Should the Democrats consider and treat the Green party as they do the GOP?

[NJmaverick]

it seems to me that while the Dems and Greens sit on the same side of the ideological divide, they are in a competition. They both are attempting to get their party members elected and that means they are working to defeat one another. It seems like many Dems consider the Green Party as a sort of unofficial allies. That sort of thing only works though in a coalition style government. Since our government is a 2 party system there really is only room for one at the left side of the table. I for one, want that seat to be filled by the Democratic party.

[MineralMan]

1. We have the Green Party and Ralph Nader to

thank for 8 years of George W. Bush.

Thanks a whole lot! It was just great!

[mdmc]

3. jajaja

Leiberman could be in his first term! That darn Nader!

[Webster Green]

4. Oh Dog, not that tired old piece of shit excuse.

Did you really fucking say that?

Gore won fucking Florida fer fucking fuck's fucking sake!!!111!!111!!111!!111111!!!!111

[MineralMan]

14. That Florida race couldn't have been stolen if there had been, say,

30,000 more votes for Gore or so. In reality there would have been an even larger margin.

[Webster Green]

20. Yeah, yeah, I know the rest of your tired old canard.

It's been posted here a trillion and a half times, and still makes no fucking sense.

The Supremes rigged an election. Mmm-kay? Try to fucking keep up here will 'ya?

It does NOT matter if the election is close, or a blowout, if they stop the vote counting. The 2000 "election" was rigged by cruella and the supremes.

[MineralMan]

28. Our opinions differ, clearly.

Our style of presentation does, too, apparently. You may insult me all you like. I was watching that election just as closely as you were. I disagree with your conclusion about it. Had the margin been larger, it would have been impossible to steal the election. It is that simple. The close margin made it easy to steal. Nader was responsible for the close margin. Ergo...

But, please feel free to continue insulting me. I have a very thick skin, and will not respond in kind.

[Webster Green]

31. Oh, goody for you.

I think anyone who is eligible should be allowed to run for president.

Gore ran a shitty campaign and still won. Cruella had thousands of Floridians removed from the voters rolls.

The corrupt supreme w. court was waiting in the wings. To blame Nader is just simple-minded.

[Moochy]

36. I blame the monarch

I blame that Monarch who flapped it's wings and caused the hurricane that made the snows that made Nader's parents stay in bed and conceive Ralph who eventually caused Bush and 911.

[laughingliberal]

56. And, of course, the voter purges carried out under Jeb and Katherine were not a factor

This shit is like ignoring the rapist's part in a rape and raging at a bystander who failed to intervene. Yeah, things might have been different if the bystander had done something but the rapist is the one culpable for the crime. I voted for Gore and I was devastated over the theft of the election (I had wanted Gore for President since I campaigned for him in the primaries in '88) but it was the voter fraud carried out before the election and the SCOTUS that gave the election to Bush.

In fact looking back on the 1988 election, we might as well reach back and blame the people who voted for Dukakis in the primary. I still believe Gore could have won the general that year and so maybe we should just start endless postings about how the Dukakis voters gave the '88 election to Bush the 1st.

[uppityperson]

202. They call me uppity, but I find things like this to interfere with discussion...

"Mmm-kay? Try to fucking keep up here will 'ya?"
"Oh Dog, not that tired old piece of shit excuse.
Did you really fucking say that?"
"Oh, goody for you"


I mean, SERIOUSLY, what does it help?

back to being uppity

[Sebastian Doyle]

142. The Florida race was stolen by Jeb and Cruella before Nader was even on the ballot

via their ethnic cleansing, "if you have a name even remotely close to a convicted non white felon" software. And the butterfly ballot designed by Republican Theresa LaWhore (who conveniently changed her registration to "Democrat" just before releasing the ballot) which caused thousands of elderly Jewish people to vote for the antisemite Pat Buchanan didn't hurt either.

[bobbolink]

172. Preach it! That fucking meme fucking died years ago, and they are too fucking tired to bury it.

[AnOhioan]

5. Oh please

Gore, as much as I like him, ran a crap campaign. He was too professorial, too stiff, and lacked a real connection with the averge voter. The race should never have come down to Florida and blaming Nader for the loss is just a way of avoiding facts that the candidate, although the better man by far, was a substandard campaigner.

[Webster Green]

9. Now that part I will buy.

Gore did run a terrible campaign. He chose fucking lieberdouche and he backed away from Clinton because The Big Dawg got a blow job in the White House.

Nader had nothing to do with it. Gore won Florida. The US Supreme W. Court stopped the vote count, and then appointed the fucking chimp. The end!

[paulsby]

63. gore also screwed the pooch on gun control

which lost him his frigging home state

[Cleita]

127. Not only that he chose Donna Brazille for his campaign manager.n/t

[walldude]

156. And Gore is the first one to admit this...

I actually asked him about it when I met him years ago. But that doesn't seem to stop this crap.

[msongs]

16. like al gore's campaign had nothing to do with it. ok fine nt

[conscious evolution]

17. Bullfuckingshit

We have the supreme court to thank for bush.They were the ones who installed him.Not Nader.

[nickinSTL]

24. that's crap

Dems do not own anyone's vote. They must earn it. They failed to earn enough to prevent Bush and the right-leaning USSC from stealing it. Period.

[walldude]

34. Yeah if Nader hadn't stood out there with a gun and forced people to vote

for him Gore may have been President.


The fact is if Gore had not listened to his moronic handlers and presented himself better, and chose a better running mate, he would have gotten more votes. If you ever meet him ask him, I did. Gore blames himself for losing.

