Should the Greens or any third party front a presidential candidate?

[Cascadian]

This poll is mainly aimed at the DU Greens and those lefty, fringe", or third party DUers out there. I honestly do not think it would be a wise idea for any third party to nominate a presidential candidate. It is understood that third parties make up a small percentage of the electorate, however, the stakes are way to high. This may well be a last chance to save the country. We should all be behind the Democrats this year regardless of what you may think. Put your pet issues aside for just one election. We can go back to them after we get Bush out of the White House! Now your turn!

[Loren645]

1. If there's a third party candidate, the GOP will fund it

Like they did with Nader, because they know it'll doom the
Dem candidate. Are we really that self destructive?

[Cascadian]

2. Republicans did not fund the Greens.

I cannot agree with that unless you have some sources you can site.


John

[debsianben]

4. Actually, no they didn't

(1)No, the Republicans didn't fund Nader. Where are you getting that from? In any case, you really shouldn't put up accusations that vicious if you aren't prepared to substantiate them with some kind of evidence.

(2)Almost as many registered Republicans as registered Democrats voted for Nader in 2000.

(3)Not only were the Republicans not secretly funding him or anything absurd like that, but they along with the Democrats did not allow Nader to participate in the debates. Why not? Hmm. No, I can't imagine why the Republicans would have been afraid of letting Nader into the debates to denounce the corporate funding of influence on both parties. Gee, that wouldn't have hurt them.

[Cascadian]

6. That's what I thought.

This is what bugs me about people when they blame Greens for Gore not getting the presidency. Other factors were in play but that is another topic.

John

[Cheswick2.0]

26. other factors were in play and so was the nader factor

.

[Dr Fate]

40. Republicans often fund Greens

Offer Backfires for GOP Chief | 7/12/2002

http://www.sfnewmexican.com/site/news.cfmnewsid=4718833&BRD=2144&PAG=461&dept_id=367954&rfi=6

State Republican Party Chairman John Dendahl is taking heat from
Democratic and Green party leaders for offering the Greens big bucks
to field Congressional candidates to try to drain votes from Democrats.

=====

Campaign Reform Advocate Nader's Disclosure Forms Don't Add Up
By John Rega

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8v2don%2430fo%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

======

Greens say Republicans crashed their party
Environmentalists accuse them of helping in order to sabotage Democrats

Tuesday, August 7, 2001

By NEIL MODIE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9kpfeh%2497n%241%40slb7.atl.mindspring.n
et&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

[Dr Fate]

42. More links to GOP funding greens...

The party's other co-chair, Lisa Houston, said the Green Party Council will most likely accept Wilson's resignation when it meets Aug. 3 in Las Vegas, N.M.

Wilson's resignation was expected after he got into hot water with party members over his role in secret meetings last month with state Republican Party Chairman John Dendahl.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Elections Commission said last week that federal election law did not appear to address the offer of potential contributions in exchange for a political party running candidates in a federal race such as for Congress.

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news02/072302_news_resign.shtml

[debsianben]

46. Don't Change the Subject

The issue under discussion is whether Republicans have funded Greens. They haven't, there is no evidence that they ever have, or that they ever will. Saying that Greens would take GOP money proves that the accuser doesn't know what they're talking about. Its about as likely as the Democratic Party taking money from Al Queda. Somehow, in both cases, I doubt it. In fact, the Green/Republican financial linkage is even less likely because the GP subscribes to something called "clean money campaigns." Look it up.

Now, the article you posted up was about a state GOP chairman trying to bribe the GP to change some of its plans for which seats to run candidates in. Didn't happen. As any one would have predicted, the bribe money was flatly refused. I think there may have also been one or two incidents where state Democratic Party officials have tried to bribe Greens the other way (to not run in certain races). Those too have been refused.

Finally, in 2000, there is no evidence that the GOP evered offered such money--obviously, it goes without saying that it would have been refused--and it doesn't make any damn sense to think that they would have, since the Nader campaign was hurting them he got almost as many votes from registered Republicans as from registered Democrats. It is a matter of historical fact that the GOP helped keep him out of the debates. I'm sure that his anti-"free trade" and anti-interventionist stances would have appealed to some "paleocon" Republicans and independants--especially in the midwest--who ended up voting for Bush.

Anyway, none of the links you provide remotely add up to examples (even fictional ones) of the GOP funding Greens.

[auburnblu]

3. Anybody should that wants to

That's the way our system works. Saying someone should or should not do something based on an outcome we may want, yikes. Almost sounds like asking if they should be allowed to.

Now if the question was should the Greens field a candidate knowing it could help Bush win, well then I think that's a different matter.

[fabius]

5. No. A thousand times NO!!!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

7. Go democracy!! Right down the shi**er

:eyes:

TWL

[oldleftguy]

8. A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush.

Think of the Supreme Court after four more years of Bush.

[countmyvote4real]

9. The only reason to mount a third party

or fourth or fifth (dream on) is to ensure that there will only be one party controlling the destiny of this country. Good grief.

