I’m still way too busy with real-life stuff to pay proper attention to this blog… sorry, folks. Meanwhile, here’s an interesting email that’s been making the Green Party rounds (thanks to Jake Squid for the tip).
Date: 6/27/2003 9
Dear Friends, I would like to propose a strategy of seeking a coalition agreement with the Democrats along the model of Germany, where Greens are able to promote their policies beyond the weight of their numbers through their holding the margin of victory fro the Social Democrats, as we do here for the Dems. Some will immediately object that we do not have a parliamentary system, and therefore, could not hold the Dems accountable: please read on as I shall address that issue and drawing a way forward that would entail neither capitulating nor getting Bush elected (we should never say re-elected).
First, we might be able to leverage the democratic primary NOT by re-registering as Dems, but by a Party statement of the possibility of a coalition government along with the names of the three or four Democratic candidates we are LEAST likely to negotiate with for a withdrawal. This sends the message that we are open to talking to candidates other than the Joe Liebermans w/o our having to wrangle with an endorsement controversy, or burning bridges to candidates more likely than Kucinich to win, and we are still in a position to run our own candidate in the end, because we should proceed apace and definitely nominate the best candidate we can find – only with one hell of a candidate in place will we be able to pull off the coup I am proposing.
Second, asking for and receiving policy concessions may be easy – too easy. We should not even consider any offer that does not make Ralph a Cabinet Secretary (Labor?) or as head of the EPA etc. AND one other highly qualified Green (Linda Martin, Carol Miller, Winona LaDuke, Jonathan Carter, Steve Schmidt all jump to mind) in a second Green Cabinet position, in order to establish firmly that this was not the “co-optation of Ralph”, “personal deal of Ralph” and all other such inevitable attempts to negatively spin a Green-Dem coalition.
Beyond this, there should be Greens appointed to all executive political positions from undersecretary down commensurate with our negotiated share in the coalition, which should be based not on our membership but on the Nader 2000 vote, so that we could expect that our 3+ % would be translated into about 7% of the 50% it takes to win a head-to-head election (barring further Electoral College madness).
In 1994, when I was State Chairman in NM and managed the Statewide campaigns, Kent Smith, the CA GP’s Galactic Ambassador, said to me what I was not yet ready to hear: “Ultimately we can only play a positive role in coalition with the Dems. Nowhere in the world does a Green Party command a majority mandate or even become among the top two parties in a multi-party system. But we do hold the margin of their victory, and therefore we, as the most enlightened Party can command influence far in excess of our numbers and thus prod along the rest of society to our way of thinking”.
Now that we have shown that we are very well capable of getting Republicans elected, especially as they have done here in NM several times at the Congressional and Gubernatorial level, put up rogues or dufuses, relics or right-wingers. Here in NM the Dems have known for years that the voters can and will punish them for their insulting them. However, it has also been shown that our support drops way off when we run against people who we should either be supporting, (or indeed suing to get on our ballot line in a Fusion candidacy), or at least staying out of the way of, as we have done here in the Albuquerque Congressional race, and some US Senate races.
Let’s make a difference by being smart, which leads me to my penultimate point: Nominating an unknown “homegrown candidate”, except possibly for VP would be a huge mistake on our part and relegate us beyond the margins of politics to the netherworld inhabited by the Libertarians ( with whom we could get high) and the Natural Law Party ( with whom we could meditate). The only candidates who could pull off the “German strategy” I propose would be people like Ralph Nader, Jim Hightower, Cynthia McKinney, Cornell West, Amy Goodman or Michael Moore.
Finally, be willing to walk out on the Dems both during the campaign or subsequently, if they renege on policy or appointment commitments. Some will object that unlike a parliamentary system we cannot bring the government down, true, but we can spoil key Congressional races in the mid-term election if they ignore us. On the other hand, we cannot expect them to become Greens. Even Green candidates can barely meet all of the array of litmus tests that must reveal very dark hues of Green (and Red). And we may make such demands of our own candidates or people in appointed offices, but the beauty of multi-party democracy and its coalitions is in that it is a way to work productively with people not as close to one’s own views but yet close enough to keep the other really, really BAD GUYS out.
