Green Party rules out supporting a Democrat in '04

[CMT]

The Green Party held a strategy conference over the weekend and had delegates split into three groups: Those who want to run an agressive presidential campaign; Those who want to run a presidential campaign but concentrate on states which will not hurt democrats electorally; and Those who want the party to support the Democratic nominee. Most people wanted the group to run an agressive campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20410-2003Jul20.html

[Cha]

1. Yeah ...don't do anything to actively work with a Dem and oust

the worst squatter in History out of the White House. That would be too logical and too much hard work.

[JOE_HILL]

25. We have been working with a Democrat...But Democrats won't work with a Dem

The only Democrat running who continually displays Democratic Principles via his voting record and positions is Dennis Kucinich.

Greens have worked for Kucinich more than Democrats have.

You can not blame Greens because Clintonites would rather support republican-lite than a real Democrat.

You Republocrats obviously haven't learned your lesson yet.....

Ralph Nader has delayed and delayed hoping Democrats would start backing Kucinich ( then Ralph wouldn't even run )

but you lovely DLC republocrats are too busy chasing corporate cash to remember what Democrats used to stand for

...and you're blaming Greens. Beyond silly.

KUCINICH 2004

[Ediacara]

27. Kucinich

Kucinich, up until earlier this year was anti-choice. The only party I know of that's anti-choice is the Republicans. I think I can start calling DK Republican-lite.

And BTW, Republocrats is cute, but I think that Republogreens is much more fitting. No matter how you vote, if you vote against Democrats, you get Republicans elected.

[JOE_HILL]

34. Is it already time for the republocrats to start blaming the Greens

Dennis Kucinich was wrong on the abortion issue. His voting record the past year + indicates the change for the better.

Kucinich is still wrong today on flag burning and cloning

Howard Dean is wrong on issues that are more substantial....

1, the environment
2. death penalty
3. NAFTA
4. Gun Control
5. Toxic Waste Dumps
6. Social Security
7. Welfare Deform
8. Civil liberties
9. medical marijuana
10.Israel
to name a few

The propaganda you vomited up about a Green supporter being a Bush supporter is simply more republocrat empty rhetoric designed to cover up the fact that YOU AND YOURS are the reason the Democratic Party sucks today...because of you republocrats and your love of hollow victories that get us 8 years in the White House at the cost of EVERYTHING DEMOCRATS USED TO STAND FOR.

You are against free thinking and the sharing of information...prefering empty headed cheerleading and turning the opposition into monsters to justify your lesser-monsters.....if you were honest you'd quit ruining the Democratic Party and go join your brothers in willful ignorance...the Republicans

[Ediacara]

37. Empty headed cheerleading?

You're the one resorting to name-calling to cheerlead for your favorite. Hey buddy, if you want people to listen to what you have to say, try not to call them Republocrats, you'll get a better reception.

[msanger]

2. greens for congress

why don't we support greens running in un-contested republican districts and not running a presidental candidate.

I'm sure with moveon.org support and the tumbling republican party they could pick up a seat or two while helping the Dems take back the white house.

Or is that too close to actually having some success?

[goobergunch]

19. I'd support that (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Running for president as a Green = egomania

n/t

[killbotfactory]

3. Welcome to irrelevancy

Population: Green Party

[DrGonzoLives]

4. Normally, I'm sympathetic to the Greens

But, in this case, I'm disappointed. Their message was sent loud and clear in 2004 about disillusionment with the Democrats; are they really ready to risk another four years of Bush? Bush in a term where he does not have to worry about re-election?

Besides, I would think Kucinich would be acceptable to most Greens, why not these people?

[GreenArrow]

8. Given what most of the Democratic candidates

are offering up, it would seem to me that the disillusionment felt by Green voters in 2000, has not been dispelled, but rather, has intensified. Yet George W Bush is clearly the worst president this country has ever had. The question is whether or not that will result in Greens swallowing their disgust at a system that no longer serves the people, or work to elect someone who, simply put, is not GWB.

But supposing a Democrat gets in, what is going to change? We will still be in Iraq. We will still be in Afghanistan. God knows where else we will be. The Democratic candidates largely agree that we should be in those places. We will still have a widening disparity between rich and poor, we will still have a weakened economy, gutted social programs, an increasingly monopolized media, and so on. We will stil have Homeland Security, TIA, and the Patriot Act. And so on.

What most Greens understand is that the Republican/Democratic duality is a false one, and that the real issue lays in the struggle between corporate interests and the majority of the world that is just trying to live their lives as best they can while more and more impediments are put in their way every day. So maybe Greens will vote Democratic to put the brakes on, and slow things down, but the train won't stop rolling.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Well, that nicely sums up the way I feel about it. :^)

"What most Greens understand is that the Republican/Democratic duality is a false one, and that the real issue lays in the struggle between corporate interests and the majority of the world that is just trying to live their lives as best they can while more and more impediments are put in their way every day. So maybe Greens will vote Democratic to put the brakes on, and slow things down, but the train won't stop rolling."

