Progressive Democrats and Greens should form a coalition.

[Cascadian]

It has been 5 years since the 2000 election and while many of you out there are probably still bitter about Ralph Nader and the Greens. Many of you claim that he was the main reason Gore lost though keep in mind Nader's campaign was only an elemental part to what happened that election. You cannot blame the Greens for Kerry's failure in 2004. I seriously think the time has come to bury the hatchet and unite the liberals, lefties, and greens.

It would be totally arrogant for those progressives in the Democratic Party, particularly those disillusioned with those docile Democratic lawmakers who are too meek to confront the Neocons, to turn down this idea. If you can get the Greens on board you can help regain control of the Democratic Party and help shape a new progressive platform. This will go to getting the candidate that will be willing to fight the Neocons and distinguish themselves more clearly than weak "me too" Democratic candidates. There should be a meeting of the minds and of course invite other like-minded groups and parties. It could be a united front against the Neocons and those DLC Republican Lite types.

Of course if that fails, then the progressive Democratic-Green coalition can front it's own presidential candidate as well as it's own platform.

I know it's generalizations I am posting but right now, progressive Democrats and Greens truly need each other and unite the left. The divisiveness must stop now. We are all working for the same goal, right?


John

[nashville_brook]

1. as should prog dems, greens and libs

i've long thought there's enough common ground to be effective.

[nosmokes]

10. the democratic party leadership is too dependent on

the corporate teat for it to ever get back to truly being a populist party. i honestly believe that the future of progressive politics and ideals is with the the green party. the R's and the D's have been in power for so long now that staying in power is their first concern. who in te democratic has any real ideas these days? kuchinich and waters, and the power structure is gonna make sure they don't get anywhere. the progressive populist movement is going to hafta take a long view, and start looking at local issues and local positions and building a power base from the bottom up, which is what the greens are doing. join in, join up!

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Actually either the D or the Rs will get back to real

populism after the voter revolt... or face decline

But I agree one if fully overdue

If a D votes for me (my congress critter does) she keeps her seat, now DIFi, she can kiss my vote good bye, so who are the Greens running?

[leanin_green]

2. The funny thing is. . .

the majority of what Ralph and the Greens were talking about in this country has been acted out in one form or another in the last five years. I think the Greens would be a good source of new blood and forgotten ideals that Democrats need.

[Tigress DEM]

42. This post calls for UNITY - so glad you get that.

How about UNITED AGAINST THE LIARS AND THE LYING LIARS THAT RIGGED THE ELECTION?

Anyone but Bush, could become - OUST THE HENCHMONKEYS AND CLEAN UP THEiR Bushit out of OUR COUNTRY.

I know, not really catchy enough, but NO MORE LIES is my rally cry and my new method to approach any issue.

Define the Lie.
Out the Liar.
Get to the TRUTH.
Do something about it.
Don't waste my time beating up other DEMs, Progressives, Greens, Moderate/Conservative Liberals etc...

[ChiciB1]

66. Nominate This Thread!

[tarkus]

3. I could support that sort of thing.

I am to the left of the Greens, but I think something like that would be great. I don't know if it would work, but I would support it.

[MissWaverly]

4. Hey, I admired the Greens for the recount

And I am not sure that it won't still have results, I understand what you are saying, there needs to be a real message sent to our leaders, we are not sheeple, and they are not on an all expenses paid free ride on
the lobbyists ship of state, they represent us not the highest bidder, and where were all our fearless leaders when they knew for over a year that small children were being abused by GIs in Iraq, if they had applied pressure to the media, it would have went somewhere, look at
Deep Throat, I like Howard Dean and I am a lifelong democrat, but I have not been impressed by the inaction of the last 5 years by our elected
officials.

[GoreDean2008]

7. Hillary Must Retire from the Politics!

A corrupt mainstream media political commentator just said that those Democrats who are critical of Hillary are those who will vote for her no matter what in 2008. She is dead wrong. If Hillary runs for president in 2008, I will sit at home and let her lose because I want the DLC collapse before the GOP collapse. DLC is the dangerous double agent. Our Democratic forum must be geared toward retiring the Clintons and the DLC from the politics.

[MissWaverly]

11. quick/how did you get the idea for Gore/Dean

I thought that Dean could not run because he is chair of the DNC?