[asdjrocky]

51. You are not based in reality.

[paulsby]

62. nader has no power w/o nader voters

never ceases to surprise me how people blame NADER when it was nader VOTERS that made the difference

also note that righties could make the same argument about ross perot

[Lucian]

99. Um, it was the Supreme Court that selected Bush.

Don't blame it on the Greens.

[Toasterlad]

139. My New Blu-Ray Player Stopped Working After Only Six Months. Goddamn You, Ralph Nader!

[bvar22]

141. WOW. Nader must be SUPERMAN!!!

I thought he was just a wimpy little guy standing up for Working Americans....
but according to you, he knocked the wheels off the entire Democratic Party!
NADER is SUPERMAN!!

Do you really believe that Nader was THAT strong ???

OR

Was the Democratic Party THAT weak that it couldn't overcome someone like Nader?

It would be much more productive to examine why Nader had the opportunity to slide into a vacuum that the "Centrist" Democratic Party created on The Left than to just blame him and keep doing the same old thing.

The way things look today, the "Centrist" Democratic Party is damned determined to recreate 1994 and 2000. They are creating a HUGE vacuum on The Left.
Vacuums WILL be filled.
Its Physics.
The Democratic Party created Nader, and needs to accept that responsibility.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

[Gman]

2. The Democratic Party needs to destroy the Green Party and the GOP

Both want to defeat Democrats. Therefore, both are the sworn enemy of all of us here at DU and should be treated as such.

[AnOhioan]

8. The Democratic Party is doing a fine job of destroying itself already.

[Toasterlad]

135. Amen.

[Webster Green]

13. This two party, winner takes all system sucks.

What about some sort of proportional representation? It works in other countries.

[Moochy]

21. Not American Nor Exceptional enough

the rest of the world? BAH this is AMERICA!!!111111111111

[paulsby]

65. damn right

as opposed to the DU mantra "the rest of the world is better. we suck"

[Moochy]

69. Not the DU I'm reading

the idea that America could never learn anything nor adapt its political system is at the core of the Myth of American Exceptionalism. I see that you are one of those offended by that truth, so keep Myth Building, proud proud patriot!
I'm sorry that your sad little nationalistic bias makes you think DU is populated by AMERICA HATERS!!!!11

[paulsby]

72. rubbish

feel free to peruse DU and see how many posts, heck how many threads have themes about how european country X is better or europe is better in any # of ways

now try to find the threads saying we are better than them in any particular area, let alone a thread with that theme

and get back to me

hth

[Moochy]

86. Here's my opinion

Nationalism is a poison, it addles the mind.

[paulsby]

108. that's irrelevant to the factual statement

first of all, saying the US is better than country X in regards to (here i'll give an example) free speech rights is not "nationalism"

saying that france is better than the US in regards to their health care system is not reverse nationalism (or french nationalism) either

but facts are facts

statements of the latter type are exceedingly common - comparing the US disfavorably to country (or region) X

statements of the former type get cries of "nationalism" from people who dont know what the word means, and who embrace a double standard

hth

[Moochy]

113. It's relevant to your bias

Please donate to help the addled!

[paulsby]

115. it's relevant to the fact that you ignore the facts and embrace a double standard

stand outside your narrow world, throw away your biases and look at this dispassionately.


i know that's probably a lot to ask

[Moochy]

119. The sunday morning bridge crew

why did I ever take you all off of ignore?

[ShortnFiery]

22. Yes our common values of Environmental Protections and Social Justice be damned - EVIL GREENS!

:crazy:

No, Gore did not even try to get the Nadarites and Greens to come on over to our "big tent" democratic side. He wouldn't even meet with them our hear their grievances. :shrug:

I find it astounding that our Party has plenty of room for "pro-birthers" and "right wing corporate enablers" but ZERO TOLERANCE for the true democratic values of PRO-LABOR and other left of center initiatives.

Now the DNC is all about crony capitalism, wall street and the MIC. :(

[Gman]

26. Greens file for office to defeat a Democrat. That makes them my enemy

and your's too, btw.

[Webster Green]

29. They are trying to keep them honest.

So far, it hasn't worked very well.

[Moochy]

32. Neo-Liberal Organizing Tactics

"hey that guys your enemy" should be the subtext, not your actual line. :eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

96. And that is okay with me. It helps to illuminate how closely aligned the Dems

are with the right.

[jgraz]

134. Amazing how tough someone can sound sitting behind a keyboard

Lock and load, Brother!

:eyes:

[amborin]

208. +1000

[NJmaverick]

33. It seems the Greens will team up with whoever is out of power

[Tesha]

85. The best way the Democrats could destroy the Greens...

...would be to actually support policies that real people (and
not the Democrats' corporate backers) could get behind and
vote for.

Think they'll do it?

Tesha

[Sebastian Doyle]

140. The Democratic Party needs to destroy the DLC and the BlueBalled Cowards.

So the Green Party won't be necessary, and the Republican party can go back to being conservative, as opposed to bat shit psychotic.

We need a mainstream Liberal party in this country, not two right wing parties, or this country is permanently fucked.

[rucky]

210. I can't tell when you're being sarcastic.

but either way, that was funny.

[Xithras]

232. Silly position, since many of us vote for members of both parties.

Give me a choice between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Green, and I'll choose the Democrat because he'll be more effective.

Give me a choice between a conservative Democrat and a liberal Green, and I'll choose the Green every time.

I don't vote for conservatives, even when they call themselves Democrats.

You want to destroy the Green party? Drive out the conservative Democrats and push the party to the left. Make the Greens irrelevant.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. With undue consideration?

Sure. Why not?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. I'm a Democrat who frequently votes for Greens.

