I don't see the Greens staying out of 2004...

[Some Moran]

They ran a Senate candidate against Wellstone. (In protest of his vote for DOMA, from what I read on Ray Tricomo's site.)

[onehandle]

1. They won't stay out...

But they won't get a fraction of the votes they got in 2000.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Why would they stay out?

It starting to look like Democrats are going to nominate a pro-Nafta, pro-corporate "centrist" pro-Democratic wars candidate. I'm going to hold my nose and vote for whichever Democratic candidate wins, but I can understand why others wouldn't.

[library_max]

7. Why?

Where would not supporting the Democratic nominee get them? Either the nominee wins, no thanks to them, or it's four more years of Bush, thanks to them. That's a lose-lose proposition if I ever heard one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. the point is it's 4 more years of Bush or 4 more years of Bush Lite

the Greens think by opting out of the two party mambo things will get better eventually. Democrats like myself think we should swing hard to the left inside the Demcratic party or things will get worse. Who's better? Don't ask me, I'm a terrible dancer.

[MoonRiver]

13. There won't be a Dem or Green party if * gets 4 more.

Paperless electronic voting machines will be mandated by the government, and, well, we know how that story will end.

[library_max]

15. You guys have got to get past the phrase "Bush Lite"

It hampers your thinking. Any fair-minded look at the webpages of the Democratic front-runners, compared with Bush, show multitudes of differences well worth fighting for. But it isn't everything you want, or it doesn't go along with certain radical positions you aren't willing to give up (even though the country won't go for those in our lifetimes), so it's "Bush Lite." And that's the excuse for the murder-or-suicide ploy of going Green or trying to turn the Democrats into the Greens (and get zero electoral votes like the Greens).

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. You're right, I should have said Pro-Corporate or Pro-Rich

There are plenty of real substantial differences between the parties on social issues. That's why there are lots of fights about abortion and gay marriage, and no one wants to talk about corporate power or free trade agreements.

Most people here seem to agree that the FTAA protestors were being denied their civil rights, but no one had much to say about the Democrats that fully support the FTAA and their corporate sponsors.

That's a real problem for the Democratic party. For every Green that might waste their vote, there are 500 working class people that just won't bother because they don't buy corporate bullshit from Democrats any more than they do Republicans.

[library_max]

20. And you're getting your figures where?

Most reliable polls show that nonvoters approximately mirror voters in terms of percentages on the right, left, and center.

We need to fix NAFTA, not end it, in my opinion. But nobody's going to ride "Kill NAFTA" to the White House. Even on corporate issues (holding corps accountable, investigations, regulation, pushing or halting tort reform, etc.) there is a lot of airspace between Bush and the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the invasion of Iraq, the holding of prisoners without rights at Gitmo, the stacking of the federal judiciary with right-wing loonies, a $1.3 trillion tax cut - mere social issues, right? As long as NAFTA isn't on the chopping block, nothing else matters, eh?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. corporate power

"We need to fix NAFTA, not end it, in my opinion. But nobody's going to ride "Kill NAFTA" to the White House"

Of course you do, and that attitude among Democrats is the reason why half the population doesn't bother to vote. It's not just NAFTA specifically, it's the new international trade agreements and the general orientation of both parties to do what is best for business and the rich.

"Meanwhile, the invasion of Iraq, the holding of prisoners without rights at Gitmo, the stacking of the federal judiciary with right-wing loonies, a $1.3 trillion tax cut"

Most Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, oops. Holding of prisoners without rights at Gitmo - typical that Democrats would make this a big issues while they are shooting corporate protestors in Miami. Right wing loonies in the judiciary - the only reason you people call them right wing loonies is becuase they are against abortion, corporate personhood is a-okay yes?

Most people don't and won't disinguish between a government, public bureaucracy and a corporate private bureaucracy that is screwing them.

"Most reliable polls show that nonvoters approximately mirror voters in terms of percentages on the right, left, and center."

Most Americans are working or middle class, but pollsters have done a good job dividing them up with near meaningless labels. I really don't know a single working class person that thinks Bill Gates pays too much in taxes nor any that think GM should be laying off US workers to set up shop in poor countries. But you could label them right, left, or center if you wanted to.

[library_max]

24. "I really don't know a single . . . "

Good substitute for facts, that formula. I know working class people who are huge Bush supporters, but don't let that interfere with your ideological rant.