I totally agree that the Clintons, Hillary or Bill (if the amendment is
changed) should NOT run. I am also against the idea of dynasties in the
WH, if Hillary is elected and serves her term, do you realize that the same 2 families will have run the country for 24 years. Do you realize
that we are now in the 9th year of the reign of the Bushes.

[GoreDean2008]

16. I Got This Idea Before Dean Decided to Run for DNC Chair

You are right Dean said he will not run in 2008. I might have to change my ID.

I used to like Bill and Hillary, but I am very sick and tired of them kowtowing to Bushes like dirty sycophants you see in an ancient palace. They completely weakened the Democrats in the House and Senate. They are the biggest obstacles in our fights against the right-wing extremism. We have to unseat Hillary in 2006, win the mid-term, and re-elect Gore in 2008. Al Gore is the only hope that we have now.

[MissWaverly]

24. I like Al Gore too

A lot of the DU'ers like Wesley Clark, but I am afraid, I don't want
the Democratic Party to morph into the "old republican party of
Dwight Eisenhower." I want us to be for rebuilding this country with
social programs and health care for all.

[Cascadian]

50. I think Al Gore realized the truth about the DLC.

Unfortunately, he learned too late! :(

[MissWaverly]

53. well, he's not the only one who is waking up

I for one, could not believe how we the people, sacrificed to elect Kerry and then to see the Democratic Party to go done without a fight,
I do think that we need to unite and bring change to the Demoractic Party.

[election_2004]

31. *snicker*

Al Gore is the only hope that we have now.

Everyone says that about their preferred candidate.

Want some reality to wash down that kool-aid?

[Lecky]

38. You want to unseat Hillary in 2006?

interesting

[fujiyama]

44. .

[Sparkman]

61. Clintons are INFINITELY PREFERABLE to ANY RWer. Please think@that

[leanin_green]

15. Here, here

I've always called the DLC the Repug infiltration unit sent in to divide and conquer from within. The problem with most progressives and lefties is the fact that they never believed the Repugs that declared cultural war on leftist ideaologies. I think they're beginning to awaken to the reality that they weren't kidding. The DLC infiltration is a good example of military tactics and operative intelligence within the party.

[AJH032]

25. Hillary/DLC, yes; Bill, no

"Our Democratic forum must be geared toward retiring the Clintons and the DLC from the politics."

I agree that Hillary is moving far too much to the center/right (at least in her rhetoric) and the DLC is acting as a catalyst for division within the party, but I believe the success of Bill Clinton's administration can be used to the advantage of future Democratic candidates.

[Lecky]

36. I rather the neocons collapse before the DLC

[Sparkman]

62. OBVIOUS-and keep our eyes on the worst case scenario...total Repub

countrol of house senate WH! Winning for the Dems in 06 and 08 is more important than parsing how crappy Hillary looks next to a Dean or a Kuchinich or a Clark.

[AJH032]

5. I agree

I made a similar thread before I saw this one. Yes, we need unity, much like how small government Republicans have joined with religious conservatives to defeat the left.

[mike_c]

6. how about progressive dems just join the greens...?

There's your coalition. See, it really gets tiresome hearing dems ALWAYS ask others to vote with them, but they NEVER offer to reciprocate. Furthermore, many greens have already done that favor-- so many in 2004 that the GPUSA lost its ballot slot in several states as greens let their own party crumble in order to support the dem presidential and vice presidential candidates. I'd say it's time for progressive dems to repay THAT favor before the democratic party comes asking more from greens. Just my $0.02.

[MissWaverly]

12. I don't think a 3rd party candidate will win

but I think that the time to get heard is before the primary machine
starts grinding out candidates, we must have an action plan or it will be too late, I am not saying that we can't accommodate greens in the
Democratic Party, but I don't think that a 3rd party candidate is a realistic option yet much as I admire David Cobb.

[Somawas]

29. An excellent idea!

One this progressive dem has been seriously considering since the fiasco in Nov. '04.

[bloom]

33. The Democratic

party system in probably every county in the country is too valuable to let go and to give up to a corporate takeover. Most people across the country do not want the DLC agenda - I think they want something that is more like what the greens/progressives want - if only the message was getting across to people.

I don't think the greens are giving anything up - if they say - this is what we believe - let's field some candidates together. I think progressives are about the same things - I don't think it matters as much what they are called.

It is the Democrats who are in danger of having any claim to a populist message that is the problem.

[Lecky]

39. This progressive Democrat rather die than vote Green

I won't even take a chance of letting the Republican/Neocons win again they are far more dangerous than any DLC candidate.

