If the Greens are such a threat to The Democratic Party, why don't they

[Greyhound]

just co-opt their issues? As far as I know the Green Party is primarily about the environment, fair elections, and social equality, hardly radical concepts.

All the Democrats need do is hijack the issues. I'm confident that the 1% - 2% of Green voters would gladly vote for a candidate that could win, if they felt that said candidate would represent their issues. All of them that I've met are reasonable and optimistic folks that are genuinely concerned about the direction this country is going in. They are simply looking for a voice, so why don't the Democrats give it to them?

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Paul Wellstone did that and they still ran against him in '02

Ralph Nader said that it was more important to get the Green Party to keep their 5% in Minnesota than to re-elect the most progressive member of the US Senate.

[Greyhound]

4. Didn't Wellstone win?

I didn't mean to imply that The Party would fold up their tents and go home, just that they wouldn't get a significant number of votes.

[Dr Fate]

7. Not with any help from the Greens you say would get on board.

They did not join us, they joined the GOP & media in campaigning against Wellstone.

That is why I dont like Greens- we have to fight the GOP, the media AND those guys.

They act like underdogs, but in reality they always join up with the GOP & media in attacking us.

[MH1]

13. Not only that, but they LIE.

Refer to bullshit slung about Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

They LIE.

AND: They say Democrats = Republicans, which is BULLSHIT.

AND: They take money from Republicans, and help Republicans get elected or re-elected.

Did I mention THEY LIE?

Oh and full disclosure: I used to be a Green Party supporter. And the day I can vote in an election with instant runoff or similar multi-party system, I will consider the Green Party candidate(s) for themselves, and not stereotype them based on the actions of some miserable assholes in their party.

[ProudDad]

117. Who is this "us" and who is this "them"?

Last time I looked all of "us" were in the same boat.

It's attitudes that separate that are the problem not good folks trying to move the democrats back where they should be...

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Wellstone died in a plane crash before the election

The Greens, I believe, got 1%, but there was another Independent on the ballot that got 2%.

[wellstone dem]

15. Wellstone died.

I will never forgive the Green Party for running someone against this principled and decent man.

[Greyhound]

27. '02, yep, didn't read closely enough.

:blush:

[Nite Owl]

8. In MN you can't

encdorse a candidate and let people vote for him on either line?

[Hippo_Tron]

11. If you can, they certainly didn't

[ISUGRADIA]

48. No, there is no fusion voting in Minnesota

that is the Green vote and DFL vote for a candidate could nt be added together as is the case in New York.

[Nite Owl]

73. Thanks,

Here in NY for example Spitzer was endorsed by the WFP (Working Families Party) so he will be the name on both lines. It's good because if the Greens were to endorse a dem then they would get to keep their line and people could vote on the line they feel fits their ideas best. The candidate would know who voted for him on what line too which is good, they know they need to keep those voters and answer to them. Maybe working on the ballot, permitting that is something that could be done at state levels.

[LynneSin]

17. I have to say that's my biggest complaint right there

I mean it's one thing that a Green wants to run against Bob Casey because of his moderate stance on choice (ie a Green who didn't need to use Rick Santorum to get on the ballot). But no one including most Greens would have to say that Paul Wellstone was one of the best democrats who most closely modeled the Green Party platform and they still went after him in a race they KNEW was going to be a close one.

[Tesha]

36. Casey stance on choice isn't "moderate", it's radically conservative.

> a Green wants to run against Bob Casey because of his moderate
> stance on choice

Casey stance on choice isn't "moderate", it's radically conservative
and anti-woman.

Casey opposes federal funding for abortions. He believes life
begins at conception and must be protected. He would avoid a
litmus test for judicial nominees. He would not require pharmacists
to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency
contraception. He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

And that, Lynne, is why challengers from the left will become
more and more common.

Democrats assume that we'll all pull the "D" lever just
because of the "D". no matter how much the candidate stinks
on the issue(s). But I think more than a few people are now
finally reaching the breaking strain, as the "D" candidates
stink more and more with every passing election cycle.

If you want the votes of the left, try running candidates that
wouldn't be just as happy on the "R" side of the ticket.

Tesha

[LynneSin]

72. And this is why I refuse to be cornered as a single issue voter

Seriously Rick Santorum?