If the Democrats, or Greens, or any other party wants my vote they have to earn it. It's called democracy.

[Webster Green]

18. Bingo!

I voted for the Green Party candidate against Diane Feinstein.

I'll never vote for DIFI again, though I did for years.

[slampoet]

23. Exactly where in the constitution is the word "democracy" ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Exactly where in the constitution are the words "Democratic Party"?

Or, for that matter where in the constitution does it require political parties, voting, or campaign contributions?

[slampoet]

107. They are in the Federalist Papers.

Now please answer my question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Nowhere. So, what? It's an obvious presupposition in the Constitution.

You might want to take a look at Articles 1 and 2, and several of the amendments regarding voting rights. Unless you believe that voting does not infer democracy I would think it safe to say that the constitution presupposes democracy in no small measure.

It does not mention political parties as a criteria, vehicle, or necessity for voting.

What's your point?

[slampoet]

147. Voting = republic

Direct rule by the people = democracy

Thinking that democracy and a two party republic work the same way = failure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

149. Well, count me as a believer in Democracy.

Nor, is this a "two party republic". It is a republic, but "2 party" isn't part of it.

[slampoet]

217. If you believe in Democracy tell me when was the last time you've been to a city council meeting?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

225. I've never been to a city council meeting. What has that to do with it?

I also believe in a woman's right to an abortion but I've never had one.

Is that the best you can do?

[slampoet]

235. City council meetings are the prime example of participatory democracy in the USA and have been for

300+ years even before there was a constitution.


You've basically admitted that you are more interested in getting professional politicians to do your work for you (voting them in which is an example of a republic),

...than you are participating in the process yourself directly (which is what democracy is.)

[Zenlitened]

150. That sort of definition fits well on a Ron Paul flyer, but doesn't hold up.

Better terms are "direct democracy" and "representational democracy."

America is a democracy. Attempting to diminish this grand fact serves no purpose that I can can support.

[slampoet]

216. If you support a third party it does.

[Zenlitened]

223. Um... what?

:shrug:

[RainDog]

11. that would be great!!

then Obama could also appoint green party members to cabinet positions and to head agencies and could invite them to join in the conversation about the decision-making process in America!

great idea!

[Zenlitened]

90. LOL! I hadn't thought of it that way! :)

That's some top-notch chess-playing! :hi:

[DevonRex]

12. It's winner take all; therefore, it's a competition with every other party.

Anybody who thinks differently doesn't understand our system of government.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. Personally, I think that Greens should......................

run in the Democratic primaries where it's allowed. Then support the one who wins in the general. That would give us more left wing Dems a primary candidate to choose and support. I'd vote for a Democratic Socialist (Bernie Sanders) myself if possible. Being a pragmatist, I would also vote for the centrist in the general just simply because the Dem is ALWAYS going to be better than the Republican, if only marginally.

[Moochy]

19. How best to win those green voters over than to pledge to destroy their institution

seems like a great way to find common ground! :grouphug:

[NJmaverick]

35. It seems to me the Greens oppose whoever is in power

and teams up with whoever is out of power. So is there even a chance they can be won over?

[Moochy]

38. Dunno maybe go to a Green Underground.com?

This here's DU! where only Dems R Allowed.

[RainDog]

75. very small-minded and binary thinking

but not surprised by this.

[salguine]

25. Common ground? The Greens are considerably to the left of the Democrats. The Greens

have consistently stuck to solid progressive principles time and again, whereas the Democrats, a few remaining principled members notwithstanding, are a centrist corporate party now.

The Greens are only there because the Democrats have made them necessary. If the Democrats would actually commit wholeheartedly to solidly left, progressive principles—not just bullshit lip service and lies, like now—the Greens would probably disappear.

[Zenlitened]

92. "The Greens are only there because the Democrats have made them necessary. "

:applause:

[amborin]

219. +1000

[Ysabel]

27. gee duh...

don't you know how many greens vote for democratic candidates?

- i guess not...

[NJmaverick]

37. There are many Dems who have voted for Republicans as well

so what's your point?

[Ysabel]

46. my point is (duh) dems need votes...

- your suggestion that dems ought perhaps treat (any) potential voters like shit is really dumb...

[NJmaverick]

47. Are you aware that 9% of the voters that voted for Obama were Republicans?

It seems to me the Dems should be seeking voters from all opposing parties.

[Ysabel]

49. yeah so and what is your point / you started this dumb thread...

and now are contradicting yourself...

[NJmaverick]

52. No I am supporting my assertion that there are many similarities

between the Greens and the GOP when it comes to the Democratic party. Both Republicans and Greens will occasional vote for Dems but as a general rule they will work against the Dems.

[Ysabel]

60. well i differ / and grow tired of this as well / see you later...

[RainDog]

112. where is any data to support this assertion?

you are pulling this statement out of your ass and pretending it matters.

[Luminous Animal]

178. I find it amusing that "working against the Dems",

at least from a Green perspective, means supporting a living wage, universal health care, CAFE standards that are comparable to European standards, public education, unions, a strong and stable Social Security, welfare, progressive taxes, marriage equality, etc. Issues that Dems are overwhelming agree with but our Reps & leadership minimize in the name of political expediency... er, pragmatism.


DUers have written quite a bit about Republicans voting against their own self-interest. Given the fact that the Democratic apparatus consistently jettisons the will of their rank and file, "pragmatic progressives" are no less suckers than the teabaggers.

