The Green Party, your thoughts.

[coloradodem2005]

Many are angry at Ralph Nader because, whether he intended to or not, he practically handed Bush the 2000 election. I even think that he did it too. In many ways he has been a hero to consumers, but definitely has the baggage against the Democrats. While one of my best friends, who shares my loathing of the current administration, considers himself a Green, and voted for Nader, I remember having had a conversation with him a year ago, where I stated that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, and he disagreed. So, I would like to see what some of your thoughts on the Green Party and other third parties. And in particular what do you think of Nader?

[UrbScotty]

1. Well...

:mad: :puke: :crazy: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :nopity: :spank:

[leftyandproud]

35. Awesome party..

I think the ultimate goal is for them to pull the dems back to the left...back to their BASE. If this means getting a few bloody noses, so be it. The dems need to stand on principle, and understand if they make endless compromises with Dubya and end up being GOP-lite, their power will be gone.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I respect Ralph Nader's accomplishments in the past and disagree

with his strategy. I would much rather have seen him launch a movement from within the Dem party since the infrastructure was already there.

If one goes to this site:

http://www.goodgovernment.org/swingstate/stats/index.htm

and looks at the numbers, it becomes apparent that with the Green party preseidential runs, the momentum liberals COULD have is divided. While I realize there are many that will challenge that on this board, they KNOW that ideologically we are closer on policy than we are apart.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Some policies

Dems and Greens are very close on. Others not so much.

I'd just as soon see Dems, socialists, progressive independents, labor, etc all working together in Congress. The progressive caucus could house a lot of people from various parties who could do a lot of good together for this country.

[Cleita]

24. I think Nader is a trojan horse. He really is a Republican

but not a PNAC Republican. I like what the Green Party stands for but they could use some good leadership and lessons in political strategy. They could, if they played their cards right, replace the Democratic Party as the liberal left wing party.

Nader used typical Republican talking points when he told the Greens there were no differences in the parties. I have heard this since I was in college, everytime I argued left wing points with a right winger. When there were no more points left for the right winger to defend, they would fall back on this canard, "There is no difference between the parties. They are all bought by special interests."

Well, this may be true to a point, but one can only see the differences in practice depending on whom is in office and what party they represent to know they really are different from one another.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. I don't want to replace the Dems, personally

Would rather see us working together in a loose coalition.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. There was a Green Party memo posted a couple weeks ago

and signed by Medea Benjamin and others evaluating their strategy and options as well as their perceived image in the past and upcoming election. I was pleased to see that they do care about that image and would not want to squander the good will that some feel towards them. In fact, it is too bad the Dems have not re-evaluated their perceived image in quite as frank a manner.

I do believe that Greens could be a powerful momentum teamed up with Dems and that they would be able to weild great power with their independence from party politics. Look at Jeffords and Saunders. The party needs to take them into account in order to keep their vote available for caucus.

[Cleita]

41. Good, I hope they get their priorties straight.

Than can be a good force for change if they can be channeled in the right direction.

[Terwilliger]

52. Like the Democrats?

OOPS! Too bad they're giving Bush all these victories.

[Cleita]

54. Damn it, we know what some of the Dems

are doing and we intend on getting them out of office. Now admit that you guys made a mistake with Nader and move on. This isn't about politics anymore, it is about the survival of our democracy.

[Terwilliger]

60. Democracy survives when people freely choose candidates for public office

not any other way

Once again, if George Bush was such a threat to Democracy, why did the Democratic party not do ANYTHING when Bush and his cronies stole the 2000 election?

I'd like you to ask a national Democrat (even one you like) if they think we're heading toward fascism. I'd like to see what they say.

[Terwilliger]

34. Funny, the Dem candidates are talking about Republican-lite this year

beyond that...what's a typical Republican talking point? You mean Republicans are going around saying that there's little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties?

[Cleita]

40. Exactly, and I have heard this for decades.

For instance, here is a shortened conversation I had with a Republican acquaintance before the 1992 elections.