It's a no brainer.

[Tesha]

82. I'm not a single issue voter, but there are some lines I won't cross.

> And this is why I refuse to be cornered as a single issue voter

I'm not a single issue voter, but there are some lines I won't
cross.

Voting for men who want to remove rights from women is
one of those lines.

This is Pennsylvania, not Mississippi -- the Democrats
could easily have come up with a pro-choice candidate,
but they chose to give women the finger and prop up Casey
as their standard-bearer. So just think of it as me
returning the favor.

Tesha

[union_maid]

84. Except it's returning the favor to all of us

Democrats, with virtually no power, have still been instrumental in avoiding a few trainwrecks. Still, the amount of suffering that has happened in the world and within this country, solely because of Republican power, in the last six years is so immense it defies description. So, when you stand on principle and refuse to cross that line, you're returning the favor to everyone whose lives and environment will be damaged further if Republicans like Santorum are allowed to remain.

Thanks.

[Tesha]

89. That's easy; help convince the Democratic Party to run democrats!

Okay, join my side! Help convince the Democratic Party to run
democrats, not candidates who are Republican-Lite. Then there'll
be no need to worry about progressive voters, women's rights
voters, gay rights voters, anti-Iraq-war voters, and others
defecting.

Tesha

[union_maid]

123. I do and many have

Lamont's showing so far is an example of Democrats trying to remove someone whose perceived as a DINO. Voting Green when you're not happy with the Democrat will probably move things more to the right than otherwise. You're no longer the base, you're part of a very small sliver of the political pie and can't be relied on for support and at least sometimes can't be pleased if the candidate is going to be able to reach out to any other voters. Working in the primaries and then accepting and supporting the eventual candidate will do much more to move the party to the left.

If I were in CT, I'd be for Lamont in the primary and whoever wins in the general. Lieberman really is Republican light in a lot of ways, but those ways in which he isn't mean that there's a Democratic vote coming from his seat sometimes, rather than never, which is what you have with a Republican in it.

[Tesha]

126. And I'm a Lamont donor, BTW. (NT)

[union_maid]

137. Great, but that doesn't change a thing

It's wonderful if you're supporting the Democrat you prefer. If you opt out of races where there isn't one you prefer, you are supporting Republicans, directly and indirectly. You're not only choosing not to vote for the Democrat - and suppressing the other guy's vote is half the battle, but you're encouraging and enabling the Republican strategy of using wedge issues to do that very thing. There's a reason why Republicans have been more successful about it. It might well be because the left cares a lot more about principles than the right does, but at the end of the day, it hurts the very people Democrats are supposed to care about. Even the lesser of two evils is still less evil. In the case of almost any Democrat vs. almost any Republican, the difference is much greater than that.

[Tesha]

141. Democrats could, of course, change their positions if...

If they were sufficiently motivated, the Democratic
Party could, of course, change their current positions
(favoring corporations over people, favoring rich white
Republican men over everyone else, etc.) so as not to
callously discard the Left .

When I withold my vote for those corporate, rich-white-
huy-favoring positions (and candidates), just think of me
as providing motivation.

Because the Democratic party *COULD* change *IF* they
were sufficiently motivated.

Tesha

[Greyhound]

139. This comment is quite disturbing, and wrong.

On holding to your principles;

You're no longer the base, you're part of a very small sliver of the political pie and can't be relied on for support and at least sometimes can't be pleased if the candidate is going to be able to reach out to any other voters. Working in the primaries and then accepting and supporting the eventual candidate will do much more to move the party to the left.

Please give this a read, you will learn the facts, as opposed to the fictions created by those that would steal your power.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435 :kick:

[Tesha]

142. The only people stealing my power are Democrats who run with my...

The only people stealing my power are Democrats who run with my
support and then stab me in the back once elected. Hilary Rodham
Clinton certainly jumps to mind.

So I won't do that anymore.

Tesha

[Greyhound]

152. I agree and you obviously already know what I am hoping union_maid

will learn from the linked paper(?). Blaming others for our own shortcomings won't change anything and the faster we get that message out, the faster we will make the changes so desperately needed.

[LynneSin]

86. So I have a question for you - would you vote for John Murtha?

Yes or No!

I'd really like to hear your answer on that one!