Green voters piss me off almost more than Republicans since I think they do more harm than good.

I agree with most of the Green platform but they don't stand a chance in Hell of ever beating any Republican.

[mike_c]

48. I keep hearing this over and over again....

"I agree with most of the Green platform," and "most liberals are in favor of the Green platform," but invariably dems follow that up with "but I'd NEVER vote for the Green candidate." That's just idiocy-- to agree with one party's stance on the issues but to vote for a different party, often at the cost of sacrificing those positions! :shrug:

And you would rather "die" than vote for the positions you support on issues that are important to you?

[Lecky]

56. I would have agreed with you in 2000

Not anymore, especially after the current neocon invasion. I'll take a corporate-whore Dem over a neocon genocidal maniac (who's also a corporate whore) anyday.

I want the neocon mafia out of control and quite frankly a Green doesn't stand a chance. Besides, I haven't lost faith in the Democrats.

[omega minimo]

74. What you mean is

corporate pimp.

Discussion Forum Rules are based on Respect

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Green Party Platform

Language is often used as a weapon by those with power, and women have traditionally borne the brunt of inflicted injuries. Freedom of speech is vital to democracy. However, we believe that this freedom should not be used to perpetuate oppression and abuse.

Since the beginning of what we call civilization, when men's dominance over women was firmly established until the present day, our history has been marred with oppression of and brutality to women. The Green Party deplores this system of male domination, known as patriarchy, in all its forms, both subtle and overt - from oppression, inequality, and discrimination to domestic violence, rape, trafficking and forced slavery. The change the world is crying for cannot occur unless women's voices are heard. Democracy cannot work without equality for women that provides equal participation and representation. It took an extraordinary and ongoing fight over 72 years for Women to win the right to vote. However, the Equal Rights Amendment has still not been ratified.

We believe that equality should be a given, and that all Greens must work toward that end. We are committed to increasing participation of women in politics, government and leadership so they can change laws, make decisions, and create policy solutions that affect and will improve women's lives, and we are building our party so that Greens can be elected to office to do this. In July 2002 the Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States was founded to carry out the Party's commitment to women.

[expatriot]

72. it is not some corporate conspiracy as to why we have a two party system.

I do not understand the whole premise behind the idea that progressives would somehow be more effective outside the Democratic Party.

Two points:
One: Federally, our electoral system nearly decrees the duopoly of the two party system. Third Party movements arise when there is a sizable constituency that lies unclaimed by either party and they are shorlived until either, because of their size, one of the major parties concedes a few planks in their platform to their cause, or the temporary disturbance in the shifting forces of politics resettles as to the third party constituency is reabsorbed by their former party allegiances. With this said, there are always third parties in this country with a quite marginalized impact that do have but a fleeting (if that) on the body politic.

Multi-Party systems (parliamentary) systems foster multiple parties because you can vote for any ticket you like and the next morning the various parties come to the bargaining table with their percentages of the vote-won and form a coalition government. If we had such a system of course I would be voting for a progressive ticket every time because I would know the more votes such a party got the more bargaining power they'd have in forming the next government.

But we have a winner take all system.

As an example, let's just say for the sake of argument a week before the next election in some country with a parliamentary, multi-party system it was decided (by magical powers that everyone accepted, remember this is just an example) that the party with the most votes would win the ENTIRE government.... there would be no bargaining for who got prime minister, finance minister, labor minister, etc. but rather the party with the most votes got to pick the entire cabinet. In this alternative world, you also gave all the parties a week to either change or withdraw their names from the ballot. What you'd have is a LOT of horse trading all of a sudden. the center-right parties would be all of a sudden be in talks with the conservatives and the conservatives would be willing to talk because god forbid a LEFTIST party got the plurality of votes. Same thing on the left. What you'd have is the alliances being drawn up each alliance trying to keep the plurality edge over other alliances until you got down to two major alliances. Because the leftist party, who'd normally get 10% of the vote and often enjoyed playing the king maker in forming a government with the the center-left party would KNOW that its 10% wouldn't mean SHIT anymore the morning after.

That is why we have a 2-party system. We have to form our coalitions BEFORE general election day... so when do we, as progressives, "go into negotiations" with the centrist elements of our party? That is what primaries are for and that is what messaging is for.

Point#2
In the rules of DU it says....