[Zenlitened]

186. Amusing? I find it shocking. And depressing.

But your spot-on analysis does give me hope! :hi:

[Greyhound]

71. Oh no, it is much better to follow the same strategy that kept them out

of power years and years. Ridicule and piss off the people that will hold their noses and vote for you because the other guys are even worse, inspire them to just not vote at all, then you can convince yourself that the real problem here is that you're not going far enough in the wrong direction.
:eyes:

[Johonny]

30. No

outside of a few districts the Green party has almost no political power. It should treat the Green Party and the Natural law party the same way the GOP treats the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. I. E. ignore it sans a few local races. It is up to the Green party to actually organize and win on at least a state level. It has never been able to do that. In most areas the Green Party doesn't really exist because those voters are Dems.

[fishwax]

39. You mean reach out to them in the spirit of bipartisanship?

;)

[NJmaverick]

41. Technically that would be tripartisanship

[fishwax]

50. not if we cut out the GOP

:D

[Motown_Johnny]

40. when they start illegal wars and torturing ask me again

[paulsby]

67. it's easy to be pure when you have no power

in re the greens

it's like kucinich when he runs for president. he can do whatever he wants because winning is not a consideration

it's a fantasy campaign

[Moochy]

117. Its easy to be dismissive of would-be allies

When they are in power.... they get all kinds of bad advice from lobbyists with checkbooks and can vilify the 'fantasies' of their constituents, except when they need Kucinich' to act the fool or to fall in line. Maintaining the illusion of democracy is hard work!

[paulsby]

120. have you ever looked at kucinich's RECORD?

in all his time in congress, how many bills he has authored and seen through to passage? and what they were for?

it's really staggering lesson in do nothingness

[Moochy]

123. Yeah that fool! That useless fool!

Now Lieberman has authored lots of awesome stuff that everyone could be proud of!

[paulsby]

129. you really can't ever just address a basic topic without wandering off into nonsequiters, ad hominem

and strawmen can you?

i repeat. have you looked at kucinich's RECORD?

there are lots of congresspersons who have been very successful and are not assmunches like lieberman

but by injecting lieberman and ignoring the question, you attempt to demean the argument w/o addressing it by associating me or the argument with him

that's sophomoric debating tactics. are you interested in actual discussion, or word games and diversions?

[Moochy]

133. Yeah I just looked at his record

and what do you know I was fundamentally wrong about him, he's a good for nothing, a roustabout, a ne'er do well, a ruffian, and a veritable nincompoop!

I guess I just got word games to match your bullshit.

[mike_c]

42. I'm a green who sometimes votes for democrats...

...but dems like you make it really tough.

[GreenPartyVoter]

152. I hear that :^(

[varelse]

173. +1

[Patriot 76]

43. If they're working to defeat Democrats, then they deserve to be treated as such.

It's nothing personal, it's just how our system works.

By the way, are there any Greens in the House or Senate?

[redwitch]

44. Greens are not the enemy.

And our two party system is rotten to the core. BTW, I am a registered Democrat, always have been.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Sure, I think the Democratic Party should officially reject...

point by point, the Green Party platform.

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

[NJmaverick]

48. They don't do that with the GOP (because they can't disagree on things like national security and

jobs) so why would they do that with the Greens?

[Luminous Animal]

54. I didn't claim that they did that with the GOP.

It is my personal opinion that if the Dems want to treat the Greens as their enemy, they should be clear why they are ideologically opposed to the Greens.

[NJmaverick]

73. As I said in my original OP it's on an ideological issue it's an election issue

it's about who wins the elections.

[Luminous Animal]

87. And damned the consequences.

As long as it has a (D) after it's name then it is worth fighting for, eh?

[NJmaverick]

91. no better than having a (G) after their name

[Luminous Animal]

100. I may be wrong but you seem to be advocating opposing the Green Party

simply because their candidate has a (G) after their name and for no other reason.

[NJmaverick]

102. The Green Party is already opposing the Dems so why shouldn't

the Dems acknowledge that reality?

[Luminous Animal]

121. The Green Party does not oppose Democratic candidates simply because they have a (D)

after their name. In fact, the Green Party, quite often endorse Democratic candidates.

[Moochy]

55. To justify their status on the enemies list

remember, the OP?

[AnOhioan]

80. Then the Dems would be just the Repubs....

Oh wait a minute...my bad.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

57. Umm, don't they do that already?

Seems obvious to me that is the case, judging not only from what goes on around here, but from what happens in the real world as well. Who was it that regularly teams up with the 'Pugs in order to prevent the Green party from being part of the debate scene? Oh, yeah, the Dems, the same people who have teamed up time and again to rig election laws in favor of the big two.

Oh, and while it may seem to your myopic view that Dems and Greens "sit on the same side of the ideological divide" in reality they don't. While the Dems and Greens agree on a few general principles, the fact of the matter is that there is a great gulf between the respective parties on most issues. This gulf has gotten wider and wider as the Dems have continued ever more to the right. In fact I would venture, and join several renowned political scientists, that the Dems are closer to the Pugs in their overall political worldview and philosophy than they are to the Greens.

Nor would I say that the Dems are on the "left side of the table." At one point the did set on the left side of the table, a few individual members still do. But overall the Dems have moved over to the right side of the table, joining the 'Pugs. They're just not as far to the right as the 'Pugs.

[NJmaverick]

59. Didn't the GOP and the right help finance Green candidate Nader???

[MadHound]

64. During the '00 when he ran on the Green Party ticket, no, he didn't get GOP money

Perhaps he did in '04 and '08, but then again he wasn't running on the Green party ticket. However it is interesting that Obama received a substantial amount of money from moderate 'Pugs once Palin entered the race, seems that they didn't want crazy anywhere near the WH as much as the Dems didn't.