[GreenArrow]

87. would you vote for Republican Ron Paul?

He's good on civil liberties issues and against the war on Iraq.

Or how about Indiana's super fundy Republi-nut John Hostettler; he voted against IWR and still managed to get re-elected.

Here's Murtha on the issues.

http://www.issues2000.org/PA/John_Murtha.htm

While I appreciate and respect his speaking out on the issue of Iraq, I wouldn't vote for John Murtha, except perhaps under extremely special circumstances.

[LynneSin]

88. I won't vote for a Republican

I will; however, vote for John Murtha with Glee in my heart and a lilt in my steps as I whimsically pull the lever

[Tesha]

91. Worse yet, Ron Paul is really a Libertarian.

I don't even want to *TALK* to Libertarians, let alone
vote for them.

Tesha

[LynneSin]

92. If my only choices were a Libertarian and a Republican

and that as it - there was nothing else and absolutely no option of writing in any other name plus I had a gun to my head and was told I had to "Pick one or Die" - then I would go with the Libertarian first

[ProudDad]

118. I would ally myself with Ron Paul

when it came to civil liberties and war issues and would vehemently oppose his Libertarian pipedreams.

See, that's the way it has been at times and could be again. No two people think the same, feel the same, believe exactly the same things. All of life is a compromise. But some compromises are possible and others are NOT.

I would take a Jacob Javits over a Zell Miller any day of the week.

[Tesha]

90. Probably not. (NT)

[Bjorn Against]

23. That was the biggest mistake the Minnesota Green Party ever made

I personally know many of the Minnesota Greens, and most of them would say the same thing.

First they endorsed Ed McGaa who was a disaster and ran well to Wellstone's right, he pissed off the Greens so much they all voted against him in the primary. Ray Tricomo ended up winning the primary and taking McGaa's place on the ballot. I personally know Tricomo, he used to come to my college on a regular basis and some of my friends would read to him (he is blind). The guy is very nice, but he is about the last person you could ever picture in the United States Senate. He was far from qualified, and most of the Greens knew it but they just voted for him to get McGaa off the ballot.

So yeah, it was an extremely bad move to run someone against Wellstone and believe me the party has paid the price for that bad move. The party was fairly strong in 2002, now it is struggling.

[GAPeace]

53. He would've won anyway had he survived

Most Greens I think would stand proudly behind him.

[ikojo]

2. You 'd think the Democrats would welcome the

activists within the Green Party, but the last 16 years show us they are more concerned with running as Republican lite (DLC). We see how successful that has been! Fundie Christians and xenophobes like Pat Buchanan bolt to the Reform party, destroy it and their reward is that the Republicans co-opt their agenda!

The Democrats ignore their base at their peril.

[Greyhound]

30. As we have, and are seeing now.

With the endless scandals, and unbelievable fuck-ups, wrought by the re:puke:s, there is absolutely no good reason for the Democrats to win anything short of control of both Houses in this election, yet they are already trying to lower expectations.

[MrBenchley]

76. Why the fuck would Democrats want a bunch of loonies

who can't keep their own party going without underhanded help from the Republicans?

"We see how successful that has been!"
We is especially funny in this context. How many states did the Greens carry again?

"The Democrats ignore their base"
OUR base isn't taking money from Dog Sex Ricky under the table while calling honorable Democrats corrupt.

[Monk06]

130. The greens can't be trusted anywhere. In BC the party is being run

by an ex-Conservative real estate developer.

The rest of the crew are a mix of spirit drummers
and middle class business people in the tourist
industry running bed a breakfast hotels on the
west coast.

Their attitude is that everyone else is to the far
right of them. In spite of the fact that all of them
are middle class to the core.

[MrBenchley]

134. You're absolutely right...

[ikojo]

135. Um...the Greens in PA are not the only party to

accept tainted money....

None other than her royal highness HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON has accepted money from the master of evil TV, Rupert Murdoch. Now THAT is tainted money!

Many Democrats accept money from corporate America who also contributes to the Republicans, even if they don't get as much money from the corporados.

[MrBenchley]

136. Wow...what a silly comment

Come back to us when you get a grasp of the news....

[Dr Fate]

3. Green voters want pan-cakes. Democrats want a Thanksgiving feast.

Green voters want to flip over a pan cake and make a quick meal.