And I do not need to expound upon just how scary – and dare I say it – EVIL such characters as Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Ashcroft are lead by their pin-head “president” who worships two gods: 1) The free-market and its wonderful invisible hand that likes to snuff out the weak and 2) The God who wreaks vengeance on the unbelievers and will return only when the Temple of Solomon is re-built (requiring the destruction of the Dome of the Rock). All you need to do is surf the UHF band of your TV to understand just how scary these lunatics are: while Arabs are made scapegoats for Islamic fundamentalism, the Christian Right is building its City on a Hill right around us. My point here is: Please don’t go around saying that Dems and Reps are all the same. It makes us look stupid and undiscriminating.
Abraham Gutmann
This seems like the beginning of a good idea. Two questions: Would Nader accept such a position? I have no idea and am genuinely curious. My understanding is that he isn’t even a Green Party member.
2) A parliamentary system allows third parties to both fight as hard as they can for their own candidates and throw their strength behind a larger party to form a government. This makes what they have to offer (support) the same as the threat (collapse). What are the mechanics of this for the US? That is, while there is a realistic threat of damaging future Democratic candidates, what is the carrot for the Dems beyond not damaging them?
I think this second question needs to be answered. The only thing that comes to mind this AM is money. Greens could raise money for “issue” advertising. Then, if an acceptable candidate emerges from the Democratic bloodletting, the Greens could run ads against Bush. This would provide material support to the candidate when needed and make the quid pros more quo all the way around.
In the long term, I think Greens need to get some Congresspeople and, ideally, governors. Weilding power at the state level would enable the delivery of electoral college votes.
Well, I know there’s a Green mayor in New Paltz, N.Y. now. ;)
This idea has potential, and I’m watching it, too. My main worry is –in the case of the Green on the Cabinet thing– that a right-minded Cabinet member can’t do much to improve the country if they work for a President whose policies tear out their idelogical teeth at first opportunity. Reich as Labor Sec., Wright-Edelmen and so on… couldn’t do much of anything to put the brakes on Clinton’s Neo-Reaganism. Ironically they may even have unwittingly made Clinton’s nastier policies more palatable to Dems who would have fought it more ferociously had it come from an opposition party. :(
Also, I’d really rather see someone other than Nader run. He’s a decent man, but he’s pushing 80, no ? Time for some new blood, preferably someone who IS a registered Green themselves.
That’s a good point about cabinet secretaries. Unlike parlianetary governements, once you leave elected office to join the cabinet, you lose your own constituency. (Does anybody think Whitman’s having a good time?) Maybe an FCC appointment (not that that would ever happen . . .) would work. Quasi-independent agencies would allow some freedom of action to the Greens.
Two cabinet positions? I can scarcely believe how much the Greens:
* Overestimate their own political significance, thinking that the Democrats would even think about doing this. Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and then 8.4% in 1996, then disappeared (0.4% in 2000). The Greens got 2.7% in 2000 and face some serious resentment among Democratic bigs.
* Underestimate how many swing voters would go to Bush II if the Dems aligned themselves so intimately with the fringe Left.
err, replace “Ross Perot” with “the Reform Party”
And to clarify further, I don’t like the current US electoral system even though I’m not a Green. I’m just saying that it’s fine to have grand dreams and all, but right now the Green party is pretty insignificant.
JDC
You are exactly right. They do not have the numbers to demand cabinet positions. They need to quit letting the perfect stand in the way of the good (or less bad).
We’ll see if they really have the courage to deliver the election to Bush again. I hope Ralph releases his financials this time, so we can finally confirm he is delusional rather than corrupt.
Yes, and it’s soooooo very important to not ever, ever work to overcome your insignifigance, lest the powerful and their lapdogs be miffed and disturbed and decide to throw you two treats next time instead of their customary three or four.
Gevalt. Let’s talk about a circular argument: “Greens are insignifigant, and anything they do to try and aleiviate this is bad, bad, bad, ‘cuz we say their job is to stay insignifigant so we have someone to kick around when we feel bad about the DLC kicking US around !!! Bawwwwwww !!!”
Derek, you score minor points over Blank Space up there since you at least had enough stones to sign your name, but your attitude is still worse than no help at all. When you have some solutions for the Green-Dem divide that don’t consist of, “Shut up and get on your knees, Worms,” perhaps your thoughts will deserve serious attention. Until then, go away.