Me: "I see you want to re-elect Bush.(I was looking at his bumper sticker.) Haven't we had enough incompetent Republicans in the White House. It's time to get a Democratic President in to straighten the mess out."

Him: "Demcrats are only tax and spend."

Me: "So we have a national crushing national debt, double digit inflation and 'read my lips, no more taxes' Bush raising taxes after all, so whose tax and spend?"

More back and forth between me and Republican acquaintance before he ends the conversation.

Him: "It doesn't matter, both parties are the same bunch of crooks but I don't want that much government in my life so I'm voting for Bush even though I don't like him."(Now the truth comes out why he voted for Bush.)

However, I have heard this same argument since I was in college and that was back in the late fifties. So when Ralph Nader used it, I certainly listened and went aha. I have posted Nader's actions before as an employer and his treatment of his employees that are, well, very Republican. Remember actions as speaking more truth than words.

In case you missed it the first time, here is the link: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[Terwilliger]

50. More important links

http://www.realchange.org/clinton.htm

http://www.realchange.org/kerry.htm

http://www.realchange.org/edwards.htm

http://www.realchange.org/sharpton.htm

http://www.realchange.org/gephardt.htm

http://www.realchange.org/moseley.htm

http://www.realchange.org/kucinich.htm

http://www.realchange.org/clark.htm

http://www.realchange.org/dean.htm

Noam Chomsky also says that there is very little difference between the two parties at the national level. I'm sure he's a Repuke plant also.

[Cleita]

56. That website is an equal opportunity exposer of

all the candidates. Now I knew that and I can still sort them out objectively, so you need to do that with your painted saint idol too. Incidentally, I have read some very critical posts on DU that you have made about Nader so why do you feel you have to defend him now?

[Terwilliger]

58. Well, you point to realchange as if its the end-all/be-all of Nader

so that must apply to their evaluations of all the Dems. I think it's easy enough to say that all people who are involved in national politics have skeletons, but you seem to view it as if it's only applicable to Nader.

The other thing about me saying negative things about Nader? Well if I said negative things about him yet voted for him and probably would again, what does that say about what I think about the Democrats?

[Cleita]

57. Links please.

Where and when did Chomsky say this? To be honest I think there is a fix in Congress with the Democrats who have crossed the aisle in the last two bills they passed, the energy bill and the medicare bill and we need to get rid of them, but that doesn't mean the parties are alike. What it means is that we have Trojan Horses too that need to be weeded out.

[Terwilliger]

59. Chomsky said that on Book Notes

Here's something that backs up the idea:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ProjectCensored25_Chomsky.html

Among the crucial issues sidelined was the fact that most of the population felt that no election took place in any serious sense, at least as far as their interests were concerned.

You say there are bad Democrats...even that they're trojan horses in the party with the specific intent of helping Republicans, yet Nader can't say something similar to what you said?

[randr]

43. I remember a different Nader

He made his name doing battle against GM and the reputed "dangerous Corvair".
The Corvair was the first car manufactured in America with the intent to compete with the increasingly popular VW bug. Granted it had serious design flaws.
While Ralph and friends spent years and countless resorces painting the Corvair as the most dangerous car ever, the Ford Motor Co was produceing the Falcon and early model Mustangs.
It was later discovered that during this period (1960's into the early 70's) the Ford products killed far more people than the Corvair.
The final outcome of Ralph's crusade was the elimination of a fuel efficient American car and the ultimate proliferation of the muscle car mentality.
As much as I love to hear him vent, he is still myopic.

[kentuck]

3. Only if Zell Miller runs...otherwise, forget it!

It's irrelevant.

[bryant69]

4. Nader has a good history

but he propolgatges a deciet. I don't want to call it a lie, as he may believe it, but it is a false statement for sure. That statement is that there is little to no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I bought that in 2000 and it's become painfully obvious that there are big differences between the too.

Until he admits that the Democrats are different from the Republicans, well, there's not much point in expecting him to work with us.