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

So, in short, Democratic Underground is a forum for progressives who accept the premise that the most effective political impact progressives can make in our political system is to simultaneously work for progressive change within the Democratic Party and thereby within the politics of the nation as a whole by working from within the Democratic Party.

In my humble opinion, if you are of the opinion that progressives can no longer be effective within the structure of the Democratic Party and are advocating a breaking of ranks of progressives from the Democratic Party then perhaps, as illustrated by the above excerpt, this forum is not the one for you since you advocate a distancing from the Democratic Party that most assuredly is quite the opposite of "support Democratic candidates for political office."

It is one thing to be vocally and actively supportive of progressive Democratic candidates in the primaries to unseat the centrist-corporatist-conservative Democrats and to debate (many times heatedly) policy points with the centrist-corporatist-conservative policies of the less-progressive elements of our party - we need to do this - it is essential: it is quite another thing, however, to be calling for a break with the Party because of these different constituencies within the party we do not agree with or to threaten abandonment of the party if, i.e. a DLCer is elected to serve as our nominee in 2008. Yes, we need to work our asses off to get the progressive banner in the front of the Democrat's parade but we mustn't leave the parade in protest.

[nosmokes]

58. yeah, well i din't for the green candidate in'00 and i got bush

and i didn't vote for the green candidate in '04 and i got bush, so just wtf have i gained by voting for the demuplican party other than feeding their ego and coffers? and as i pointed in another post kerry quit the race with$50m in the bank. $50m! how can you you lose an election and have any money left in the bank? i'm sorry, but i wore out a pair of shoes and spent hours on the phone stumping for that guy, who couldn't even give a straight answer to the simple question,'do you own an SUV?'

it's time to open up american politics to some new blood. the GOPosse has swung so far right thy don't represent anyone but whack jobs anymore and the democrats are doing their best to the republican party of old which is too far right for me by a factor of 100.

[fujiyama]

45. .

[GreenInNC]

59. small correction

The GPUSA and the GPUS are two different groups. The Gpusa didn't have any ballot lines to lose. The GPUS (www.gp.org) is the FEC recognized national Green Party.

Little background - The Greens split over idealogical issues and how the party should be run. The GPUS group wanted to focus on electorial as well as activist projects while the GPUSA wanted to remain an activist organization.

[mike_c]

68. yep-- you're right....

My error.

[marmar]

8. Sounds like a good idea...

Somebody needs to get the attention of this center-right Dems, and maybe such a collective will. They can't just ignore the left but expect us to vote for them by default. It's like they don't realize that in a battle between Repugs and Dems acting like repugs, the real repug is going to win every time.

[Idioteque]

9. There should be a Green endorsed candidate in every democratic primary.

Given the chance, most Democrats would support a Green with a D next to his or her name.

[Disturbed]

18. I have been posting this idea for a long time.

The Catch22 I usually get is the the Green Party cannot get anyone elected to a Natl position in Congress. I reply that they could if enough Progressives would join the Green Party to accomplish that goal. The real problem is the Electoral System itself that heavily favors a two party system. We are always stuck bewteen " the lesser of two evils". I am really sick of being stuck between chosing the lesser of candidates. Many voted for Kerry only as an Anybody But Bush choice.

I truely believe that millions of Americans would chose a Green Party candidate if they thought that this candidate had a chance of garnering at the minimum a seat in the House or Senate. That would be a place to start for '06.

[Lecky]

40. I agree

It will be interesting to find out.

[welshTerrier2]

13. They already have !!! read this ...

check out this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=297x121#123

"We (PDA) had a conversation with Cobb/LaMarche the Green Presidential Candidate and the Vice Presidential Candidate about this very thing. When there is a strong progressive Democrat running and NO Green. You will see Greens working with PDA'ers on the ground for that. If there is NOT a Progressive Dem running, and a more centrist Dem running, AND a Green Candidate running. You will see PDA'ers out in support of the Green Candidate."

the above excerpt was written by DU'er Kevin Spidel in response to a thread i started ... Kevin is PDA's National Political Director ...

[MissWaverly]

17. Yes, they say one thing but do another

My liberal senator Barbara Mikulski voted for the energy bill, complete
with the sweetheart giveways that Tom Delay put in, and now we have the
passage of CAFTA, but when it gets close to election time, our liberal
dems are born again and once more champions of health care reform, social security, etc.