Yes, I'll vote Dem this time to put the brakes on, so-to-speak. But I will keep fighting for separation of business and state and instant runoff voting no matter what. (It will be VERY hard not to vote Green if they put up Cynthia McKinney, though. I long to see a woman in the white house, and I think she would be more than qualified for the job!)

[goobergunch]

21. McKinney's expected to run in GA-4...

as a Democrat. I'd support her for that seat if she was a Green, though.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. So, putting the brakes on the right-wing loony train

is not preferable to letting them continue to fuck the country over in every way possible?

[GreenArrow]

13. It's preferable

We'll get kissed while we're fucked.

[goobergunch]

20. "We will still have...TIA"

Actually the funding for TIA was just struck from an appropriations bill. Gee, I wonder what party pushed that?

[Desertrose]

5. I'm sorry to hear this...

seems to me there should be another way...

Sounds like they've bought into the DK-unelectable deal...what a shame...when we could all work together & oust Bush.


Is this just another reason why progressives can't get it together....??
Cause we all think we have the answer....????

Why can't they support Kucinich & in the event he might not be nominated...run their own candidate???
Guess it doesn't work that way......too damn bad for us.

<<<<<<<< sigh >>>>>>>>

Peace
DR

[DrFunkenstein]

6. This Will Lose Them Alot of Sympathy As A Party

I think most Democrats on the progressive end were disappointed that Nader was squeezed into such a decisive spot in 2000. But they still felt that the Greens brought up a legitimate concern about third-party politics in America.

However, if they decide to run an aggressive Presidential campaign while everyone is so jittery about the prospect of 4 more years, it will forever taint them as spoilers. Which would be unfortunate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. DR

Do your best to get Dennis nominated. I guarantee he will scoop up most of the liberal votes regardless of who the Greens run. And a lot of the swing votes too. Enough people are disgusted with Bu$h and will do anything to get him out of the Oval Office!

[Skinner]

7. They are a different political party, after all.

While I think it would have been great for them to support the Dems, I don't really think it is surprising that most Greens want to put up their own candidate. They're a different political party.

The only question is whether they will pick a candidate that grabs some of the spotlight (Nader) or a candidate with little chance of influencing the election.

I am hoping for the latter.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. I think at this rate it all comes down to

Nader and who the Dems nominate.

If the DNC nominee isn't a Progressive, Nader will run. Whether he runs as an independent or a Green is yet to be seen.

[CMT]

10. this is true

They will nominate a candidate to try to expand their party which is there right. However, my guess is that even if they renominated Nader that he would just get maybe half of the vote he got in '00. I think Bush has so disillusioned people on the left that many who supported Nader in '00 will vote democratic just to defeat him. In some ways it will depend on who we nominate.

[Skinner]

14. I sure hope you're right.

However, my guess is that even if they renominated Nader that he would just get maybe half of the vote he got in '00.

I think the voters that we can take back are the people who voted for Nader in '00 because they liked his message, but have no particular affinity for the Green Party. That, assuming, that Nader doesn't run.

I wonder if we might see a Perot effect if Nader runs. Whe Perot ran in 92, people were very excited and he took lots of votes. But when he ran again in 96 there was significantly less interest. I suppose that is possible with Nader.

It's so hard to tell if Nader voters and Greens are angry enough at Bush to hold their nose and vote Dem. Based on their posts on DU, many don't seem very interested in voting "strategically" like that. I suppose you are correct that it will depend on the nominee.

[Michigander4Dean]

15. What do Greens and Republicans have in common?

Both supported Bush in 2000, and will likely support Bush in 2004!

[jiacinto]

17. They want to destroy the Democratic Party

OF course they are going to run a candidate. And Nader is most definitely going to be their nominee.

[Michigander4Dean]

18. Nah. Maybe someone like McKinney.

She has political experience. Remember, they want to steal as many votes and elect as many Republicans as they possibly can!

[Ediacara]

26. McKinney is too much of an insider

She's actually been elected to something, and lived in DC. She's not an infallable god-head like Nader.

[GreenArrow]

29. The Democratic Party is doing a perfectly good job

of that on its own. You're mistaking the cure for the disease.

[jiacinto]

31. Like the Greens are so significant?

2.74% of the vote is so much. Compared to the performances of other third party candidates that's quite pathetic.

[GreenArrow]

36. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest...

Ever seen the movie? Maybe you remember the scene where Jack Nicholson's character Randle P. McMurphy is planning on escaping from the nuthouse by throwing a huge marble sink through the bars on the window. The other inmates, all of whom are self admitted, take bets on whether or not he can do it. They gather around to see if he can do it, taking bets. After struggling mightily, McMurphy finally accepts that he can't lift the sink, and walks away, he turns on the other inmates telling them, "But I tried didn't I? God damn it, at least I did that."

At least the Greens are trying. What's really pathetic are the Democrat's desperate attempts to cling to the status quo. Cling hell, they are fighting to maintain it tooth and nail.

As for significance, time will tell. There were times in this country where people in support of abolishing slavery were an insignificant minority, where people in favor of women's suffrage were an insignificant minority.