Most Democrats did not support the invasion of Iraq. The country was fifty-fifty in March. Or perhaps your saying that most of the opposition was from Republicans? Many Democrats in Congress voted for the IWR, which is not the same thing as invading.

The point is that none of those things (Iraq, Gitmo, wingnut judges, $1.3 trillion tax cut) would have happened if President Gore had been allowed to take office. And none of those things would have happened under Dean, Clark, Kerry, or Gephardt.

But hey, it's more fun to make everything black and white and pretend that everyone who doesn't vote agrees with you, isn't it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. you should lessen your partisanship, it interferes with your thoughts

Since both the Republicans and Democrats are pro-corporate, people choose other issues to make the choice on - like working class people who support Bush for his TV image, similar to the way Dean supporters like Dean's newly created populist image.

"The point is that none of those things (Iraq, Gitmo, wingnut judges, $1.3 trillion tax cut) would have happened if President Gore had been allowed to take office. And none of those things would have happened under Dean, Clark, Kerry, or Gephardt."

And those are all things that most people either don't care about or have widely divergent viewpoints on. Most Americans DO agree that they want lower taxes, better services, and lower utility bills, and higher wages. Most Americans ARE working and middle class and know it. Most Americans DO support populist economic policies.

But hey, don't let my ideological rant interfere with your marketing schemes.

[library_max]

27. Fantasy.

"Most Americans . . . want lower taxes, better services, and lower utility bills, and higher wages."

Wait - I didn't know Santa Claus was running for President!

You can't cut taxes and improve services. Government can't cut utility bills and raise wages without subsidy, which means more taxes. Sure, if you define "populist economic policies" as a never-never land in which all you have to do to raise wages and improve services is to cut taxes again, everybody who doesn't really understand politics or economics will be on board.

So what? Nobody can promise all that and deliver. Which is to say, nobody can promise all that and not be a bigger liar even than George W. Bush.

I said it before and I'll say it again - look at the platforms and the speeches with an open mind, and there's no way you can really believe that all we're talking about here is image and marketing. But again, if it's not your one hobbyhorse, I guess it doesn't matter.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. exactly - populism is always attacked as fantasy

People who don't want to see corporations lose power, wealth, or have their charters revoked for antisocial behavior always attack populist proposals as "fantasy" - the other common technique is to attack the person as "from another planet".

We can have lower taxes, better services, and lower utility bills when we stop allowing investors - i.e., people with money, the wealthy, to skim profits from the top of community enterprises like utilities and health care. We can prevent our standard of living from declining by stopping privatizations and corporate welfare and offshoring jobs.

Corporatists in both parties will always be against us.

[library_max]

29. Oh, you're just talking about utilities and health care.

That wasn't exactly clear from your earlier posts.

Aren't most of the front-runners talking single-payer for health care, or at least leaning in that direction?

You've got to ask yourself where your main chance is - Democrats or Republicans. Because those are the only games in town. Grumbling about "corporatists" gets you exactly nowhere.

On edit: Oh, hey, and ask your blue collar friends whether they are in favor of socializing health care and utilities. Don't disguise it in rosy scenarios like "taxes lower, benefits higher" (because we really won't know that until we try it), just ask them straight out, and see how many of them are still "populists."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. Grumbling about corporatist is why Democrats are pushing health care

No, none of the front runners are supporting single payer health care, they are mostly pushing business as usual pro corporate policies - doctors are being reduced to employees of insurance firms, and our bosses still have firm control of our health care, if any. Democrats will be better than Republicans, but not that different.

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green party. I'll vote Democratic, but if you want my vote you have to put up with my grumbling about corporatists, and who knows, if the Democrats add insult (Lieberman/Feinstein) to injury (Gore/Lieberman) perhaps I will throw away my vote.

If you ask my friends about "socialized health care" you'll get the same response as you would if you asked about "privatized health care" - most people stopped listening because you can hardly get past the spin without spending a lot of time educated yourself. The reason is because the Democratic party has utterly failed to educate Americans about their economic interests and instead rely on TV commercials about social issues and biolerplate rhetoric.

[redqueen]

40. Not entirely true.

"Government can't cut utility bills and raise wages without subsidy, which means more taxes."

Actually, they can. Government run utilities charge less. No subsidies, just cut out the fatcat executives who keep shearing our stupid asses.

Ditto on taxes. Close that $70 BILLION loophole which allows corporations to shirk their taxes. There's a huge chunk right there in that one hole alone. And there are dozens more loopholes that the rich use to keep shearing the suckers. Too bad there are so many willing to keep repeating their lies.