Oh, Damn it !!!
JDC, I’m sorry. I mistook Blank Space’s first lob for part of your post. Please accept my apologies. :(
Blank Space, you’re on your own.
Amy S.:
Deep breath, please. :)
I’m not saying that the Greens will always be politically “insignificant”. I’m saying let’s be realistic and patient about it. I think that it could be counterproductive if the Greens reach for something as ambitious as participation in the Federal Government, instead of focusing on something more reasonable, such as 5% of the popular vote in 2004.
Just as the Bush administration has blown its credibility with any sensible, thinking, informed person, the Greens blew their credibility with their repeated claims that thewre was essentially no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. That claim, the basis of their candidates’ runs last time out, has been shown to be idiocy of the highest order. They blew it big time, and unfortunately for any sensible Greens, the whole party looks like idiots because of it.
“The Greens are insignificant. So they need to stop throwing elections to the Republicans.”
There’s a logical error here that needs to be addressed before we (all of us, godammit) can move forward.
(snort.) You should thank your lucky stars for what the Greens said about the two parties, Quazy.
If your behavior and the behavior of your brethren is any indication, you clearly needed something to keep you from having to critique Greens’ actual positions on issues;To say nothing of your own party’s distinctly bad positions on many of them (ranging from tepid to downright destructive most of the time). How very nice for you that you got it. Unfortunately, your Buddha-like serenity on the issue has given me a headache that’s been going on now for three years, and I can’t afford a trip to Costco for the Deluxe Barrell O’Asprin. Maybe I can thumb a ride with Kip. :p
Blank Space, your argument makes no sense. Without 5% and the money that goes with it, the Greens’ part of the playing field will be that much more rocky. I think it would be folly for them to concentrate solely on either national or local campaigns. I also find your arguement because, more often than not, I see the same people who wielded the “Please-Don’t-Hurt-The-Dem-He-Means-Well-Cant’-You-Just-Wait-Please” argument at the Presidential level wielding it at the local level, too.
Sorry. Not buying. :( For you and yours, I’m convinced there will never be a “right” time nor a “right” place for a Green to run for dogcatcher, much less President. And I’m not immortal. I’m sick of waiting for a day that’s never going to arrive if we don’t get up off our ass and DO something. :(
Sheesh. I go away for a few hours and now I can’t tell what’s going on.
I think the problem with the cabinet positions is that neither the Dems nor the Greens would be happy with the arrangement. The Dems because they will perceive the Greens as not really offering anything other than a promise to not give the election to the Rethuglicans (rightly or wrongly; only talking about perceptions). The Greens won’t be happy because they won’t get positions commesurate with what they think they deserve and won’t have real policy authority. But this is a good place to start talking. (I still thnk the trade needs to be Green advertising $$$ for something. Maybe West Wing positions? It should have a real policy affect, be attributable to a Green-led partnership on the issue, and be verifiable before the midterm elections.)
I have my own issues with the Greens (just ask Amy S.) but rehashing the 2000 election isn’t worth our time. If the Greens (and the Democrats for that matter . . .) run the same campaign for 2004 they ran for 2000, they will deserve all the invective they will inevitably get. They won’t deserve to live under a second term Bush (who does?) but that’s what they’ll get. However, if the Greens find a way to advance their causes and issues that also helps elect a Democrat (all bets off if it’s Lieberman), more power to them. Literally.
I think the Greens biggest potential pitfall is running a campaign perceived as destructive to the Democratic candidate and having the Democratic candidate win the presidency anyway. The Democrats would destroy them. This would be disastrous for them and bad for the country.
Oh well. If nothing else the campaign season is going to be very entertaining.
“(snort.) You should thank your lucky stars for what the Greens said about the two parties, Quazy.”
It has nothing to do with what the Greens said about the two parties — in fact that seems not to have been especially heeded. Perhaps if they hadn’t been shown in the time since to have been laughably wrong, their comments might have had an effect — so perhaps if they had said something sensible about the relative positions of the Dems nd Repubs they could have had some good effect. But they didn’t — what they said has been shown, by the actions of the Republican party since the Nov elections, to be almost insanely wrong. There’s an enormous difference between the Dems and the GOP.