I suspect that unless we put up Kucinich or (maybe) Dean, he'll go back to this mantra during this election cycle as well.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[onebigbadwulf]

5. I don't understand why they

have such a hard time figuring out coalition forming.

Greens + Dems >> Repugs + Libertarians

They have so much power and refuse to use it because they refuse to compromise.

[coloradodem2005]

8. Libertarians...

As far as Libertarians go, I don't think that there is much love lost between them and the current administration. Most of the ones I know hate Bush or at least Ashcroft, so I doubt there is much of a coalition between the two. Although, Bush's stance on Gun control is mitigating, I doubt that they will go for Bush because of all the other liberties that are threatened.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. I like Ralph

Obviously to say that he single-handedly caused the election to go to Bush is wrong. A lot of other factors also contributed and ought to be addressed. Personally, I think Ralph would make a great Sec'y of Commerce for Kucinich should he get elected.

As far as third parties, I am not a fan of the two party system. Never have been and never will be. So I look forward to some serious election reform in this country as noted on my website.

~Jen

P.S. Go, Dennis, go!

[JailBush]

7. I voted for Nader, but...

I was disgusted with Ralph Nader's education platform. It sounded like a typical Democrat's platform - "Let's solve all the problems in education by just giving more money to corrupt school officials without accountability!"

But I figured Nader was a better candidate on all other issues, so I voted for him. I continued to defend him against Democrats' stupid attacks. (Who CARES if he lives in a nice house???) However, I kept an open mind and kept searching for information that might incriminate him.

I finally discovered evidence that convinced me Nader is corrupt; not surprisingly, it linked him to the "Education Mafia." I already knew that the Green Party of Seattle was corrupt.

But that doesn't mean Democrats were right. They offered all the wrong reasons for not voting for Nader, and no one that I know of offered any credible evidence that he was corrupt.

The ultimate answer to the Gore-Nader debate is to look at the bigger picture, which ought to include a far greater emphasis on local campaigns. Once again the Democrats are falling flat on their face.

Two or three corrupt Green Party members recently got elected in Seattle, including Brita Butler-Wall and Sally Soriano. They're essentially Republican operatives, but so are King County Democrats.

I believe in third parties and would like to support Greens or Libertarians, but local Libertarians are generally just as stupid and bizarre as Greens. It's apparent to me that corporations have infiltrated all political parties in Seattle and probably throughout Washington State.

[ragwaggostalin]

14. Dems and Repugs

I know alot of these guys will hate this analysis but it has to be said. Today's Repubes are the Dems of the 1960'S and our Dem party has turned Green.If Nadar were a man (OR WHATEVER HE IS) he would lose his ultra socialist ideals to help advance the agenda as a whole. Joining in with the Dems to help defeat those America loving Repubes can only help strenghten is overall agenda of a Capitalist society in ruin and the heart of socialism in charge with the Government as our "GOD"

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. That's inside out

Today's DNC is the Rockefeller/Goldwater repub of yore. The GOP are just this side of Nazis. (I do not include the saner of them, though, like McCain and Snowe. They aren't as screwy as Santorum, Lott, or Delay, let alone Rummy, Dummy, Cheney, or Ashcroft.)

As a Green, I admire the truly Socialist nations, esp the Nordic ones. However, I would like to see the USA become a bit more like Canada as far as how it governs. A good blend of capitalism and socialism.

[proud patriot]

9. I'm a former Green party member

I was nver a Big G green but a little g.
That is I used strategy with my vote .

I re- registered Dem to vote in the primaries for 2004.

I voted for Nader in 96 , but for Gore in 2000
I did not vote for Feinstein I voted for Medea
Benjiman in 2000 .

My feelings about Nader at this point well
I don't hold the man any hard feelings over
2000 or those who vote their concience ,
However I'd be terribly Dissappointed if he
ran on the green ticket in 2004 or anyone
else for that matter .