[annak110]

8. We certainly agree. I do not think electing a Democrat

will put a stop to the ongoing ripoff of this country by outright fascists. They've been at the current takeover effort for too long now (this time since just after WWII). We needed to bring a strong third and even a forth party into this struggle a long time back just to form a wedge which could make it possible to demand the Constitutionally mandated balance of power be reinstated in the federal government and to make sure that we have at least one party that will follow our Constitution, provide strong opposition to those who would make the country a third world feudal society and will understand via its platform that all people in this country should fall under the protection of the Constitution.

[library_max]

14. It's been tried.

Many countries have one ruling party and lots of splinter parties that split the opposition vote. Is that the future you want for the U.S.?

p.s. Guess which party would be ruling party under your scenario?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. good point, we have no option at this point

I think we need to build "third parties" that are coalitions that work inside both parties. We really should have a Green Republican movement that registers Republicans and promotes whichever Republicans are the most Green friendly, same as the Democrats.

Formal third parties DO NOT work under our system, so we need a different strategy, other than as spoilers.

[annak110]

23. It already is the ruling party

can't you see how rapidly things are moving now? I said we should have introduced at least a third party years ago, it is too late now.

[library_max]

25. It was always too late.

A third party on the left never does anything but split the left vote and hurt left causes (same is true on the right). And U.S. electoral history demonstrates that third parties never get off the ground, due to our "winner-take-all" system.

Gore won the popular and electoral vote in 2000. It was only stealable because it was so close. It's going to be close again in 2004. We need to tip it to our side. Giving up and saying that the Republicans are already the ruling party is a great way to make it true - a self-fulfilling prophecy we and the country don't need.

[annak110]

33. I remember that, in the 80's, many elected Democrats left

the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party, we called them Boll Weavils where I come from. These people gave over control of the Legislative Branch to the Republicans. They supported Republican efforts to destroy the revolution in Nicaragua and to kill thousands of people in Guatamala and El Salvador. Many Democrats supported bombing Iraq all through the 90's and they supported the illegal "war" we are now involved in. These days they don't even bother to change parties, they are now "non-partisan". They vote against the rights of women, they voted to suspend the Constitution with an act they didn't even read. The list could go on and on.

I celebrate those who don't "go along to get along" and who actively oppose as many have recently done as in the "Energy Bill" and the Medicare Fiasco.

There were many illegal acts carried out in the last two national elections and these acts are the main reason for the elections being "so close". Who has called for a real investigation of the destruction of the Voting Rights Act across the South or the "loss" of hundreds of thousands of votes in areas where Democrats vote. Do we actually have a party?

[acmavm]

2. I think that people are way too worried about the current situation to

throw their votes away this time. At least I hope so. And if Nader thinks that he's taking a moral stand, he's full of shit. There won't be any "Greens" if we don't get rid of the current administration.

[Iverson]

12. typical

Your eloquent political analysis ...

"And if Nader thinks that he's taking a moral stand, he's full of shit."

... is emblematic of the ignorant responses to anything Green. Although I doubt that a response will help, I have an obligation to try.

This whole notion that the Green Party begins and ends with Ralph Nader is simply false. This has been pointed out on DU hundreds of times.

The blanket assertion that the democratic exercise of the right to vote is "throwing it away" as long as it doesn't coincide with your preference, well, that is simply ideological rigidity. I can only hope that one day you see more possibilities.

Others on this thread, and in several hundred prior postings on DU, have pointed out some variation of the idea that electing a pro-war, pro-economic globalization (and probably pro-death penalty) "centrist" just has too many deal breakers for some lefty citizens to mutely knuckle under and vote for the not-Bush because that candidate is not Bush, so shut up and surrender your vote in order to make democracy meaningful.

As a Green, I am well aware that I am more likely than mainstream Dems are to be targeted by the neo-fascists. I am waiting to see whether the Democratic Party will put forth candidates who will not enable these practices or otherwise stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with the destroyers of our democracy.

"And if Nader thinks that he's taking a moral stand, he's full of shit."

So persuasive.

[library_max]

16. Tch Tch.

Big straw man from our ethical Iverson.

"The blanket assertion that the democratic exercise of the right to vote is "throwing it away" as long as it doesn't coincide with your preference, well, that is simply ideological rigidity."