The Dems are not where I’d like them to be (I would prefer a party like the NDP in Canada, which is a non-starter in the States) but the gulf between the Dems and the GOP is so vast that the Greens’ credibility has indeed been blown.
Your first paragraph makes no logistical sense whatsoever, Qrazy. Make up your mind. Either the “same parties” alienated you and the alleged masses you allege to speak for or it doesn’t. Gevalt (rolleyes).
Qrazy, if you couldn’t then –and can’t now– pull your head out long enough to contrast the Green platform with the Democrat platform, it’s your own damn fault. You obviously would have found something else to reject about the Party if not for that, so why don’t you can your disingenuousness and just own up:Nothing any Progressive does other than returning to being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DLC, no questions asked and nothing demanded in the bargain, is all you have ever accepted and all you ever will accept.
I doubt that you’re fooling anyone with this nonsense, except perhaps yourself.
***”I think the Greens biggest potential pitfall is running a campaign perceived as destructive to the Democratic candidate and having the Democratic candidate win the presidency anyway. The Democrats would destroy them. This would be disastrous for them and bad for the country.”***
Ummm, JDC, what the fuck are you talking about ? Have you got a threat in writing from Lieberman’s hypothetical Mafia pals or what ? If so, Please forward me a copy ASAP. I want it in my pocket for when I flee to Australia in the wake of the forthcoming “purge.”
“Qrazy, if you couldn’t then –and can’t now– pull your head out long enough to contrast the Green platform with the Democrat platform, it’s your own damn fault.”
I wasn’t saying anything at all about the Green party platform, and the contrast between it and the platform of the Dems is irrelevant to what I said. I pointed out that the actions of the GOP since the last presidental election have shown that there is a massive difference between the GOP and the Dems, unlike the Greens’ claim, and that the fact that this difference is so apparent to any thinking person now has made a mockery of that Green party claim, and therefore has damaged their credibility immeasurably.
Qrazy, we get it: You claim the ability to analyze two parties yet claim their platforms are “irrelevant.” Ohhhhhhhhkay.
You’ll forgive a Democrat any mistake he makes, any exageration in a speech (no matter how much or how little truth might lie beneath it), and anything he does to win. You’ll forgive him everything. A Green, you’ll forgive nothing. Heard it, taped it, bored with it. Go away.
Like all bullies, you place the highest standards upon the least powerful in this equation and any other. You pretend to have weighed and measured when all along you knew perfectly well which side you’d planned to reject. You pick a pathetic and specious excuse and run with it as if it were an actual argument. Bully for you.
Frankly, when I look at the pitiful displays of cowardice we’ve been treated to by the Democrats since Bush ascended, I think the Democrats wouldn’t understand “credibility” if it bit them on the collective ass. If their recent record is what “credible,” not to mention “substantially different” is all about, you can keep it. Hey, why should they change ? They’ve got you in their pocket no matter what they do. What’s their motivation to be better and more humane when the scam they’ve got going now works so well for them ?
If your attitude is the sort that’s supposed to bring ex-Dems back to the fold in joyful droves just in time for 11/04, I feel sorry for us all.
This all sounds SO depressingly familiar. I suppose most of you are too young to remember the New Party of the early 1990s? And its interminable arguments with the Greens over fusion vs. spoiling, national vs. local, whether or not to sully ones hands in the money scramble, etc. Can’t we ever get off of this merry-go-round? There must be a better way. And I don’t think it’s a parliamentary system, either, at least not the way it is operating here in the UK, with New Labour having erased the difference between Conservative and Labour from the position of winners, while in the US, Democrats have merely eroded the difference between themselves and the Republicans from the position of losers.
“Qrazy, we get it: You claim the ability to analyze two parties yet claim their platforms are “irrelevant.” Ohhhhhhhhkay.”