Democrats realize that it takes all day to cook a Thanksgiving meal with all the trimmings.

Democrats dont need to co-opt issues of environment, fair elections, and social equality- we have been doing that since day one.

The difference is we dont make the unrealistic promise that we can just flip a pan-cake over and make it happen in one day.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Couldn't have said it better myself.

:applause:

[TwentyFive]

9. Bravo!

The Greens want a cleaner environment, so their 'strategy' is to run Nader against Gore in 2000. The net result? Bush now make decisions on the environment.

Perhaps that's why the biggest funders of the Greens....are republicans.

[Dr Fate]

12. They personaly disrupted one of my Kerry fundraising efforts.

And they were clean cut dudes- I cant prove it, but they seemed more college Repub. than granola.

They basically inched in near our street stand and refused to leave to another corner. WE had to move.

[OzarkDem]

21. And I think they disrupt here a lot

also for the purpose of helping the GOP.

[MH1]

14. Excellent analogy! nt

[OzarkDem]

20. Good Post n/t

[Greyhound]

22. LOL! "we have been doing that since day one"?

Where? I've been way into politics since long before I was even old enough to vote, and I've never seen The Democrats do anything but feather their own nests and suck up to corporate donors. Lip-service only works for 1 or 2 cycles, before the voters figure out what the real agenda is.

It may take all day to cook a feast, but they had over 40 years. Did they clean up the election system after the blatant fraud in IL. in the 60's/70's? Did they help the industrial workers in the 80's? Did they come to the aid of Jimmy Carter when the RW media blitz was eviscerating him with lies and distortions? Where was the accountability during the 80's when the raygun crimes against humanity were discovered?

And while we're on the subject, how was it that raygun was able to undue all of the considerable progress that Carter made on the issues of energy, conservation, and corporate accountability? Did the re:puke:s control all of the government then too, and they just forgot to mention it to us?

Was it a re:puke: President that created "free speech zones"?

[Dr Fate]

24. I already heard that when you campaigned against Al Gore & Kerry.

You all told us they would just do what Bush would do. That dishonesty cost you your credibility.

40 years? I dont know how you think Democrats have controlled government for 40 years in a row- but I do know you did not help us with the past 6 years at all.

I dont mind Democrats criticising Democrats- but you guys have ZERO credibility to criticise us.

Go sell your gooey-centered, half cooked pan-cakes to someone else.

I'm trying to cook this turkey- quit opening the damn oven door.

[Greyhound]

28. I didn't say they controlled congress for 40 years in a row.

they did control congress for much of that time and they did sacrifice our interests for their own.

And who is this you guys? I am not a Green Party member, nor a Green party voter, just one of the many many Democrats that haven't felt represented by my own party for quite some time.

Look, you can yell ands scream and whine about the evil Greenies, or the Socialists, or the Nazis for that matter, it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic Party has created this situation for themselves by abandoning the people that supported them in favor of corporate $$$, and short-sighted selfishness.

BTW you still haven't answered the question in the OP. Why don't the Democrats steal the Greens issues?

[Dr Fate]

31. No one is yelling & screaming or calling you evil.

Get over your persecution complex- anyone who sides with the GOP & Media against the Democrats cant honestly paint themselves that way.

And FYI, numerous & various Democrats STRONGLY support all the issues you bring up- try sending them a check & a letter of thanks.

Get involved in the primary process and support progressive (D) Democrats if that is your bag.

This feast is pot luck-style- what are YOU cooking?

I'm more concerned with Democrats catering to Democrats than I am concerned with them catering to Greens.

If these individuals you speak of want to be catered to, they can help us cook the turkey instead of opening the oven door every 4 years.

[Greyhound]

33. Again, I'm not a Green, nor do I vote for them. Therefore I don't feel

persecuted, so I don't know where you get that psychobabble diversion.

There are Democrats that have great ideas to resolve the aforementioned issues, they just don't enjoy the support of The Party Leadership, and if any of them were running here they would certainly get more than my vote. Alas, that is not the case.

And Democrats only talking to Democrats gets you a shrinking base and lost elections, how's that working so far?

And finally, since I will address the issues you bring up, we can't help with the meal because we are not allowed into the kitchen anymore, even though we built it.