[Mairead]

80. Yes, isn't it astonishing how they all get religion around election time

and expect that we'll let bygones be bygones. After all, if we don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard could win.

[MissWaverly]

82. what is new is that the internet has given people their power

there are more voices to be heard in this country than the lobbyists at
a five star restaurant in DC.

[Don1]

67. I think your post is important.

Many people posting in this thread seemed to have liked the op, but I think not many will notice your response. You should think about starting a new thread on it, like "Progressive Dems and Green Coalition." Then, refer back to it in this thread.

[welshTerrier2]

71. i've been thinking about this ...

here's what i think i need to do ...

the info i posted came from Kevin Spidel ... i went to PDA's website but was not able to find any information about the arrangement with the Green Party Kevin had described in his DU post ...

i'll post again in DU's PDA forum (probably tomorrow) to ask him for a more formal reference to the actual arrangement ... when i get that, i'll start a new thread on the subject ...

i'm glad you found my post ... i think it's important too ... i can't believe others in this thread haven't replied to it ...

thanks for the feedback, Don1 ... keep up the good work !!

[Don1]

73. Good ideas.

Additionally, look at what David Swanson has written about the topic:
"Selfa is incorrect in surmising that PDA plans to back bad Democrats over good third-party candidates. We do not. We will back the more progressive candidate, regardless of party. We will sit out races that do not include a progressive candidate. We would love it if you would do the same."
http://www.davidswanson.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=262

And actually, this is the statement that made me register as a Democrat and be interested in helping to reform the party.

[welshTerrier2]

76. great article, Don1 ...

thanks for posting the link ...

i've been spending so much time talking about how Democratic progressives should talk to other Democrats that i haven't spent enough time thinking about and talking to Greens and Social Democrats ...

maybe we really do need a "progressive underground" where progressive groups can meet regularly to discuss the issues ... the idea of trying to build more support for progressive Democrats by attracting those who have left the Democratic Party is very appealing ...

[welshTerrier2]

78. here's the next step ...

i'll post a new GD-Politics thread if i get a useful response in the PDA forum ...

check this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=297x132

[Jon8503]

14. I have no problem with that. I think the Progressives and the left

of the party should get together with the Greens in any way it can. We both need each other.

I still am disgusted with the DLC and the gutless wonders leading it. For the life of me I do not understand how they cannot fight more.

The republicans can impeach a dem for some sex and we can't find a way to impeach for misrepresenting, lying or whatever to start a war which is costing over a 1000 American lives and tearing apart how many more families and this is not counting the Iraqis.

We need to do something.

[mouyard]

19. State & Local, Green - National, Dems

I think the basis for an agreement should be for Progressive Dems to vote for Green candidates in state & local elections, while greens vote for Progressive Dems in national elections.

This gives the Dems votes they need to overcome the republican majority, while helping Greens to gradually develop their political infrastructure.

[democrank]

20. I`ve given this a lot of thought.

Progressives, Greens, Independents and the Democratic Party base are closely aligned on principle. We should find a way to work together and put a halt to business as usual. Democrats can not win a national election without support from the base they now take for granted.

The DLC wing of this party has sacrificed long-held Democratic Party beliefs for the addictive pleasures from corporate favors, giant bags of cash and cameo appearances on Sunday talk shows where their only mission is to prove they go to church and have a flag.

[sandnsea]

21. For the love of god, YES

There are so many solid reasons to do this, I've been laying them out for a year. It doesn't have to be a fight between traditional Democrats and lefty liberals, it can be complimentary. As long as everybody understands the dynamics of a US Presidential election, it should work beautifully. America is never going to understand what the left wants unless there is a strong voice laying out the policies. And they're never going to understand the difference between left and Democrat unless the left makes the distinction either. Once that distinction is clear, the Democrats can lay out the difference between them and right wing Republicans. I've been serious when I've been saying HURRY, GO GREEN!

[skids]

22. We should have ballots like in NY.

...where multiple parties can run the same candidate if they wish.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Along with these other reforms

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[bvar22]

23. Something like that in the works:

The Progressive Democrats of America

http://www.pdamerica.org/

Notice all the pretty GREEN on this Website.
Cross Pollination is happening

[MissWaverly]

26. thanks, I have bookmarked your site, very impressive

will try to keep in touch.