[debsianben]

12. really?

I thought the reason people voted third-party was that they disagreed with the basic principles that "both" parties adhere to: free-trade neo-liberalism, budget-cutting austerity here at home (remember, Clinton campaigned on the slogan "end welfare as we know it") and the alleged right of the US government to bomb, invade and occupy anywhere it likes to "protect our national interests."

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned all of this constantly blaming Nader for Flordia 2000 amounts to racism. After all, there were a lot of factors that contributed to the situation, and if you had removed any of them things might have gone differently. One was that Nader and others (like David McReynolds, who you've probably never heard of, but was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 2000 and got more votes in Florida than the difference between the Florida vote totals of Gore and Bush) were under the impression that this was a multi-party democracy and ran for President, not understanding that Gore was the pre-ordained successor to the throne and it would be a mistake to confuse the people by giving them choices. All told, Nader, McReynolds and any other 3rd party candidates between them got, what, maybe a few thousand votes in Florida? Maybe? Another, far more important, factor was the illegal disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of black and chicano voters--almost all of them Democrats--who were wrongly removed from the voting rolls on the grounds that their names sounded like the names of convicted felons. If you want to choose one factor to get upset about, I'd say that this would be a slightly more reasonable choice.

[no name no slogan]

33. Don't forget the FL Dems who voted for BUSH

There were a fair number of registered Dems who crossed over and voted for Bush in the GE. Although I can't substantiate it, I heard a number of 300,000 FL Dems voted for Bush instead of Gore.

Maybe if Democrats examined why third-party candidates have been doing well over the last 20 yeras, they'd finally figure out how to win a national election with a clear-cut majority of the vote-- with OVER 50% participation!

[mot78]

34. Those "Dems" are Dixiecrats who haven't voted Dem in decades

Flordia IS the South after all.

....BTW, I'd like to see the Greens sit this one out, but if not running a candidate means destroying their party, then they should run their candidate in safe sates, and campaign in a low-key, non-Nader way.

[JanMichael]

35. Excellant post. My favorite part though was...

..."One was that Nader and others ...were under the impression that this was a multi-party democracy and ran for President, not understanding that Gore was the pre-ordained successor to the throne and it would be a mistake to confuse the people by giving them choices."

Thank you. Sometimes people tend to forget that little tidbit.

[lcordero]

10. Reform Party...Ross Perot

:evilgrin:

[Sugarbleus]

11. I don't think this is the time for a third party candidate BUT..

I am MOSTadamant about third and fourth (viable) parties running for political seats in the not so distant future. This one/two party thing ain't getting it anymore.

[Cascadian]

13. I agree.

Look at what happened in San Francisco in the Mayor's race. Gonzales the Green candidate almost won against Newsom. The Democrats have got to stop acting like punching bags for the Republicans and start fighting back. They are going to lose more people if they don't. I will even predict that if the Democrats lose more ground in 2004, then they are finished as an effective party.


John

[cryofan]

16. The big problem is that the Dems want regressive taxes, like the GOP

Unless we take back that most important issue, we are really just that issue for a 3rd party.

[lucidmadman]

14. Depends...

...it'd be great if a paleo-con mounted a third party campaign. There's lots of po'd cons of the old school who don't like the Pentagon civilians with their mad love for the Sharon government.

I do believe the RNC paid for some Nader advertising in the count down to the 2000 election.

I'd love to see proportional representation and instant run-off on the ballot. Good on the Greens for making that an issue. But the order of the day is ABB...

[debsianben]

31. No, no they didn't

The RNC did not pay for Nader ads. Jesus, do you really think the Nader campaign would have accepted money from them?

What you might be thinking of--and I'm going from memory here so I could be screwing up the details--was an RNC ad that used carefully edited clips (without permission) of Nader attacking Gore's record of flip-flopping on environmental protection issues. The very next part of the speech (which they did not use) was an even stronger attack on Bush's enivornmental record in Texas.

The ad was not a "Nader ad" and it did not encourage people to vote for Nader. It was a Bush ad. It simply used without permission a clip of Nader attacking Gore in order to give the misleading and absurd impression that Gore had a worse environmental record than Bush. The only reason it included the Nader clip was that Nader (as one of the primary authors of the original Clean Water Act) was widely and correctly regarded as an expert on the issue in question.

[Iverson]

15. oh good, more push-polling

Sorry, but the way your question is framed is kind of ridiculous for a purpose of gaining information. For confirming your existing preference and getting others to sing along, it's great, but that's not what polls are supposed to do.

The browbeating of Greens on DU hasn't been successful since I've been on DU, and it isn't successful now.

Let's just come out honestly with the real message: you must support a war of aggression, unrestrained corporatism, the USAPATRIOT Act, economic globalization in all its pernicious forms, the shredding of our modest social commitments, "welfare reform," mass media concentration, bankruptcy reform that benefits the wealthy and none other, probably the death penalty, a sham war against an abstract noun, concentration of media ownership, and generally widening inequality. This is liberalism. If you want more, you are an intransigent extremist, so shut up and vote as I say while you're still permitted to be pro-choice.