[Dr Fate]

37. That's funny- they let me in the Kitchen all the time.

And I agree with you that those issues need more attention.

Who is keeping you from being active in your local party (AKA the Kitchen?) You do know that the primary process starts there, right?

Democrats dont only talk to Democrats-they try to appeal to a broad swath of voters. I agree with you that we dont need to lean farther right to win- but I also see the leadership's logic in not feeling the need to cater to people who bolt from the party and campaign against us.

Maybe if Greens stopped taking GOP money and started issue coalitions with progressive DEMS, we could all work something out.

I've adressed the issues you brought up- you admitted that many Democrats in positions of power fight for them. That is the difference- left leaning, progressive & moderate-to-left Democrats can actually get elected. I wish greens would support these Democrats rather than take GOP dollars to fight them.

Ultimatley, I agree with you that many Democrats are not fighting hard enough, but dont come at me with that from a Green voter's point of view.

If you are progressive, moderate or lean left, the Democratic party is still the only game on town.

[Greyhound]

47. See, that's the attitude that has chased so many potential supporters

away from The Party. The idea that "We're the only game in town". It just pisses people off. "Don't like the fact that I voted to screw you out of your job? Too fucking bad. What are you going to do? Vote Re:puke:?"

It doesn't work.

"...you admitted that many Democrats in positions of power fight for them. That is the difference- left leaning, progressive & moderate-to-left Democrats can actually get elected."

I most certainly did not, this is a misrepresentation. I said,

"There are Democrats that have great ideas to resolve the aforementioned issues, they just don't enjoy the support of The Party Leadership".

There is nothing, in what passes for the platform, that addresses these issues. More lip-service, yes, concrete proposals, zip.

Who are the Democratic candidates that are saying we need to break the corporatocracy? How many Democrats in office are advocating universal health-care, not more money going into insurance company coffers so that a few more peasants can be shoved into some sub-standard health-denial plan, but universal health care?

As to the local situation here, The only race where a Democrat stands any chance at all (in my district) is Pederson for US Senate. I'll vote for him, but the bottom line is that he is a real estate developer running, primarily, on the illegal immigration issue, and the position he adopts just serves to ensure he and his subs will continue to enjoy a bottomless source of cheap labor to exploit. OTOH, this is AZ, so any progressive outside Tempe (maybe), would be eviscerated.

[Greyhound]

50. And how is it that every time we wade through all of the rhetoric and

get to the place where there is nothing left to discuss but the issues, all the dialog stops?

Could there be some reason that we don't want to talk about?

[Dr Fate]

98. We agreed already that many progressive DEMS adress your issues.

Who is not willing to discuss issues?

I've restated that point at least 3 times- you have several perfectly good progressive Democrats who can actually get elected, who are fighting for you on those issues.

[Greyhound]

131. No, we didn't. See #47. You mis-stated my reply and ignored it when

I pointed it out.

I really don't see what your position is regarding the Democrat's ability to make the Greens completely irrelevant by simply putting forth a plan to make the changes that nearly everyone agrees we need.

I've heard your obvious and heartfelt support for the Democratic Party. I never challenged that, but after losing for six cycles in a row (not to mention the intermittent losses of the 70's - 80's), we must change our message. We cannot continue to suck up to the corporate enemies of liberty and expect to gain support from the very people we are helping to hurt.

Is it your position that Party loyalty trumps what is right?

[Dr Fate]

97. It's not an attitude-the 2 party system is a political & historical fact.

I'm not saying it to cop an attitude, I'm telling you the united States operates under a two party system.

When the Greens can tell me which states they carry in a senate race, a governorship or a presidential race, then you got game.

Healhtcare? Check Kerry's record- he has been fighting for Children's healthcare and trying to strengthen healthcare for everyone.

He is not promising to flip over a pancake and have it for you by tomorrow or promising to build Rome in a day. Greens promise it, but they cant get elected to actually get anything started.

[Tesha]

127. If you think so, go ask a Whig about that. (NT)

[greendog]

116. Democrats want a Thanksgiving feast alright...

...a lavish dinner. A big turkey with all the fixin's. Sounds pretty good till you realize that "we the people" aren't going to be "eating" the dinner. We "are" the dinner. NAFTA. GATT/WTO. Telecom deregulation. Welfare reform. Pretty nice dinner for "someone".

