field six candidates — for U.S. Senate, state auditor and four congressional seats.

Spokesman Tim Barnhart of St. Louis said the Progressive Party has a decidedly left-of-center orientation. The party, which is affiliated with the Green Party of the United States, calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, adoption of universal health care with a single payer, public financing of elections and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The party also supports renegotiation of global trade agreements and stronger protections for the environment.

“We’re what the Democrats used to be before big business bought them,” Barnhart said.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/15335978.htm

[peacetalksforall]

1. This is tremendous news. Missouri, at the heart of red states. If MO

can do, others can do.

Pass along the MO message and this quote - often:

“We’re what the Democrats used to be before big business bought them,” Barnhart said.

Can we predict that debates on DU will be whether the Progressive Party will hurt or harm chances?

[MadHound]

3. Well, since the Progressive Party is affliated with the National Greens

I'm sure that at any moment now we'll have the usual suspects out in force decrying this party, demanding lockstep voting this fall in Missouri, and wishing to limit democracy by somehow, someway getting rid of progressive third parties.

Personally I think that it's a great thing, and fully support the Progressive's inclusion in the ballot. Hell, I might even vote for a few of their candidates this fall.

[William769]

5. Well considering this is Democratic underground

A place for Democrats, "lockstep voting" should be par for the course.

And since what the greens are doing in PA. They can all go to hell for all I care.

On EDIT: If the greens new tactics is progressive, I want no part of it.

[desi]

11. Unbelievable ain't it..??

The Progressives’ long-term goal, Barnhart said, is to replace the Democratic Party or to bring the Democrats closer to the Progressives’ positions."

Maybe TRUE Democrats don't want to "be brought closer" to some of "your positions" Mr. Barnhart.

"The party chose the Progressive label when it learned it could not use the Green Party name because another branch of the Green Party already had ballot status in the city of St. Louis."

Same shit different costume.

Interesting, let's bring Ralph out of mothballs again for a run in '08 since "there is no difference between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee."

Yeah, let's all Democrats celebrate this great news. MO will most likely remain RED.

[Ravy]

24. Exactly. What it does is push some Dems more to the center.

If the left is no longer fertile ground to garner Democratic votes, the Democrats have no choice but to try to get even more of the center of the country, including right-leaning centrists.

This makes Democrats always fight a two-front battle, and we see where that has gotten us recently.

[William769]

28. With the Greens sleeping with the Republicans

And taking there money, whats one to do?

[wyldwolf]

6. well, I won't demand "lockstep" voting, but I will remind people...

... that, just as Lieberman can no longer openly be supported on DU, candidates for the Progressive party can't either if they are running against a Democrat.

[acmejack]

13. Didn't take very long at all did it?

Why don't you address the man's point? We are what the Democratic Party used to be... If that isn't God's truth, one merely has to peruse to Howard Zinn's "A People's History" to verify that!

[peacetalksforall]

25. I am very confused. I've been accused of being a progressive. I don't

know the distinctions - the formal and informal.

I could never be for anyone who would split key votes - I don't want anymore crime by ridiculous politicans and partners in crime. World War?

I need to learn.

I am just happy that there are enough non-Republicans in Missouri that they could get on a ballat along side the Dems. I personally feel there should be 3 to 5 parties because it's not woring with 2. The question is - how do you get there from here?

[acmejack]

29. I delight in hearing people of conscience vilified.

All these good people here damning them in the harshest of terms because they fail to abandon their deepest held convictions for matters of convenience, unlike some of us here, including myself. Who is more noble? A very convincing argument can most certainly be made for the former community, IMHO.

[bleedingheart]

7. a long time ago...Oklahoma was the home to a lot of socialists

the "red" states weren't always red for republican...

[Ravy]

15. Tremendously *bad* news, imho.

A tight race for Senate there, and the Greens once again move to split up the progressive vote so that the Republicans can keep the balance of power in Washington. How progressive is that?

[Vidar]

2. Glad to hear it.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Dammit, I hate it when this happens.

The problem is, I mostly agree with the Progressives on their criticism of the Democratic Party. But their solution is totally destructive. To split off the leftist vote is to condemn us to Puggy rule forever. It's kinda like when the old Communists splintered into Trotskyites, Stalinists, Maoists & God-knows-what-else & put all their energy into fighting each other.

We got enough problems with Diebold & the other election-theft tricks from the right without having to divert a huge amount of energy into fending off (probly Puggy-financed) attacks from the left.