:-)

[Cascadian]

32. Yes. Thanks!

It's about time something like this was happening. I also hope some open-minded, true centrists (not these Neocon enablers!) will also join. I think it would be important to have them come along. You know Howard Dean is a centrist but seems to want to reach out to progressives as well. The more people we can bring in who truly want to take their country back, the better.

Thanks for showing us the link. This is great!


John

[ChiciB1]

65. BIG KICK!!

[longship]

28. I agree. This is a good idea.

There are several caucus' in Congress devoted to progressive policy. They would be an appropriate starting point for such a group since they will already have the requisite organization in place. The idea would be to leverage existing organization and build upon it. The Greens might be agreeable to joining if they would put principle above party--likewise for the Congressional Dems. The goal of the coalition would be to get progressives into office who would end up caucusing together in Congress. This would make it more tempting for the Greens.

Money could be raised.
Candidates recruited, regardless of party.
Campaign assistance.
Heavily Net-based saves money.

Hell, maybe some progressive Republicans, if such an animal exists. The only one I can think of is the last Republican I voted for, former Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-KS), married to Howard Baker (R-TN) ("What did the president know and when did he know it").

There's time to do this.

[Sooner75]

30. Duh!

[eridani]

34. My main problem with Greens--

--is that they act more like a generic movement and ignore the very different electoral infrastructure that is necessary to contest elections. Even Dems don't have all their PCO slots filled, but Greens not only don't have any, but resist thinking in those terms.

[Totally Committed]

47. I totally agree with this statement.

Putting Nader completely aside for the purpose of this post, Greens scare me and people like me, and this is why!

Procedurally, the Greens are too willing to ignore the electoral infrastructure that is in place and stubbornly insist things be done their way. This has meant they have fought two different fights each time out: one to get their candidate elected, and the other against the machinery needed to elect him. Like it or not, this electoral procedure will not be scrapped no matter how many Greens stamp their feet and throw a fit. This has just made them appear dillitent-ish and unreasonable and that, I can tell you, has turned off nearly as many potential voters as their choice of candidates has.

Get past this, choose a candidate that doesn't turn off more people than he/she attracts, and I think Greens will be a viable third choice within several election cycles.

Edited to include the following: I just asked the voters sitting at my breakfast table (all, btw, who vote left-of-center, registered Democratics), and they offer that the Nader thing has forever tainted the Greens with even the most progressive Democrats. They feel that the association with Nader for most people will be too difficult to overcome, especially while they are living with the effects or after-effects of the Bush Presidency.

My question to Greens: Do you feel this is true? If so, how would you go about changing that? I'm just curious.

[Cascadian]

54. This is why there needs to be a summit, some meeting between the two.

The funny thing is many Greens say the same thing about Democrats. That Democrats want things done THEIR way. This is the more reason to come together and find some common ground and you know that both parties do. There needs to be a common platform. The common goal is already there. Now it's time to talk and unite to rid the two party system of the right-wingers.


John

[ChiciB1]

64. Greens Didn't Support Nader Last Time Out!!

And yes I think it's true that the genesis of Greens wasn't set up to run a National Presidential candidate, but I think they are beginning to see things differently.

Oh, smack my hand!!!

[eridani]

83. It's more what Nader DIDN'T do than what he did do

He had absolutely no interest whatsoever in building an ongoing organizational structure. The last time he did that was setting up Public Citizen, and once it was going he quickly abandoned it to others to run. If you aren't trying to build a progressive farm team system, you have no business trying for the big leagues, period.

[baron j]

35. self removed. double post

[baron j]

37. I agree. It's time to splinter.

Those "realistically, right now, they can't win" arguments are annoying. Skeptics will keep saying that about the Greens ad infinitum.

[Cascadian]

52. I am not necessarily saying to splinter just now.

I am saying let's bring in more people and unite to regain control of the Democratic Party from the corporatists. If that does not work then it will probably be time to splinter.


John

[Tigress DEM]

41. Get me a candidate who really supports "NO MORE LIES"

We all have to work together to oust this ILLEGALLY inserted pResident and his goons.***


Progressives, Greens in particular are needed at this time, because we can't stand any more lies about the environment. Global warming isn't going away on its own and at some point the damage done by pollution will cease to be reversible if we don't get on it and keep the corporations from free for all destruction of everything they can get their hands on.

I'm a moderate DEM, but I will accept help from any honest person to get that bozo and his hench-monkeys out of the White House. I think it is FULLY up to the PEOPLE to UNITE OURSELVES and quit waiting for some specific leader to be what we want them to be.