Some vision and courage from the Democrats would be nice. Right now what they are offering looks as about as exciting as cold ketchup soup, and is about as nourishing. Even sadder, is that what they are offering is superior to what the Republicans are pushing.

You can have any kind of ice cream you like, as long as it's vanilla ice milk. Those of us who like chocolate are shit out of luck.

[Ediacara]

22. WOW

The Greens really think that they can displace the Democrats as the party on the left, and go head to head against the Republicans by going at it from the TOP down?

HINT TO GREEN PARTY CENTRAL!!!!

If you want to be a useful party, start at the bottom, and try to elect people in congressional districts!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. We do

run in congressional districts. We even have a Green in the Maine legislature, but his district was just dissolved in a fit of gerrymandering. Guess which big party pushed for that? (Hint, not the guys with the big red elephant.)

And we have to run a presidential candidate in order to keep the party "alive" in a lot of states. It's not our preference, it's the law. :^(

[Ediacara]

24. how many

out of 435 legislators are Green?

ZERO

How many Greens run in those 435 districts? I would guess somewhere between 50-100.

Why not focus on these and the other ~350 seats (and actually focus on actually winning just ONE of those 435 seats) and run a nobody at the top of the ticket, since you "have to?"

EDIT: spelling

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. That option is still being discussed

That way Greens can keep their parties going, but not siphon off too many votes.

[GreenInNC]

30. Dems doing their best to woo Green voters?

The Democrats have spent the last three years bashing us for voting for the candidate that we supported. The Dems have known for at least 12 years what they would need to do ie:instant runoff voting, rank order voting,making sure we didn't have to run a candidate to keep ballot access, or fusion voting to make sure we didn't "mess up" the elections.

We are not going away so spend some time and effort to earn our votes, not just bash us.

[DinahMoeHum]

33. and even Congressional districts are too much too soon. . .

I agree with you, DinoBoy, in order for the Greens to be really taken seriously, they have to start at the bottom, like everyone else. They have to start running candidates for school boards, town councils, county legislators, etc. When they have some people in those positions, then they consider running for state assemblies and state senates. Then US Congress and Senate.

An example of getting started is in New Paltz, New York, where there are now several Greens in local elected positions.


:kick:

As for a good start, consider

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. We have people who have run and won seats

in a lot of lower level races. http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

We are not a party who aims only for the White House, as the bitter debate of that race might lead you to think. :^)

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Ediacara]

39. not to say that I hate greens

I would actually like to see the greens and the dems work together. When I lived in Seattle, I voted for Joe Szwaja (G) instead of Jim McDermott. Actually, liberal districts, like WA-8 are the ONLY place greens have a real chance in the beginning.

[GreenInNC]

40. Green elected officials

The Green Party has elected people in all four corners of our nation - Maine, Florida, Hawaii, and Alaska. We have also elected people in states where we are not supposed to do good - Texas, Wyoming and North Carolina (Me). We would love to work with members of other parties but in most states we HAVE to run candidates at the top of the ticket to maintain our ballot status for races lower down on the food chain. The other two parties have made it this way, we are doing what they make us do.

[shatoga]

41. Greens took RNC money in 2000 to prove they are RNC agents?

Taking money from the RNC

to pay for Nader commercials in 2000,


Isn't that sufficient evidence that Greens are funded by and run by the RNC?



"The best way to handle the opposition is to run it ourselves," VI Lenin

Greens are so happy with the Bush administration's destruction of the environment that they again choose to dis
the real environmentalists:
Democrats.

And again;
seek to help Republicans win
and by so doing further the conservatives' deliberate destruction of the environment.

Does anyone else realise that Greens are severely deluded and compromised?

Nader sold out to Bush and took his gullible followers into the Dark Side along with him!

They've bought the NWO lie and now hate the only salvation our envoronment has:
Democrats


are now opposed both by Republicans
and by
Republican fronts like the NRA and Greens,
who serve Republicans instead of their stated goals.

More the pity!

Zieg?

Multimillionaire Nader will continue to 'Heil Bush' behind closed doors.
As he insinuates himself into the Republican corridors of power, by selling out everything he claims to stand for.

As his deluded followers do also, by opposing Democrats.

The real environmentalists/Democrats.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. Greens don't take RNC $$$

or DNC $$$ or corporate funds.

Anything you have heard to that effect is an urban myth.

We have been offered money, yes, but have not taken it.

[GOPBasher]

43. Doesn't their support depend on the Dem nominee?

I don't see why they're trying to decide now whether they'll support the Dem, because we don't know who the nominee will be. What if Kucinich won? Wouldn't they want to support him?

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. Again

The law requires Greens run a candidate in order to get the percentage of votes they need to maintain party status.

Yes, we can not run a candidate, but then risk losing party status in dozens of states.

But that may still happen anyway, if a lot of greens vote Dem like I plan on doing. :^( (I am so sick of the way this country's elections work. If I wasn't so anxious to get Bu$hy boy out of office I'd say to heck with it all and stay home in '04.)