The two parties I was analyzing were the Dems and the GOP, and I said that the platform of the Greens was irrelevant in that discussion. It is irrelevant, just as a discussion of the diffs between the Dems and any other party but the GOP would be irrelevant when you’re looking at the diffs between the Dems and the GOP. And it is now blindingly obvious that there are massive differences between the Dems and the GOP, despite the Greens’ claim in the last presidential election. I do indeed think this has damaged their credibility, esp. since it’s so obvious, and think perhaps they might do better not making that foolish claim, instead perhaps using that energy to point out what it is they themselves stand for.
Sorry, but I really can’t see saying this as “bullying”, and your attempt to suggest that I find all Dems blameless in all things seems odd in view of the fact that in these comments I pointed out that I would much prefer a party like Canada’s NDP, which is far more left-wing then the Dems.
So are you saying that four years ago, QQ, you found the Greens very credible?
See, it’s been my experience that most of the people who say “now that _______ has happened, the Greens have lost all credibility” are people who, truth be told, never considered the Greens credible in the first place.
That said, I agree with you – the “two parties are alike” campaign slogan is dumb (not unlike “compassionate conservatism”). In fact, the author of the email I quoted in this post thinks that slogan is dumb too – and said so in the final paragraph.
So I’m not quite sure why you think you’re disagreeing with the post. Or if that’s not what you think, why you keep bringing it up.
He’s bringing it up, Amp, because for some reason, it’s vitally important for him to keep slagging on the credibility of those whose primary “crime” was finding fault with a party that should have been called on the carpet for its betrayal of its constituents decades ago. He and others like him, despite their whinging at Greens for a failure to compromise, are not interested in compromise themselves (hence their brushing off of the article above in favor of more sneering over campaign rhetoric three years old and vague threats about the impending “destruction” of any Green who dares to get in the way of the campaign juggernaut). What they are interested in is bullying people who dare to have minds of their own into silent complicity. I’d like to think that no matter how many Nader voters retreat back to the Democrats in 2004, it will at least have something to do with a genuine pride in the record of whomever gets to run against Bush. Not out of some misplaced desire to humble themselves before the Democrats, out of misplaced guilt, or out of desperation to do something, anything, that will bring change right now. Gutmann is not calling for this approach at all. Qrazy is. I think I know whom I’d rather have in the conference room with me when “compromises” are hammered out.
In fact, I don’t think people like Qrazy even understand what compromise really means. Gutmann puts forth the perfectly reasonable idea that the Progressive part of the party is as deserving of something for their vote as any other group the Dems might court for same. The fact that the Party has in previous years frantically kissed the ass of every other subgroup in sight –from “angry White males,” to military fat cats in search of pork, to worshippers of the bogus patriarchal ideal of family, to corporate profiteers… the list is endless– doesn’t much seem to perturb Dems like Qrazy. They don’t seem to mind that the only group Dem leaders exempt from any considerations for its desires are Progressives. A pat on the head and few dusty platitudes should be enough for us, or we’re just nasty “spoilers.” WTF ?
Despite his insistence to the contrary, I notice Qrazy and his ilk spending very little time on what the Democrats have done, usually for the most ignoble of motives, to undermine their own credibility for the last few years. Not to mention for the last few decades. And the constant insistence that they can’t reach out to Greens or other Progressives because it’s just so icky to court a bunch of icky activists and scare away middle America is nothing but intellectual laziness of the worst kind.
Hello, Dems ?
Anyone home ?
Just because Reagan isn’t dead yet doesn’t mean you have to continue letting his heirs and followers frame and define every damn aspect of our political, social, and moral life. You can start trying any time you want to make these things what they should be. You can explain to the public why the Right-Wing model is wrong for the country and hasn’t worked as well as it sometimes has appeared to on paper. You can accept the fact that only winning an election is not enough. You can roll up your sleeves and make your party’s platform into something genuinely humane, creative and proactive, something that does more than merely respond to whatever your opponents want to put on the table in this rigged game. You can accept that we didn’t land in this mess overnight, and we’re not going to get out of it overnight, either. Surrendering to the supposed “conservative tide,” which is more like an “apathy tide” considering how few Americans vote, just make you look like people who shouldn’t have chosen politics in the first place. No political belief system is a force of nature to which you must surrender, head bowed and eyes closed, until it somehow blows over. No politcian worth his or her salt would settle for quietly picking through the ruins left by this force that’s not nature, finding a usable piece of debris here and there and then expecting the rest of us to kiss his or her feet in gratitude.