I imagine that the Congressional Black Caucus has an item or two to add as well.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Libertarians are on the ballot in 50 states

Third parties are a reality, and have been so for nearly two centuries.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. It depends.

If it's a third party like the Reform Party, then it could be GOOD for Democrats; if it's a third party like the Greens, that could be BAD for Democrats. Having said that, I don't think that we Democrats can afford to indulge ourselves in 'what if' thinking; rather, we should select a nominee who best represents US and what the majority in our party believe.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. :)

[Loonman]

19. Greenies had their chance in 2000

They decided to lie to us.

[IndianaGreen]

21. This obsession with the Greens is almost clinical!

We always had third parties on the ballot in Indiana. The Greens were not on the ballot in 2000. We had Harry Browne running under the Libertarian banner, and Pat Buchanan as an independent.

As write-ins (on a paper ballot), we had the Green Party, the Veterans Industrial Party, the Natural Law Party, and the Constitution Party, plus five other unaffiliated candidates.

[Iverson]

23. Weren't you at the meeting?

It was 2000.

We were in a darkened basement, but the candles illuminated the pentagram on the floor.

We said, "this is our one big chance! Who wants to lie to Democrats?" We raised hands in near-unanimity. Then we rubbed our hands together in evil glee and salivated.

Wasn't that the point of the hard work of ballot access?

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. LOL!

Cute, Iverson! *grin* ;)

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. Let it go.

Valid arguments can be made that the Green vote cost us 2 states, but those states wouldn't have mattered, had Donna Brazille not engineered such a crappy campaign for an outstanding candidate like Al Gore.

[JVS]

29. They'll keep on having chances too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. I certainly hope so. I would like a prez candidate to vote for.

Just in case it's bush vs another pro-war dem candidate.

[John_H]

25. Of Course they should--let's send them into oblivion nt

[LuminousX]

27. They are Americans, they can do whatever they want in regards to this

The 'should' only allows me to give my advice to them, which is - don't. Form a coalition and back the Democratic candidate. Get a large enough coalition and force some concessions from the candidate.

I do want to see a viable third party. 2004 is not the year to start playing around with such things, though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. I'll second this approach

[JVS]

28. Yes.

A wide variety of choices should be open to the voters. If a Democratic candidate is any good, a large Green presence should be no threat.

[flaminbats]

30. Third-party candidates are necessary for slapping our two-party system.

Without Ross Perot..balancing the budget, opposing NAFTA, and supporting campaign finance reform would of remained nonissues in the 90's.

Without T.R. running in 1912..the constitution might not of been changed to require U.S. Senators to be elected, to create the Federal Income Tax, and to give women the right to vote. All of these were issues pushed by the Progressive Party..and later supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

And I still believe if it wasn't for the Nader factor..healthcare reform, the war in Iraq, and repealing shrub's taxcuts wouldn't even be addressed by these DINOcrats.

[question everything]

36. Yes, if they want four more years of Bush n/t

[flaminbats]

38. Just like T.R. wanted four more years of Taft...

or like Perot wanting four more years of pappy Bush :eyes:

[arewethereyet]

37. its a free country, why not ?

n/t

[Tinoire]

39. Sure. It's not the Green's Responsability to fork their God-given votes

over to any old Centrist that the Democrats want to run.

They're a third party. A separate party with every right to do what they have to do to remain viable and continue growing.

All this sickening catering to Right-wing swing voters is ok by most Dems. Well, newsflash. Greens are swing voters to. Of course, they're not pro-corporate globalization so we don't quite want to swing their way.

Too funny. Maybe if the Democratic party spent a little less energy feeling wailing that everyone didn't want to give us a mercy vote, a little less energy courting right-leaning swing voters and a little more energy pandering to its own base we wouldn't care what anyone else was doing.

I would be pleased to see Nader or a viable Green candidate run. It might wake the DLC & other pro-corporate Democrats up that this is NO time to foist themselves on the people saying "we have you by the balls, ABB".

Screw it. Run someone Greens. If Bush wins despite the overwhelming hatred for him, then the country deserves him.

[flaminbats]

43. God-given votes?

Votes for what, selectoral college delegates? If you believe that is the work of God, then you'll accuse God of any sin!

[corporatewhore]

44. Oh totally who do these people who want to vote for some one they like

think they are dont you know they automaticly have to vote for the democrat running nno matter how mucnlike a republican they are

[Kathy in Cambridge]

41. Saw Howard Zinn tonight-he's ABB

and thinks our democracy is in grave danger. It's horrible that we have to vote for a lesser evil but so it goes...

[corporatewhore]

45. yes we need an opposition party if a republicrat gets the ticket and also

I have always thought that in democracy the more views the merrier

[The Magistrate]

47. There Should Be No Splinter Run

Forum rules, to say nothing of criminal law, prevent a proper degree of emphasis in speaking to this subject on my part....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"