My hopes for the green party are to lobby
to be included in debates and for run off
voting , run for office but to be more
focussed on small local elections .

[wryter2000]

11. I sympathize with their goals

And I understood that people felt they had to vote for Nader. But this time around, the election is too important to vote for anyone but the Dem. (It was last time, too, but we didn't know how important.)

[Paragon]

12. Bullshit.

I live in Ohio, and I voted for Nader. I did NOT vote for Bush, and never would - and resent the clouded thinking that suggests otherwise.

Would I have done so if I were a Floridian? No. That doesn't make me a hypocrite - it makes me a smart voter, and here's why:

Canada has FIVE political parties, all of which are funded by the government and allowed to debate. If my Nader vote in Ohio allowed the Green Party to qualify for federal funding and open the debates...well, that's just the democratic process, ain't it? I'd like to see someone here argue against that.

If the Democratic Party, with all its power and influence, cannot bludgeon such a small insurgency (and even sadder, blame it for its loss in the election), then it deserves what it gets. There is a "new democrat" movement in America, but it ain't with the DLC...which, with the Dean movement, has them shaking in their centrist/right-leaning shoes.

Nader IS a hero, one of a few honorable men in the political arena. Blaming him or the Greens for the erosion of the Democratic Party is ignorant and naive.

[John_H]

13. I want Nader to run

since I agree with the prevailing belief among many in the Green party leadership: that a run by ralph nader would be a disater for the green party.

So, my position is indistinguishable from the vocal nader supporters here at DU. We both would love it if Ralph runs.

Run, Ralph, Run!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do hope the greens win the SF mayor race, though since a rethug pretending he's a dem is way worse than any green.

[ragwaggostalin]

15. NADAR RUNNING

Bush will still win if everything remains much the same

[Terwilliger]

17. I actually don't want Nader to run

maybe the stupid Dempocrats could actually figure out that they're losing on account of their own inadequacies, and not have the convenient excuse of Nader or the Greens to focus their petty bullshit

[camero]

16. Do a google

and look at thier platform. It's very progressive. The way the Dems have been going right the last 30 years, The Greens can look mighty enticing to some people.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I signed up with them

after being an Independent for a few years because a) they were outside of the two party system, b) their platform was very similar to my thoughs on many issues, c) and because they support election reform.

They aren't for everyone, of course, but they work for me.

[camero]

23. Living in this country nowadays

Sometimes feels like being on a monopoly board where you can only go to Boardwalk or Park Place. We need 3rd parties.

[Eroshan]

19. If Nader is smart

he will run. He can build a support base and use it to leverage platform reforms from the Dems. If the Dem. nominee wants to gain the green votes he must sit down with Nader and come to some agreement. At some point Nader could drop out of the race or tell his constituents to vote Dem. This way his party gets the recognition they deserve and we kick Bushes ass into Crawdad, TX.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. No.....

That will piss off more Dems than they win over. They don't want to have their arm twisted.

I _think_ Nader means it that he will stay out if Dennis or possibly Howard win, unless Howard suddenly slides too far to the right to capture the moderate vote.

[Terwilliger]

26. If Dean wins, I bet, either, Ralph will run or another Green...

Not Kucinich.

More interestingly, I think your objection to Green arm-twisting is funny. Little Ralph and the Greens can't twist a leftist arm a little bit further to the left without those same "leftists" getting upset? puh-LEEZ!

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Actually

I hear the arm twisting argument all the time. "Why the *&^*$&%@ should WE work with the Greens. They are small and nobody, They should come to us!' blah blah blah

To which I say, "Way to win the hearts and minds of the Greens".

I am sick of the left wing fighting all the time. No wonder the GOP is running this country. We can't be friends long enough to get them out of power.
:^(

[Terwilliger]

32. you'd think we could

I mean, I'll bet Greens are more sympathetic to Democrats than the reverse. The Democrats simply can't stand the idea that people need to think outside their box, and are so dissatisfied with the party and its direction that they feel compelled to throw their electoral vote elsewhere.