I say WE THE PEOPLE CAMPAIGN on "NO MORE LIES" and let our elected officials either catch up or fall behind accordingly.

This way our campaign becomes a Process instead of a static platform.

#1 Label the lie.
#2 Out the liar.
#3 Analyze the situation once the truth is/facts are revealed.
#4 Propose a solution.
#5 Rally people to work on the solution.
#6 Tolerate differences of opinion within ranks as long as they aren't lies. There may be more than one possible solution.
#7 Leaders who fight for the truth should be supported mightily, like John Conyers and Barbara Boxer. So if anyone wants an example or role model, they know who we are recommending.
#8 Look for the good things the DEM leadership does.
#9 Tell them when they do good as well as bad and why.
#10 Attack the deed, not the person. DLC platform sucked big time, but it doesn't mean every single DLC person is a dip weed.


*** If you really think Kerry "failed" in '04 you have bought the rethuglican koolaid, even if you didn't drink it.

Ken Blackwell obstructed a just and fair election. He took what was a 250% increase in urban voter registration in primarily DEM areas and turned it into minus percentages by Nov 04 through carefully crafted disenfranchisement. He worked with the voting machine distributors to deliver the "correct answer" that was expected of him as the CO-Chair of Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. He then sat on the evidence until the electoral votes went through and because he was the Secretary of State in Ohio, no one was there to make him do the right thing.

Read "What Went Wrong In Ohio" -- again if you already have.

[Disturbed]

43. Working together.

"I think the basis for an agreement should be for Progressive Dems to vote for Green candidates in state & local elections, while greens vote for Progressive Dems in national elections."

As a Green, I have done this.

[nosmokes]

55. yes john kerry failed, but more to the point the dem party did

since kerry was the best we could put up against the worst president ever?!? and he quits the race with $50 mil in the bank and loses? and i know there was some shady stuff that went down but really, he shoulda won that election by a margin wide enough that couldn't have been a chance of tampering or any hinky business. john kerry, and i worked my ass off trying to get him into the WH, but he is the epitome of what's with the democratic party right now, him and the cafta 15.

[Tigress DEM]

57. Kerry won the popular vote. DEMs did our job. There's more to do.

Did you read Jonh Connyer's report? If you have a computer owned by the party determined to win it's easy to flip votes, to have convienent malfunctions and the like. This stuff is documented, but it was sat on by Ken Blackwell until the electoral votes went through.

Any real American owes it to themself to understand the truth about the Election Fraud we are up against. Because unless we correct the problems it doesn't matter HOW good someone is or how much of a RUNAWAY LEAD they have, if the people who set up the election sites and count the votes lie and cheat it won't matter. We have to have transperrant elections where every legal vote is allowed and every allowed vote is counted... one vote per person.

Latest evidence shows a 250% increase in voter registration in the Urban communities in Ohio that voted primarily DEM by 5/04 and then in 11/04 it disappeared. I'll have to track down the DU thread where it was posted, but it was in the last week or so. It goes county by county. I don't mean that the Rs caught up, I mean the increase simply disappeared as well as the 25% increase that the Rs showed in the same time period.

Blackwell disallowed registrations due to the WEIGHT of paper they were written on, even though his office sent them OUT TO VOTERS at that weight.

This loss is not a CANDIDATE issue, it's a FRAUD issue.

I for one really, really wish Kerry were in the Oval Office right now and this had all been a bad dream, but since I am awake and able to see the reality of what happened, I'm simply saying we need to solve the CORRECT problems.

We only have human beings to run in any office you choose. Your Green candidates are probably just fine, but they wouldn't have survived this kind of illegal activity. It was over kill to the Nth degree by Blackwell.

The suggestion that we send in "better candidates" than Kerry or _________ fill in the blank is like debating Batman or Superman when the other side has nukes and kryptonite.

[ulysses]

46. in the realm of generalizations, sounds great to me.

We're seeing more strength and organization on the left in general. We need more.

[Cascadian]

49. kick

[madfloridian]

60. Why are you advocating a split from the party so soon ?

Why are you ready to split from the DNC so soon? Sounds divisive.

We have a new chair in the DNC. His goal is to rebuild the state parties by taking more grassroots money. It is apparently going ahead of schedule. Fundraising in the DNC is up 50% over 2003. (Comparing it with 2004 is apples oranges).