Voting in a way that doesn't coincide with my preference, or acmavm's, isn't throwing your vote away. Voting for a candidate who has zero chance to win is throwing your vote away.

You know better than that.

[Iverson]

38. re: your irrelevant personal scold

Indeed I do know better than the facetious a priori pragmatism that you advocate.

Regrettably, you do not get to decide what constitutes relevance for everyone else. Bush and the radical right are very interested in trying to decide what is relevant for everyone, not to mention ethical, and it is a shame to see a DU poster adopt that model of reasoning, presumably on the premise that a different conclusion makes it all OK. Tch tch indeed, but not where you initially supposed.

No, library_max, I will decide for me what constitutes the meaningful exercise of democracy and the ballot. Neither you nor the other poster get to do that. The conditions that I outlined in my previous post, the one to which you responded, certainly show a way in which voting might be meaningless, and you have provided zero rebuttal to that.

Also, look up straw man.

[NNadir]

3. It doesn't matter what the Greens do in 2004.

They're history.

[quaker bill]

5. Greens are less relevant with a candidate than without one.

With a candidate, they are no longer a serious player in the race for the Whitehouse. You can't stop them from marginalizing themselves. If they want to accomplish this, they will run someone.

[Eric J in MN]

6. this does matter

If the Democratic candidate is pro-NAFTA, the Green party could get 2% (for example), which matters in a close election.

[Some Moran]

10. lol...I had to look at that one twice...

I thought you wrote "sElection" for a sec.

[otohara]

9. I See Green People

voting with Dean People, when Dean gets the nomination - too much is at stake and they know it.

[Deja Q]

18. Don't blame them, Wellstone said he would run for only 2 terms

And Wellstone also supported the DOMA.

Surely that alienated some voters?!

I forgot the name of the Green candidate (Ed McGaa?), but as I recall he supported a nuclear waste bill that would be damaging to the environment. Compared to the support of that atrocity, Wellstone's a saint by comparison.

Maybe if more Dems became PROGRESSIVE in philosophy, then the Greens would stay out?

I'll vote Dem anyway, as if it makes a difference. :-( I suppose a slow death is better than a quick one. :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh can start the fascist party...

In fact I think we should write them letters encouraging them to do this.

[sujan]

30. It is supposed to be a free country

so more power to them.

I am not a registered green but I would gladly vote for them.

[tinrobot]

32. The only way a third party will be viable

...in this country is if we change the way we vote.

Our current election system practically demands a two party system. With three (or more) parties, the candidates with the most popular ideas will usually split the vote.

The Greens have some great ideas, but this upcoming election is way too important. To paraphrase: we absolutely need to hang together, or we will hang separately. Defeating Bush is more important than anything, and I'm willing to swallow a bitter pill just to get rid of this man.

[Terwilliger]

34. Feinstein did what?

She voted for the Medicare bill?

Oh, ok...go back to the Green-fest

[sujan]

35. along with 7 other democrats

[Yupster]

36. Greens have to decide what they are

Are they trying to replace the Democrats as the leftist party in America? As the Republicans replaced the Whigs?

If so, they need to run candidates in every race they can, be as vocal as possible, and systematically and slowly grow their support.

Or are they a little group of guys who like being different and on the fringe of the system. If that's the case, there's really no reason for them to exist other than as a social group.

I would say to ever get anywhere, they have to move beyond Ralph Nader and nominate people who worked their way up through the party. They do have office-holders around the country.

Parties based around one person never survive. Witness the Reform Party.

[Terwilliger]

39. Is it that no one can ever get this, or...

Ralph ran for national party recognition, whether you agree with the strategy or not, and he got national recognition. (hell, Democrats are blaming him and the Greens for their problems)

The party is not based on Ralph Nader. Nader, in an attempt to show the Democratic party how far out of touch they're becoming, is highlighting the efforts of this little left-leaning party in response to the right-shift of the Democrats.

OnEdit: spelling

[Q]

37. Funny stuff...

...sometimes Dems like to throw stones while living in glass houses.

- Here we have the Democratic party itself probably more divided than it's been in a very long time...and they're complaining about 'irrelevant' third parties.

- Try to spend more time finding common ground.

[YNGW]

41. Good

I think it's wonderful! We need to have 100 candidates run for President. The more that can speak about the issues, the better.

Do people realized how many civilizations have come and gone that didn't have two choices, much less 3 or 4 or 20? Freedom and liberty are beautiful things! Let the Greens run someone. Let's get some independants, too.



:toast:

dai