That’s all.
I intended to “bring it up” just once, as is usually the case with a comment, but found I was repeatedly said to have said things I didn’t say. I repeated it to point out that that statement, and not the many statements which were read into it, or attributed to me, was what I said. It seems not to have been of any use though, as I’m still being told I said quite a few things I didn’t.
Oh, the irony. You can sweep my points off the table because you claim I attribute views to you that you never voiced. While you already long ago wrote off the entire Green party because, while I and others *did not all personally* say that the Big Two were exactly the same, you are allowed to carry on as if we HAD said it.
Oh, poor, poor, Q. Welcome to our world. :p Cheese with your whine ?
Umn… QQ, I just wanted to reiterate that I like having you comment on my blog. This particular thread has gotten very harsh, but I don’t want you to feel that I don’t welcome you posting here – I very much enjoy your comments.
On the 2000 election, I agree with QrazyCat. I happily voted Nader/LaDuke, but towards the homestretch I was wincing at that rhetoric, and I still wince whenever Dems go ballistic on it. It’s a crude oversimplification, and it’s just not credible.
And that’s one reason I would have reservations about voting for Nader again. I’d rather vote for a progressive with something positive to say than somebody I perceive to be using the Green Party primarily to stick it to the Dems. I have a history of voting for “longshots,” Jesse Jackson, Mary Cal Hollis, so obviously I’m not describing a winning election strategy. But if I’m going to cast a compromise vote, I’d rather cast it for somebody who’d make better use of it than Nader.
From my very selfish vantage point, I’d rather the Greens avoided the Dems and put up their own best candidates–and pull them in the unlikely event the Dems nominate Kucinich or Kerry e.g. swings left and runs against Bush as a liberal. Right now the Democratic leadership is a pit of vipers. Why enter into that?
Last point, I don’t think it’s the worst thing for the Greens if they run a progressive candidate while the Dems run an Al From type platform that somehow wins. The issue shouldn’t be whether the DLC has a winning election strategy, so the Green’s wouldn’t lose any credibility on that front. Far worse would be to take sides in an internecine conflict that leads to a betrayal of progressive voters. Is Donna Brazile a Green? Then let her take responsibility for betraying liberals and progressives in the Democratic party. That’s what she’s paid for.
The Greens’ time would be much better served by trying to pass a referendum promoting some form of multimember districting/single transferrable vote/party list system than it would be by running candidates for national office, anyway… until that happens, at most, there’ll be one or two greens in congress, and Cabinet offices are a pipe dream. If that were to happen, however, then the Greens would be a viable third party, something that will otherwise only happen if the Dems falter to the point of collapse (and then, they’re not a third party)
Also, there’s one thing about this post that I don’t understand…
I thought that a central point that the Greens always made was that they DIDN’T cost Gore the election…
Of course, if people voted in the damn primary, Bradley would have beaten Bush into the ground
Valatan, since even the Dems can’t seem to keep their stories straight on who “cost” whom whatever (see Kip’s post above), why should you expect the Greens to keep it straight ? :p
As for Bradley, he was a Marine Blue Dodge Dart to Gore’s Cerrulian Blue Dodge Dart. Big deal.
Valatin, not all Greens agree on everything. The author of the email apparently thinks that the Greens (among other factors) did cause Gore to lose the campaign (even though he won the election). Others disagree.
Personally, I think the Greens did cost Gore the campaign.
I didn’t much care three years ago whether it was provable that the Greens were the deciding factor (or even the primary aggravating factor) in Gore’s loss. I don’t much care now, either. There are more important issues at hand, and at least Gutmann is attempting to discuss them. I don’t know whether I approve of his strategy wholeheartedly, but at least he’s trying.
I’m a liberal (yes, I said ‘liberal’) Democrat who supports Dean for Pres in 2004. My main drive in politics right now is getting Dean in (check him out at http://www.deanforamerica.com) and getting these Republicans out. If the Greens sit down, give it some thought, and really think that you have a good shot at ousting the Republicans, go, baby, go. But you better make damned sure you can do it, because I am NOT having another four years of Bush, I’ll tell you that for free. And the Greens are not going to win the presidency. Sometimes I wish they could. But now, for right now, they can’t. If you realize you can’t get Bush out on your own, please help us do it.