To regain their votes, the Democrats better figure out what they believe in.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. I frequently

vote for Dems. They are my default choice after Greens, with a few exceptions. (Like say Dennis K. vs a really fruitcake Green. That sort of thing.)

[the_real_38]

20. I think the Green Party is good...

... as long as it acts as a compliment to the Left (Democrats). I think Green goals are especially attractive at the local levels. I voted for Nader here (South Carolina) because I knew Gore had no chance. But looking back, Nader's campaign set us back, and he shouldn't run again.

On the other hand, we do need a reliable voice on the left to keep the Corporate DLC fake Democrats honest. I just think there has to be a way to synthesize these energies.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. There is

Changing the way we elect our officials can go a long way to making a coalition out of left-wing parties. If we no longer have to worry about spoiler issues, we may find we get along better.

[RealityDose]

25. Yes Nader cost Gore the election

Gore lost Florida by 700 votes. Nader has 100,000 votes. Even if you assume with Nader gone, that 90% of those people would not have voted and only 55% of those remaing 10% would have voted for Gore he would have won. The same thing happened in several other states too!!!!!!

[RealityDose]

27. Wording correction

Nader had 100,00 votes in Florida

[Terwilliger]

31. Few agree with that perception

Here's the DLC bigwig Al From The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data.


And another analysis that rejects your assertions:

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Who really spoiled the election?

The Supreme Court Spoiled:
Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.

Al Gore Spoiled:
Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.

Democratic Senators Spoiled:
When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.

The Democratic Party Spoiled:
For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?



Nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of political parties. Democracy means free participation, in the party of your choice.

Greens will continue to affect election outcomes - and sometimes win. But Greens have no power to steal votes from Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone’s vote except for his or her own.

According to exit polls, Nader’s support came from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and many others. Many would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, and some voters might not have voted at all.


Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000.

Vote your conscience and your hopes, not your fears!
Democracy means joining the party of your choice, and voting for candidates who best represent your interests and ideals.

Support Fair Elections!

Support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)!
IRV allows voters to rank their first, second, and third choices on the ballot. IRV ensures that whoever wins the election has the support of a majority of voters. Many cities and towns have adopted IRV because it allows voters a real choice. Read more about IRV, Proportional Representation, and other democratic ways to reform our spoiled two-party, winner-take-all system, which bars people from representation and participation, at FairVote.org.

Support public financing of election campaigns!
‘Clean Election’ campaign laws in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona help candidates who don’t take contributions from corporate lobbies.

Support free air time and inclusion in public debates for all candidates!
Voters have the right to know about all candidates whose names will appear on the ballot. Democracy means the power to make informed choices.

Repeal unfair election laws!
In many states, Democrats and Republicans have blocked other parties and candidates by passing antidemocratic ballot access laws. Some states have rules to disqualify voters whose votes they don’t want counted -- as we saw in Florida in 2000.

[Terwilliger]

38. Thank you for this

Vote your conscience and your hopes, not your fears!

Similar to, "Vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone else"

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. Exactly!

We gotta keep working on election reform.

[pezcore64]

42. personally..

I think that the demos and greens really need to work together more often and play nice with each other. Lets face it. most of the green party is people who prolly used to be democrats but at some point felt seperated from the clinton era moderate democrats.

I think if wed have each others backs on things we could take this country back easily.

Neither of us want bush in office, we can all agree to that atleast correct?

Who do you thinks going to be more open to green party ideas? definitely not the repubs!

I wish our country wasnt just a two party system just like any green party member does ...but im also realistic about it...
for a third party to succeed they are going to hafta continue grassrooting and running for smaller local elections until they build a strong enuff following to take it on a national scale. if you dont do this you are only going to help the party that both dems and greens dislike.

I dont blame nader for gores loss, cause he didnt loose. Heck, I voted for nader. Seemed like an intelligent guy who was full of ideas i agreed with and I was also sick of the system so I pushed the little button by his name. *shrugs*.