[Tesha]

143. Exactly correct.

DEMOCRATS created the current political/media/corporate
environment (which has now, by way of thanking the
Democrats, destroyed them and instead turned to the
corporatists' natural allies, the Republicans).

Tesha

[ProudDad]

119. It's wonderful to be able to

make statements like the "pan cake" post without any knowledge or appreciation of history or reality.
It saves a lot of time to just throw off silly attacks without doing any research or spending any energy on thought...


The Democrats have never been about fair elections (remember box 13, Tammany Hall?) but then never have the repukes either. The whole electoral system is dirty.

The Dems have given lip-service to social equality but it took republican help (lots of Northern, socially liberal republican help) to pass the Civil Rights Act of '64 against the feral opposition of the dixiecrats. So it's actually Socially Liberal people who are the good guys -- Dems, republicans and Greens...

As for the environment, it was Nixon who signed the legislation -- he still had some New Deal social conscience left in his frame. The DLC has pretty well leached that kind of conscience out of the current party. Of course, Nixon also was facing veto proof votes for a lot of the legislation. This effort was spearheaded by the Dem controlled Congress but again over the strenuous objections of "conservative" dems and repukes.

Instead of bashing Greens, the dems should really look into their platform. It's a real winner in nearly EVERY part of the country if any dems had the guts to voice its policies.

[Greyhound]

153. Yes, it's not about Parties, it's about ideas. Personally I don't care

where the good ones come from, and we better start talking about them.

[MrBenchley]

5. Jeeze, there's a brainiac in action

Yes, we should abandon the Democratic platform to follow "ideals" that appeal to imbeciles who are part of a Republican dirty trick. Good call....not.

"I'm confident that the 1% - 2% of Green voters would gladly vote for a candidate that could win"
If they thought that way, they wouldn't be in the fucking Green party now, would they?

[pinto]

16. I think overall Greens, as a party, seem more interested in the Greens

than anything else. Individually they are Democrats ideologically, for the most part, I would hazard as a broad assumption. But politically, they seem more focused on a long term party building agenda that may or may not take into account their impact on specific elections, whether slight - as in most cases - or significant. I admire some of their chutzpah, and much of their agenda. but they too often cut off their noses to spite their face. And it's often at Democrats' expense. A Green third party may not be necessary, in the big picture. That's often overlooked in the discussion. Progressive Democrats would be more than welcoming to Greens if a "coalition" advance were made within the Democratic Party. I'm 53, politically active, and I've never seen an ideologically "pure" election, or political advances made without some measure of give and take, compromise and negotiation. That includes the Medicare Act, Voting Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, American with Disabilities Act, among others progressives hold as a standard.

[Greyhound]

25. That's what I'm talking about, surely the party is just that, a party, and

as such will engage in all kinds of shenanigans in their campaigns, but the voters that support the Greens are much closer to Democrats than Re:puke:s. So if the Democratic candidate runs a campaign offering solutions to the issues that they are concerned with, I think the voters will vote for the candidate that has a chance to win. IOW, I think that the Green Party voters are protest votes. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed on the ballot is about as un-american as I can imagine, and helps to further degrade the concept of America, as well as making the Democrats look bad to folks that don't have strong allegiances to any party.

[pinto]

44. Politically, I guess I disagree with "protest votes".

(Hadn't thought of this in those terms exactly...)

I don't see the point. I make my protests in the process leading up to an election, whether that's local organizing, state level activism, fund raising, whatever. When it comes down to the ballot, I vote for the person most likely to represent my concerns in the *actual* day to day business of legislation. And yep, that means I vote for an *electable* candidate that most closely represents me. And that means a Democrat.

Protest votes got us (California) Mr. Schwarzenegger. While he's not the worst (R) to come down the pike, he doesn't represent me. And, in fact, I doubt if he represents the majority of (R)'s in the State. His was an extreme minority victory, well funded from Orange and San Diego County extremists, a benefactor of their turnout and a slew of "protest votes" from the Democratic majority.

I was very disappointed at the short sighted, self-serving electoral politics that gave us that result.