You honestly have a better chance of changing the system from within than from without, and the Republicans won’t give you a crack in the window to look through, much less a foot in the door. If the Greens stand behind the Democrat, they have a very good chance of having their agenda taken more seriously. Many Democrats share many Green viewpoints. In the Dean camp, campaign supporters have suggested Green appointees for Cabinet positions. You think these Republicans will give you that? They even think some of their own party members are too liberal, not to speak of Democrats. Imagine what they will do to you.
I’m not one of the Dems that hates Nader or blames him for the 2000 Gore loss. Honestly, the truth is if there had been no Florida/Supreme Court debacle, Gore would have won easily and none of us would be bitching about Nader. I think we just complain about Nader because we really don’t like to think about the idea that so many of our government officials were so biased and lacking in integrity that they brought the Florida situation about. I hereby apologize for some of my more bitter fellow Dems.
At any rate, please stop trash-talking Dems simply because we’re not you. We’re gonna disagree on some stuff, and that’s fine because we live in a country whose basic principles (are supposed to) support dissent and disagreement. But don’t let this stand in the way of getting rid of Bush, which, let’s face it, is good for all of us. Please consider supporting Dean, and voting Democratic in the next election. Thanks for reading. :-)
Ah, yes, only Green’s “trash-talk.” Ho hum. And, gee, thanks for the little lesson about how Reps feel about me. I would never have guessed without you here to enlighten me.
I frankly haven’t decided yet how seriously I take Gutmann’s idea. A lot depends on who the Dems nominate, who the Greens nominate, and how the former deals with the latter.
BTW, Pacifica just did a report yesterday about the Help America Vote Act, which appears to be essentially a scam for the Reps to pull on a national level what they’ve already pulled in Florida and Alabama. Frankly, if the Democratic leadership rolls over for this farce, they are too stupid and cowardly to understand how badly this automated-voting shit is going to undermine every one of their future candidates from President on down. In that case, I’d say they deserve extinction and the sooner the better. :(
Here’s my only issue with the Green Party: During the third party debates (green vs. libertarian), Cobb was asked if he was concerned about whether raising the minimum wage would discourage people from becoming trained for jobs that were more highly paid in an unfettered economy. Cobb ranted about the no one’s work should be demeaned, even the poorly paid. Okay, fine. But the fact remains that “economy” is not entirely some abstract concept imposed by conservatives. Actual salary does correspond to some extent with desert. I wish Cobb had responded that, indeed, he was concerned about the disincentive to train created by artificial raising low wages; however, human dignity required that society accept the reduced efficiency created by a minimum wage. Nonetheless, since I don’t live in swing state, Cobb has my vote. Now to by a Green Party t-shirt….
“Personally, I think the Greens did cost Gore the campaign”
Wow Amp, you’re usually more perceptive and fact-driven in your assertions than this.
As the documentary Unprecendented http://www.unprecedented.org and several meticulously researched books have demonstrated, Florida’s voting system were so systemically and purposefully manipulated that blaming Ralph Nader and the Green Party rings quite weak.
I understand if you’d rather the focus right here be on this proposal and not going here, but I just wanted to say how genuinely surprised I was to read that comment.
I know that Michael Moore and Ralph Nader have fallen out, but I’ll always be grateful to Moore for the first 10-15 minutes of Farenheit 911, which demonstrated beautifully that no 3rd Party candidate could be a more effective enemy of the Democrats than the Democrats are to themselves.
At this late date, I doubt I’ll be voting for Kerry. I’ll be deciding between the Nader/Camejo ticket and the Cobb/LaMarche ticket. Now watch Jake come in here and cry in my beer (actually, it’s diet soda, I’m at work) :p . I think it’s safe to say that no one with the power to do anything about the Democrats’ platform bothered to heed Gutmann’s ideas. You only have to look at the DNC to see that this is the case. If every other one-time Nader voter wants to reward the Democrats for reaching yet another low in bad behavior towards their supposed base, go for it. I know that all we have are shitty choices. Do what you like. But I won’t do it.
Pingback: Hellblazer
Pingback: CalPundit