That is with 3 of the DNC fundraisers quitting because they basically got larger donors. They did not feel Dean was giving them much attention. He said he would, but later. His goal is for corporations not to own us, for the people to have more voice.

The goal of a 50 state plan is halfway there, with 25 states getting paid workers.

Howard Dean is not especially a lefty, but he speaks for most for us, he gives us a voice. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree on most. I agree on speaking out.

BUT when the 50% raise in fundraising was announced, all at once there was the big to do about the DLC. Hillary declared her loyalty to them. They took over the news cycle, the DNC was ignored.

Well, it was ignored everywhere but on Democratic boards. For a while we were all working together much better, then when the email came out yesterday about 25 states getting help....well, to put it frankly all hell broke loose here.

Folks are saying oh it won't work. Dean needs to tell the state leaders what to do. Well, guess what, if he even presumed to tell them how to handle their state...especially in the SOUTH...he would be damned for that as well.

NOW my question. Why are there so many posts here calling for formation of new progressive groups? Nothing wrong with it, in fact many of them exist already.

I know the answer to my question already. It is because the House and Senate sold us out this week. I agree on that.

But guess what, those of you advocating the damnation of the DNC are forgetting something very important. The congressional leadership was in charge of the votes...the minority leaders, the whips, the DSCC, the DCCC, the NDN, the DLC. The DNC under Howard Dean had NO control over those votes this week.

So why are the DNC and its chairman being blamed for those votes when it is the very thing he is trying to fix? I can not figure it out.

I do know the PDA is planning on fighting Dean on the basis of a war he opposed, and that is a shame. They attacked for words he had said all along, and they made war the only issue. It worries me to see people advocating this so soon.

I don't see why we can't give the DNC a chance to change things, since they have very little to do with the sell-out votes. Dean has little influence over the congressional leaders SO FAR. If we stick with the party, we can change that.

[Cascadian]

75. I am not advocating a split unless...

the Democratic Party can turn things around and do it in a short time.Either the lawmakers in Congress start fighting the Neocons instead of enabling them or they should get voted out of office by a new team of Democrats. A new team of Democrats that will be willing to fight and not be afraid. If they don't then the Democratic Party has become useless.


John

[madfloridian]

77. You think we can undo decades of the right wing machine so quickly?

I am getting very suspicious of these threads about leaving the party, just as we are starting to rebuild in a different way.

Dean's goal for the party is your goal, yet you expect it to be done with a snap of the finger. The GOP is so entrenched within our party now that one of the DLC bloggers was once a lobbyist for Pat Robertson at the Christian Coalition.

Sorry, but there is too much of this going on at Democratic forum. It takes time to reshape the party.

[Cascadian]

79. The posting is actually about bringing the Greens and Democrats together.

Aren't you sick of the divisiveness. I think it's totally arrogant to think the progressive Dems can strike out on their to take back the party. I only advocate leaving the party if the Republican-Lite crowd hold their control over the Democratic Party then maybe it is time to break off. However, it is time to fight the neocon enablers and get the party and ultimately the country back.




John

[madfloridian]

81. Green and Kucinich people are at PDA.

They used to be the Green Donkey. However, they did huge damage by attacking Howard Dean when he said the same thing he always said about Iraq and leaving there. It actually hurt the party movement and slowed down progress while all the Democrats fought with each other.

It hurt Howard Dean, it hurt the party, and it hurt even their group...it hurt all of us.

I don't like compromise at all, but compromise when millions of people are involved is a fact of life. The DLC has not really tried to compromise much at all, and that worries me. So we have them on the right. If the PDA and other groups are not going to compromise either, you have both ends and the middle of the party weakened. I put NARAL in that group, though I am part of them. I will fight with them.

It worries me a lot what is going to happen. Both ends are too weak to survive without the middle, but both ends are willing to weaken the middle for their own issues. If they all do what they can do best, and not attack, that is one thing.

It is complicated, and to come here to DU and see so many threads advocating splitting off when new leadership just began in February....well, it is discouraging.

It happens when there is a success by the party, like fundraising up.

[ChiciB1]

63. This Will Do It For Me!!

A superb idea, from my perspective! Power To THE People!!!!!!!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

69. I don't think the Greens are as much a power as you think

The best they can do is become spoilers. I doubt they'll ever be winners.

[DanCa]

70. Thats a great Idea, but can we get a decent animal icon?

Like a shark, Tiger, or maybe... a bat jk :D)