But really, this issue is neither here nor there, it is ideology that we're talking about here.

[NJmaverick]

68. I am talking 08

[MadHound]

70. As I said previously, Nader wasn't on the Green ticket

Cynthia McKinney was the Green party candidate for president. Nader ran as an independent.

But again, what does this have to do with your OP?

[NJmaverick]

74. It seems to me the Greens oppose whoever is in power

and teams up with those out of power. Since the Dems are now in power the Greens are working against rather than with the Dems.

[MadHound]

79. Umm, the Greens have never worked with the Dems,

With the possible exception of local, or perhaps the rare state issue. But certainly not on the national level. Why should they, as you say, they are a different party, with a different platform and different objectives. It makes no sense for the Greens to work with the Dems.

Amazingly however, Dems have worked with 'Pugs on numerous issues, including doing everything possible to keep the Greens out of the national debate.

[NJmaverick]

88. Well you agree with me then. You know the Dems have certainly pushed issues the Greens support

more than they have the GOP, but still as you say they are competing for the same thing.

[MadHound]

95. Actually, given just the modern record of issues the Dems and 'Pugs have cooperated on

No, I don't know that the Dems have pushed issues the Greens support. Wars, destruction of civil rights, pandering to corporate America, on these issues Dems have worked hand in hand with the 'Pugs. Like I mentioned earlier, with individual exceptions, the Dems have moved to the right side of the table, while the 'Pugs have simply moved further to the right.

[NJmaverick]

101. Eliminating banks in student loans, raising CAFE standards, ending ban on Stem Cell research

investing in green technologies, conservation and mass transit just a few off the top of my head

[MineralMan]

109. But...but...but...

I can hear it now.

[Moochy]

81. Many things seemed magical to the people in the middle ages too

[Luminous Animal]

66. 100 times more Republican money went to Kerry than to Nader.

to a far greater extent.

According to CRP:
"50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wire10192004.html

[Bjorn Against]

58. Well the Democrats have voted for Republican policies on many occasions...

Maybe it is about time that they voted for some Green Party policies as well. They always talk about reaching out to Republicans, but I never hear them talk about reaching out to Greens. Maybe it is time for them to start treating Greens like they treat Republicans, because as it stands they seem to like the Republicans a whole lot more than the Greens.

[RainDog]

78. green positions have proven to be winners in other western democracies

while republican economic policies have proven to be disasters for the American people.

so OF COURSE the democrats are going to embrace failed economic policies! because whether something is good for the people of this nation is immaterial to those who claim they are one party or another.

the point is this: most people are not "green party" or "democratic party." most people have issues they think should be decided one way or another.

if this person wants to cut off everyone who doesn't agree with him or those to the right of him, I don't know why he's not a republican, frankly.

that party needs people like this poster to overwhelm the idiots like Palin and Bachman. if he had any guts, that's where he'd take his fight.

[LeFleur1]

84. Why Not Allow All Party Candidates to Debate?

What are they afraid of?

It just might be an eye opener to the people in this country if the two top parties would allow Green Candidates, Libertarian candidates, and any other candidate to debate with them. Many of their ideas are good ones and it just might force the two parties to work for the people.
If the two parties in power have the best ideas what could it hurt to allow others to debate with them?

The fear is that they don't have the best ideas and if people ever found that out they might lose their cush jobs in DC.

[rug]

76. Should the Green Party consider and treat Democrats as they do the GOP?

[NJmaverick]

83. Seems to me that is already happening, which is why I raised the question

[Zenlitened]

77. Clumsy, as usual. - n/t

[RainDog]

82. +1000000

goldberging?

[Zenlitened]

104. Um, not quite that advanced, sadly. More like Kerplunking!

[Fumesucker]

89. You are assuming that Democrats are on the left..

That's a dubious assumption in the first place and the entire "left-right" labeling of politics is simplistic in the extreme.

I see more in common between the Democratic party and the Republican party than I do between either one and the Green party.

[AnOhioan]

93. I really wish the rec function extended to replies as well

as it does not.....+1

[Lucian]

98. +1

[arcadian]

94. Anbody who blames Nader for 2000 hates Democracy

[walldude]

103. Funny world when you are villified for

standing up for what you believe in..

I'm quite enjoying being "the destroyer of the Democratic Party" because I stand against things like Unjust Wars, Offshore Drilling, Death Squads, The Patriot act and Nuclear Power, and for things like well funded public schools, and equal rights for our GLBT friends.

[Lucian]

97. Um, the Greens are the only true Progressives left.

And getting rid of the Greens would be getting rid of Democracy.

[NJmaverick]

105. What about dems like Kucinich, Grayson and Dean?

[Lucian]

114. I'm sure if the Greens were a strong, viable party...

Dennis would be one.

[NJmaverick]

116. Regardless, you have to admit that the Greens do not have a monopoly on progressive

candidates or members

[Lucian]

122. Well of course they don't.

But it could change if we all voted for Green Party members.

[TexasObserver]

106. Greens don't accomplish a God Damn thing

Greens don't accomplish a God Damn thing, except to drain votes away from the Democratic party nominee, and make the cause of environmentalism look like the province of overgrown juveniles.

[RainDog]

111. greens have won elections where I live

and they governed with the democrats...this is in my city/county, which is, honestly, the only level at which I think my vote actually means anything anymore.

so, your characterization of them is the same as saying that all democrats are Bart Stupak assholes who would govern like he does.

the one republican on the city council is an Eisenhower republican.

the city in which I live is consistently ranked as one of the best places to live for cities of its size. it is ranked as one of the top 10 places to start a biz by Forbes mag. it is working on issues of sustainability, peak oil, public transportation...

yeah, that's terrible governance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. So, are you saying that the Greens are simultaneously ineffective and powerful?