OK-maybe the Dems are 75% sold out. The Puggies are 100% sold out, and the 25% difference is worth fighting for. Ideological purity is a luxury we can't afford right now. The only thing voting for a Progressive (or Green) party will accomplish is to make the voter feel all noble and pure and holier-than-thou, while the skies turn black, the forests fall and the poor starve in the streets anyway.

[MadHound]

9. I think that you are overestimating the difference factor

Given the actions of Democratic office holders over the past ten-fifteen years, I would say that the difference is more like 5%, maybe less. From welfare reform to media consolidation to the Iraq War to the attack on our civil liberties, the Dems have been marching pretty much in lockstep with the 'Pugs. Granted, there are a few, very few, Dems of the old school variety, who look out for the ordinary person. But is supporting those very few individuals really worth endorsing the entire party? Personally, I don't think so:shrug:

[bling bling]

19. It's worth it if you care about old people and poor people.

For example, we (MO) had a Democratic governor until 2004 when Matt Bunt, a Republican was elected. Blunt wasted no time cancelling programs like meals on wheels in poor areas of the state, reforming medicaid so that tens of thousands of single moms suddenly were no longer allowed to stay on the program. I think this is stuff he did within the first 90 days of office.

The Republicans don't care about poor people. The Republicans don't care about old people. The Republicans don't care about black people. These are always the first people to suffer under Republican rule. These groups of people typically either don't vote or don't vote Republican so they get screwed.

Please don't UNDERestimate the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. There are a lot of people here who could personally tell you about the difference it's made in their lives having a Republican governor in office now.

[Demeter]

8. Now There's A Platform I Can Support

I wonder if the Progressives are recognized in Michigan?

[Caution]

10. oh boy. let's split the vote! woohoo

i'm so overjoyed.

:sarcasm:

[skipos]

12. Nader 2000 was so awesome for America. Lets do it again!!!

:woohoo:

[w4rma]

14. Getting Republicans Elected Every November.

Is there any reason these people can't participate in the primary process?

Is there any reason these suckers can't work to influence Democratic politicians instead of falling for the right-wing trap of splitting the vote to keep Rethugs in power?

[goforit]

16. Affiliation to the GREENs? They've shown their pro-repug stance in the

past by allowing Bush to win the elections!

Nadar's whole objective was not values and ethics, it was being
a true shit disturber just to split the Dems. I'm sure he was
paid off big time.

And the "Greens" are no more pro-environment than they are green.


It would be nice to see them campaign prior to the Dems and Repugs.
But they never do. Tell me why did they just come out and announce
their running for Senate office in Connecticut after the Democratic
primary where Lieberman just lost? Did Cheney call the so called Greens
and ask them to run "pronto"-now just to assure a Lieberman win?

I have no respect for the Greens.

[CollegeDUer]

18. Choicepoint, Diebold, and Katherine Harris won Bush an election

Green-baiting is letting the real criminals get off the hook.

[Ravy]

21. Greens certainly deserve their part of the blame. (n/t)

[CollegeDUer]

31. For practicing democracy, yes

But I think it's more fair to blame the Bush voters...

[CollegeDUer]

17. I support their positions but they should run local first

They need to get mass support on the local level so they can have a more fair chance on the statewide and national level. Those levels are just too bought out by big money right now. If they get a lot of local support first, then they can compete. Right now they can't. I hope they focus their energies on the local campaigns.

[Ravy]

22. They get enough Republican money to run.

And enough money to compete well enough to help a Republican to victory.

[CollegeDUer]

30. Obviously not enough nt

[DeepModem Mom]

20. Siphoning votes in another state where Dems need a Senate seat pick-up. nt

[WatchWhatISay]

23. What's so left-of-center about that?

Depends upon whether or not you are starting from a far right point of view.

[dbackjon]

26. Stupid Greens

Spliting the votes again.

[Roy]

27. The tighter the race...

The harder these folks fight to get on the ballot to split the vote.

They know full well what they are doing, increasing the chances for republicans to win. That is their one and only goal. These people are not progressive, if they were they would pick up on the success of Lamont and others. They should see that Bush and the republicans have created just the right climate for progressives to reclaim the party from the dino/dlc types and that true representation of average americans is on the horizon.

No, the goal for them is exclusively to put and keep republicans in power.

[loyalsister]

32. Primaries are more productive

CLEAN primaries, that is.
I said exactly that when asked to sign one of these petitions.
I fully agree with them that Democrats in Missouri are "barely blue."
But, opening dialogue within the party before the General Election is a much more productive way of moving the party left.
Hopefully, our traditional voters will see enough of a difference between the Dems and Pugs that matters to them that they will disregard the Progressive Party candidates.
Progressives who follow closely are having a hard time seeing much difference in this state, however because the party as a whole has moved to the right.