Kerry as a magnet for the Greens

[KFC]

http://www.lcv.org/Campaigns/Campaigns.cfm?ID=1961&c=4

Presumably, the issue for the Greens is the environment. Kerry has the highest League of Conservation Voters (LCV) rating of all the candidates - 96% lifetime.

Since his voting record demonstrates that he is the strongest environmental candidate, the Greens should flock to Kerry. And anyone else who thinks the environment is a key issue, for that matter.

[ibegurpard]

1. LOL

A good friend of mine is one of the organizers of the Montana Green Party. If you think the environment and not the corruption of corporate money and influence in the Democratic Party is the major reason why people like him do not see the Democrats representing them, then you seriously misunderstand their disaffection.

[D G]

2. True

It's been a long time since I associated the Green Party with environmental issues. I associate them mostly with disaffection from the Democratic Party.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. The they should change their party name instead of misleading

with faulty advertising.

[onehandle]

3. They should, but they won't...

Al Gore would have been the greatest environmental President ever.

Many Greens will go to Kerry after the Horror of Bush, but the core members will continue to support Bush.

[ibegurpard]

7. See my post above.

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Gore's book was great, but he sure didn't follow up as VP.

Sure the Veep doesn't have any power, but Gore should have at least been speaking out in a way that he just didn't. I was very disappointed. And in the campaign it seemed like he was running away from his book.

[lcordero]

4. He's not

He repulses me almost as much as Bush does and this is coming from a veteran.
I gagged when he did the photo-ops with the fireman:puke:

[D G]

5. If you gag at political photo-ops

it might be hard for you to vote for anyone, eh? :shrug:

[JVS]

6. Contrary to the name green, the greens are not a single issue party

[redqueen]

8. No way in hell

The Democratic party has done as little as possible on environmental concerns and Greens know it very well.

Voting record shmoting record. The people that pay attention know better.

[John_H]

10. Stay focused. The Green Party is an utter non-factor.

Here's the math: Green effect on election '04 = 2.7% minus (the huge number of greens who, as loyal Greens, will never vote for a dem) minus (the huge numbers of greens who live in states we'll win handily) minus (the smaller number in states we'll lose handily minus the ex-greens who realize the indistinguishable BS was BS and are now proudly ABB) minus (the swing voters we'd lose trying to court greens)= a large negative number.

That's one math problem I never get tired of repeating!

[KFC]

12. Good Point

They wield no practical power.

Mabye in Europe.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. That math is very flawed for a number of reasons

Most clearly is which that the popular vote had nothing to do with the electoral college. Specifically I refer to the 1.63% of Nader voters in Florida- of which only a little more than 1/2 of a percent voting for Gore would have given him the win.

But beyond that, Nader will never get close to 2.7% nationally because a lot of that 2.7% has learned their lesson, and also because John Kerry is a true "green".

[John_H]

16. I think we agree on the math.

in that only if another election is decided by .0001 percent of the elctorate could the Greens ever be a factor.

Also, I started out w/ 2.7 percent just to be nice.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Yes, that 1.63% for Nader equaled and astounding 97,488 votes!

Speaking of Nader, there is an editorial in The Nation magazine today, urging him not to run.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040216&s=editors2

An Open Letter to Ralph Nader

from the February 16, 2004 issue

Dear Ralph,

According to the latest news reports, you've pushed up your self-imposed deadline for announcing your decision about an independent 2004 presidential campaign from the end of January to mid-February. We're glad to hear that, because maybe it means you're still not sure about the best path to follow. For the good of the country, the many causes you've championed and for your own good name--don't run for President this year.

Ralph, you've been part of the Nation family for a long time, from the day in 1959 we published one of your first articles, the exposé of "The Safe Car You Can't Buy." Since then, you've been a consistent advocate for active citizenship, investigative scholarship and environmental stewardship. It wasn't hype when we called you Public Citizen Number One.

We know you've never been one to back down from a fight. When people tell you you can't do something, if you think it's the right thing to do, you do it anyway. That stubborn devotion to principle is one of your greatest strengths. It inspired a generation of Nader's Raiders in the 1960s and '70s, it helped produce notable victories like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and it inspired a new generation of young people who flocked to your "super rallies" in 2000. The issues you raise on your website, NaderExplore04.org--full public financing of elections, new tools to help citizens band together, ending poverty, universal healthcare, a living wage, a crackdown on corporate crime--are vital to the long-term health of our country. When those issues are given scant attention by major-party candidates and ignored or trivialized by the sham joint candidate appearances known as presidential debates, we join in your outrage.

But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.

more...

[hippiechick]

14. Please remember that equation

should a Green run, and the Dem 'lose' like in 2000.

That way there will be no blame placed wrongly on the 'non-factor' Greens.



:hippie:

[redqueen]

15. IF that happens

I hope blame is finally placed sqaurely where it belongs: in the laps of the 'us too just not as much' democrats that have been chasing after the right for three decades.

[John_H]

18. I'll remember that the Greens

thanks to the fact that the election was decided by fewer than 200 voters managed to accidentally become a factor in 00. I will also remember that when the Dem nominee takes the oath of office, that the Greens should go ask ralph nader for a voice in the country's agenda.

As for the equation, you remember that so you can congratulate me on not only my math wizardry but my spookily accurate powers of political prediction. :)

[hippiechick]

20. Actually, the election was decided by the SCOTUS 5

... or weren't you paying attention ? :eyes:


:hippie:

[NV1962]

17. I agree, but with an opposite conclusion

He's like Ralph Nader, but working from within the Dem party: he uses all great and tough and compelling sounding words - in effect he's a giant ad for Bush.

[Iverson]

21. No, Kerry will mean Greens vote Green.

I can almost promise you that.