Irrelevant and relevant?

If the Democrats are upset about losing Green votes maybe they should try appealing to them.

[Moochy]

126. province of overgrown juveniles.

Hooray, the first appeal to paternalism, and calling environmentalism juvenile in one breath!

Let me guess, a realistic approach to environmentalism is

* Bipartisan
* can pass with 60 votes
* takes into consideration Republican Ideas from the previous 3 congressional sessions
* shuts out environmentalist lobbyists
* co-opts legitimate solutions into market-based, disaster capitalism.

[RainDog]

110. curious - do you think the democratic party should be the party of pederasts, too?

like the republicans?

or should we have a party in the U.S. that actually gives a fuck about children?

[Cleita]

125. The Greens were a symptom of the Democrats pulling to centrism and

corporatism when they broke off from the Democratic Party. I think we need to woo them back so that the DLC Democrats can be pushed aside as a fringe group, not the group in power and get the Democrats back to being more FDR Democrats in principle.

[tnlefty]

128. In my area Green Party members are disaffected Democrats

who are sick of the selling out of labor and a lot of what the Democratic Party seems to have turned its back on. There were many Greens and pissed of Repubs involved in our local Dean group.

I work with many of them, and many who despised Ford, Jr. actually voted for him as majorities were desperately needed in '06 to stop the craziness of the Bush** misAdministration. Many were also involved in a local Draft Gore effort.

When the Greens have candidates on ballots here, they are trying to have an impact on public debate.

Nope, I'll keep working with them and building bridges and I'll leave demonizing them to you and others.

[ClassWarrior]

130. Why? It's a two-party system, and the Dems are one of the two. The Greens are no threat, but...

...they ARE potential allies and recruits. Why destroy that advantage by battling with them?

NGU.

[saltpoint]

131. It's possible that the Green Party in the United States will begin

to enjoy some success and influence. It hasn't so far.

And it does not help its own cause by nominating people like Cynthia McKinney. That was a disaster.

The Democratic Party right now does not have to really HAVE a response to the Green Party because the Green Party doesn't have a lot of cards in its deck. It may at some later point. But it doesn't now.

[Ardent15]

132. A better question would be: Should we treat the Democrats the same as the GOP?

Nt

[laughingliberal]

138. Good point. GOP is as GOP does. nt

[Toasterlad]

136. If the Democratic Party Was True To Its Ideals, There Would Be No Green Party.

[NJmaverick]

170. I doubt it, the Dems and the Greens do have differences in core principles

besides there are always disruptive 3rd parties

[Moochy]

176. Please Elaborate

Feel Free to offer a point-by-point comparison of the ways in which the DNC differs on policy?

Or just keep using that overly large brush you are painting with.

[NJmaverick]

180. This is your topic, feel free to post of list of the similarities and differences

most posters here already know all or most of that information

[Moochy]

182. "most posters here already know all or most of that information"

yes so might as well skip the discussion of any substance and stick with your mop and bucket full of paint.

[NJmaverick]

185. I don't see any specifics that you care to discuss

if you have any, I would be happy to discuss or debate them

[Luminous Animal]

195. Since you made the assertion that their are core differnces, it is up to you to back it up.

But, I'll play your game:

What is the core difference between Dems and Greens on the following issues:

Health Care
Corporate Personhood
Family Farms
Renewable Energy
Mass Transit
DC Statehood
Anti-trust Enforcement
Reproductive Freedom
EFCA (Card check)
Net Neutrality

[Toasterlad]

220. I Don't Expect You'll Receive a Reply. And You Can Add Equality To Your List.

The Green Party is far ahead of the Democrats in that area, as well.

http://www.gp.org/issue/marriageequality.pdf

[tnlefty]

215. Bingo!

'Nuff said. :hi:

[Marr]

137. You mean adopt their platform?

That's what you're saying, right? I mean, I hear the "adult" thing to do is reach out to your political opponents and woo their followers into the fold. Surely you don't reserve that tactic for right wing parties... right?

[jgraz]

143. Sooo beat me to it.

Same old shit from this poster:

Corporatism = pragmatic politics.

Progressive populism = The Enemy.


:boring:

[Moochy]

145. Careful, pointing out the obvious around here

is considered an ad hominem!

[jgraz]

146. That's because most people don't understand what "argumentum ad hominem" means

They just think quoting some latin makes them look smarter than they actually are.

To review:

1) "You're stupid, therefore you're wrong." = ad hominem

2) "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid." = NOT ad hominem.


Also, pointing out the obvious = NOT ad hominem. :D

[NJmaverick]

161. The Green's party has had little to no electoral success

why would the Dems want to court sure disaster?

[Moochy]

165. Besides there's no money to be had advocating for good policy!

[NJmaverick]

177. Are you really trying to sell the idea that politicians enter politics to make money?

Most of the time it's the other way around. People are successful and then enter politics

[Moochy]

179. Not at all

I'm saying that Money supports bad policy, and DLC types are always looking at 'effective' ways to increase the party WAR CHEST and get more (D)'s in office, regardless of how regressive and conservative their few key issues are to the whole of the party. Keep expanding the tent rightward and throwing firebombs at the left side of the tent, I know you.

[NJmaverick]

181. A pragmatic progressive deals with that issue with campaign finance reform

not third parties.

[Luminous Animal]

194. It appears that they've lost sight of the meaning of pragmatism...

given that campaign finance reform has been botched since 1905.