Regardless of how I REALLY feel about whatever democratic canidate wins the nomination, Im going to vote for them. I dont care what democrat it is. The simply fact remains, atleast the democratic party is open to people on the lefts ideas even if they are moderate or centrist in nature.

[tedzbear]

44. For now on I vote Green and the hell with it!

I made the decision to vote for who I feel BEST REPRESENTS by political beliefs. Since the Democratic party has abdicated that position, I have no choice but to vote Green.

:kick:



edit: bad spelling

[Oracle]

45. GREENS...the best party going..fucking hands down!!!.

Fuck the spineless democrats, they can't win and if I'm going to support a party that can't win...I'll won't support one that's doesn't owe everything to big corporations for most of it's donations, has absolutely no power in this country and does exactlly as the republican fascist tell them to, which of course is what the "new" democratic party (DLC) has become...the republicans decide which democrats will be in office, (to make it look fair) and the democrats have many republicans in office right at this moment, that win as democrats and vote republican...the republican pigs have it down, dude!!!

So we should all support the Greens at least they haven't had centuries to develop the corruption the democrats now have. And with the Greens stand on freedom of speech, the environment, civil rights and women's, and minority rights...they are what the old democratic party used to be.

I've always vote democrat, and I'm tired of losing to the facist...Bill Clinton? What do most people who are aware, with Intelligence, political knowledge say about President Clinton, “the best republican president we ever had in this country” even the republicans admit Clinton passed most of their agenda, (Nafta, welfare reform, etc..) Clinton, one of the "new" (republican) democrats!

[tedzbear]

47. I agree with you totally.

The Democratic candidates run as Democrats but vote Republican.

:puke:

[Oracle]

53. Watch it...anymore truth and they are going to lock this thread.

[1a2b3c]

55. Might also mention

That the dems started as a racist southern party with the plantation and slavery owners in mind.

[tedzbear]

46. What animal has the Green party picked for its symbol?

The Repugs are an elephant and the Democrats a donkey. So? Let's see, how about a frog? They're usually green.

:bounce:

[Terwilliger]

49. How about...we leave that to the Dems and Reps

[tinanator]

61. frogs are good

being as they are an indicator species of some of our most serious environmental problems. And Kermit was just so f'in cool.

[1a2b3c]

48. Nader is great

Stands up for what he believes. The real question should be: "A two party country, what are your thoughts". I myself think a 2 party system is corrupt. Does anyone really think that the democratic party is that much different than a republican party? They both go to the highest corporate bidder.

[durutti]

51. Mixed Feelings

I have considerable ideological disagreements with the Greens. That said, I'm happy to see anyone challenge the "two party system".

As for Ralph Nader: I respect his accomplishments. However, he is a HUGE hypocrite.

[LastTime2BeFree]

62. Nader - way too far left

I will never sell in the US.

[Iverson]

63. Green Party, not Nader, is the essential thing

It is bizarre that so many people refuse to understand the Green Party except in terms of one person who is not even a member.

The Green Party has been made a necessary feature of the US political landscape by the rightward shift of the Dems, mostly courtesy of the DLC. It is refreshingly anti-corporatist but not as rigidly sectarian as most third parties on the left. It comes closest to what I'd like to see.

Given the bottom-up organization, I have already had some success in getting my voice heard at the state level that years of affiliation with the Democratic Party did not.

I think that any question that seriously engages the effect and meaning of the Green Party will go beyond the 2000 Presidential candidate. That is a necessary element of analysis, but quite incomplete.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. I bet there wouldn't even be a Green Party in the U.S.

if the Democrats had been doing their job (being united in opposing the Republicans consistently and offering clear alternatives that benefit average people) over the past 20 years.

[jiacinto]

65. I have the same views of them as I have had before

They helped Bush at crucial parts and are partially responsible for his being elected President. And Nader all but said he wanted Bush to win. Their viewpoints/strategies/opinions are not in doubt.