[The Gunslinger]

213. +1

[Marr]

166. So are they irrelevant, or do they swing elections?

I constantly see the same people making both arguments. Make up your mind.

[NJmaverick]

174. just because a party is lacking in popular support doesn't mean they can't be destructive

[Marr]

184. Then they should be courted.

A group is either politically relevant or it is not.

[NJmaverick]

187. This isn't a coalition style government, as such there is little to no point

in "courting" the Greens. They are the opposition just like the GOP. If the Greens want to JOIN the Democratic party and help to make change from within that would be a different story.

[Zenlitened]

189. It doesn't seem as if you've ever met, let alone spoken with, a Green.

Many of them were Democratic activists for decades.

Until people like you began driving them away. Now your strategy is to stand on the porch an yell "and don't come back!!!" at them?

Please, tell us more about "pragmatism." :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

201. Many Republicans are former Dems and so I see little difference

When you oppose the Dems you are not on their side.

[Zenlitened]

209. I used to think your knowledge of politics was minimal.

But I see I've overestimated you.

[Marr]

206. But you like bipartisan, "moderate" Democrats?

This doesn't make any sense.

Greens are nothing like the GOP in relation to the Democratic Party. Democrats could court them by simply supporting the things they already claim to support. Courting GOP votes means working against the traditional base of the Democratic Party, but self-described "moderates" often urge that approach.

This argument only makes sense if you are on the right-wing of the Democratic Party.

[backscatter712]

144. Until the U.S. adopts proportional representation, the Greens are counterproductive.

Sorry, but it's the truth. Yes, the two-party system created by single-member districts and winner-takes-all elections sucks, but until the rules of the game are changed, Greens are shooting themselves, and all progressives, Democratic or Green, in the foot.

They'd do better by joining interest groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, HCAN, ActBlue, MoveOn.org, hundreds of other perfectly good, progressive interest groups, and influencing the system, and the Democratic Party that way. They'd do better joining the Democrats, jumping in the primaries, and getting progressive candidates on the tickets and into Congress instead of DINOs.

Third parties do very little except acting as spoilers, usually making it more likely for the GOP to win. It's the same reason why as a Democrat, I'm greatly in favor of the teabaggers splitting off from the Republican party and running candidates under the Tea Party banner - that actually helps us! :evilgrin:

[Toasterlad]

148. People Are Going To Vote For Who They Want To Vote For.

Progressives vote for whichever candidate is the most progressive. They don't care whether the candidate has a D or a G or an I after their name. Only an asshole bases their vote solely on party affiliation.

[NJmaverick]

153. That's not always true. Many progressives are pragmatic progressives

and they vote in the most effective manner rather than the most ideological pleasing manner.

[Toasterlad]

155. Those Aren't Progressives. Those Are Sheep.

[NJmaverick]

158. Only a head in the clouds idealist with little appreciation of the real world would say that

[Toasterlad]

160. And Only a DLC Prole Would Use Scare Tactics To Bully People Into Voting For the Same Old Shit

[NJmaverick]

162. I don't know I think calling people sheep is pretty much a bullying tactic

in its own right. As for "same old shit" it might be old but it's been the ONLY proven way to keep the right at bay

[Toasterlad]

218. LOL. I'll Pay You the Compliment Of Assuming You Don't Believe the Shit You're Saying.

"bullying tactic?" Really? Are you truly so influenced by my opinion of you that you feel intimidated into voting for a progressive? It's not like I told you that not voting Democrat would basically be the end of the world...which is the line you DLC types habitually run.

And the only thing that's been "proven" by having people vote Democrat regardless of what the candidate stands for is that the Democrats are just as invested in turning this country into a corporate-run state as the Republicans.

Many of us have decided it's long since time to stop playing that same tired game, and there's nothing you DLCers can say or do to convince us otherwise. I hope that reality keeps you up at night from now til November.

[Zenlitened]

157. Many, but not all, and the ranks of the "pragmatic" seems to be diminishing.

As we've learned to our regret in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

Face it, this "where else ya gonna go" tactic is wearing awfully thin.

And your whole clumsy schtick of harping on progressives/leftists/greens/etc. as The Enemy doesn't seem to play well either.

Outside of the BOG, at least.

In fact, it hardly seems designed to advance the Democratic Party's fortunes (let alone its ideals) at all.

Quite the opposite.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

159. We better hope you are wrong, because the pragmatics are the ONLY ones

between us and the horrors for this nation envisioned by the teabaggers

[Zenlitened]

164. Then the pragmatic thing to do would be...

... to stop trying to purge left-leaning voters from the party, no?

Or is that not the sort of pragmatism that suits your goals?

[NJmaverick]

167. The Greens are not the Dems and the Greens are guilty of attacks on the Dems

that rival the GOPs and the right. See that's one of the thing about the pragmatic progressives they see the world as it is rather than how we want it to be. Instead we ENVISION the world how we would like it to be and then try to change the world as it is to match that vision.

[Zenlitened]

183. In general, your entire premise is false.

When you say:

The Greens are not the Dems and the Greens are guilty of attacks on the Dems

But then, any honest observer of politics in America knows that Greens and Dems overlap in significant ways.

And any honest observer of... well, humanity... can distinguish advocating bedrock principles from waging "attacks."

Face it, you're just not very good at this Perception Management thing.

[NJmaverick]

191. The facts say otherwise

from the Green website:

Greens call for an end to the "bipartisan economic war" on Blacks and Latinos/as, who suffer the brunt of the subprime crisis and economic meltdown
2010-02-25 Washington, DC -- Green Party leaders said today that Democratic and Republican politicians are pursuing fiscal agenda, including responses to the subprime mortgage crisis, that amount to an "economic war" on Black and Latino/a people across the US

[Moochy]

193. Hey at least you are reading their platform

it's a start, but be sure to cherry pick and ignore the parts of the platform that are resonant with the Liberal core of the Democratic party.

[Luminous Animal]

197. Thanks for that. It reminded me that the Democrats were not only complicit

in destroying ACORN but were among the leaders of the lynch mob.

[Zenlitened]

214. Did you ever stop to ask yourself...

... why a segment of the political left might feel the Democratic Party is allied with the GOP in waging an economic war?

Someone with knowledge of (and respect for) traditionally Democratic principles might worry that the party has strayed from its ideals.

But not you. You launch right into your Col. Flagg routine.

"You think you're real smart. But you're not smart.
You're dumb. Very dumb.
But you've met your match in me."

[Toasterlad]

221. "You Put a Red Korean Over a White American, Which Makes You Pretty Pinko"

ALL YOUR VOTES ARE BELONG TO US!

[Zenlitened]

224. Hmmph. I'll bet you subscribe to Reader's Digest, doncha?

:D: :hi:

[Luminous Animal]

169. Translation:

"The most effective manner" is a vote based on fear rather than a desire for effective governance. Heaven forbid that the electorate have an alternative that is pleasing.

If the goal is merely to elect a person with a (D) after their name, that enables the Ds to do little more than retain power. This is why the Democratic Party works to exclude Greens access to state ballots and debates. They don't want people exposed to alternatives.

[NJmaverick]

171. That wasn't a translation, that was a distortion

[LWolf]

151. I guess it depends on priorities.

Is the team more important than the issues, or are the issues more important than the team?

I'm an unapologetic issues voter, myself.

[NJmaverick]

154. So voters are more pragmatic and consider the effectiveness of their votes

along with the issues

[LWolf]

204. Effectiveness also depends on priorities.

If you consider a party "winning" and election a priority, then voting for a party is effective.

If you consider issues a priority, then voting for someone whose agenda opposes the direction you want to see issues move is not effective, regardless of what party they represent.

[Warren Stupidity]

163. If the democratic party stopped pandering to the right there would be

no green party.

[NJmaverick]

168. I doubt it, there will always be disruptive 3rd parties

[ClassWarrior]

175. I doubt that. Because when the Dem Party moves leftward, the squishy, self-styled "centrists"...

...will be too wishy-washy to form their own.

:rofl:

NGU.

[NJmaverick]

188. Like what happened in the 70s?

[salguine]

207. "Disruptive"? In what way? Hacking voting machines and fraudulently manipulating

is disruptive. Running for office in an election and getting votes is not.

You must have entered a hundred posts in this thread, and with each one you look more and more insane.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

227. :D

A-fuckin'-men! :rofl: This one is a real piece of work.

[LWolf]

205. + 1,000,000 nt

[The Gunslinger]

190. I didn't know the Democratic Party was on the left these days.

[Stinky The Clown]

192. If the Democrats weren't racing so fast to the right, you might have a point.

[hayu_lol]

196. After Florida 2000, the Greens are done...

Nader took GOP money and garnered close to 100,000 votes. Given the choice between Gore and Bush, had the Greens backed Gore--even just a third of them--Bush could not have stolen the election.

Green Party is far to the left of Liberal thinking just as Blue Dogs are far to the right. Kucinich is a Green to all intents and purposes. Posturing, lying about who did what, and so on.

Had we a parliamentary system, Greens would have a place of their own. They would still be slang-termed the 3% party for the support they have. Instead, they take great pleasure in being spoilers...taking down Dem candidates who otherwise might have won. 8 years after 2000, there are still no Green Representatives and no Senators. They have one Green mayor(SF)and not a single dogcatcher.

Easier to attack mainline Dems(Liberals)than it is to build their own party.

[Moochy]

198. Mayor of SF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom

Gavin Newsom is a lifelong democrat....

"Kucinich is a Green to all intents and purposes. Posturing, lying about who did what, and so on."

I see so Green for you is really just a shorthand for a 'lying, posturing' politician?

[Luminous Animal]

199. 300,000 Dems voted for Bush in Florida. 10-11 mil Dems nationwide voted for Bush.

It appears that you should worry more about your own membership than those of another party.

[Luminous Animal]

200. There are currently 150 Green Party office holders in the U.S.

http://www.gp.org/elections/officeholders/index.php

[laughingliberal]

211. I had no idea. Thanks for that information. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

203. If only! Imagine if there were 200 Green Amendments to the Health Care Bill.

Oh, that's not what you mean, is it?

[laughingliberal]

212. What a great point! I'm betting the Greens would love it if the Democrats treated them the same as

they treat the GOP. Soiling themselves and bowing down every time a Green says, "boo?" Not likely to happen, though.

[Toasterlad]

222. That Would, In Fact, Be AWESOME. And Not As Far Away As You Might Think.

Democrats will bend over for anyone except gays. So all the Greens have to do is say, "Bend over!" forcefully enough, and the Democrats will comply. As long as the Greens don't sound gay when they say it.

[G_j]

226. what a stupid ass post

you know very well this can only be discussed in a limited fashion here.
This is deliberate bait. I see you managed to suck a lot of people in.
Very underhanded IMO.


:thumbsdown:

[Maat]

228. This thread is disgusting.

It represents spitting in the face of people who would normally be allies with repect to many issues.

[Echo In Light]

231. And that's precisely the m.o. of too many conservative dems & mods

[Maat]

233. You're correct (n/t).

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

234. ,

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

230. they are in competition because the Greens often attack dems and work against dems more than the GOP