[Greyhound]

58. The Cali fiasco is another thread, pretty much a contest as to

who could fuck up more, The Democrats or the Re:puke:s.

[FtWayneBlue]

18. Problem:

They are also for peace. They do not take corporate donations, so they are not beholden to the military-industrial complex, like the Dems and Reps are.

I would switch to Green in a heartbeat if I thought it would do any good.

Since I don't believe it would, I will try to work with the Progressive Democrats of America to change the direction of the Democratic party from within.

I would advise you-all to do the same.

[w4rma]

45. Greens take contributions from Republicans voting for Santorum.

So don't go all high and mighty about not accepting "corporate donations", because they *are* accepting corporate donations.

[Electable]

61. Electablility is the issue.

Well said. The greens are moral but not electable.

[OzarkDem]

19. We've already got it covered, thanks n/t

[nosmokes]

29. got it covered huh?

that's why the dem party web site didn't even mention the environment for over a year? yep, that's covered. that's whykerry said , even after knowing tere were noWMD in iraq that he would sdtill vote to go to war? yep, that's got it covered. that's all those dem senators voted to open up the florida coast to oil wells/. yep that's got it covered. an anti-abortion candidate in PA. yep, that's got it covered. sounds like q whole lotta DLC corporate sucking up to me, and then you look at some dems like reid and lieberman aand i do wonder just how much difference there is between the two parties. that's why i'm a card carrying green now after being a yellow dog democrat since 1972.

[Dr Fate]

32. Some valid points- but why should they change for you non-party members?

Seems to me they would be better swayed from within than from without.

And if Al Gore were Prez, you would be hearing a LOT about the environment from DEMS and we never would have invaded Iraq.

[Greyhound]

34. I'm pretty sure there are many more of us in The Party than there are

Greens.

[Dr Fate]

39. Good- then let's leave Greens by name out of it.

The poster I responded to said he was a card carrying member of the Green party.

[nosmokes]

35. but the dems act likethey owned my vote

while voting against my interestsalmost as much as the GOPosse. i do believe that we need 3rd parties involved in the system for any type of meaningful reform and to try and bridge this red/blue gap that we find ourselves in. the greens are a lot more about personal responsibility than the dems, but not bearly so much as the libertarians. but the greens aren't part of the coporate oligarchy, and the dems are, and i think the dems are more committed to preserving that than representing the working class. id unno if it's possible to change the party from within. i tried for 16 years and was looked upon as a nice little nuisance. i was tolerated because i bathed and gave money, but they din't wanna hear what i had to say when it casme to support for the poor over big budness. oh hell no. it was always but we'll be helping the poor by bringing in big business and giving them jobs. big business came, got the tax relief, the poor section of town became an even worse place to live and they got very few jobs at just above min wage. what a great fucking deal for the poor, huh?


so these days nobody but me owns my vote, and i grant it to the person who's gonna do the right thing.

[Dr Fate]

40. Greens not part of coporate oligarchy? Then why the GOP funds...

...in their coffers?

Yeah- I agree that many Democrats think they own your vote.

Show them what it does in primaries & local elections.

[union_maid]

51. You own your vote, yes

But if your vote helps to enable damage to the environment, increasing income disparity and the most stunningly bad foreign policy in the history of this country then I'm going to have the same issues with you as with any Republican. A Green will not "do the right thing" because a Green will not get a chance to do anything. A Green will never have to compromise, will never have to try to appeal to a majority of voters, because they just lose proudly. That has played a part, however small, in getting us to where we are today. Greens are not on the side of anything but owning some theoretical moral high ground. That will do the rest of the world no good at all.

[Greyhound]

55. Which comes right back to the original issue. The Democratic Party

has the capability to eliminate all of the reasons for anybody to vote for the Greens, why aren't they doing it?

[union_maid]

59. For a number of reasons, I suppose

Some are their fault. Not all. If you're doing politics and not just tilting at windmills, you do have to compromise. But there are ways to address that. What's happening in CT should serve to move the party just a little to the left. Win or lose, Lamont has made a huge impression. When progressives take their votes to another party, it does the opposite. When those people are likely to bolt when the Democrats can't deliver for them, then they're not going to be a voting block that counts for anything. It's not just the party, though. If progressives believe that Democrats aren't governing left enough, their efforts would bear much more fruit if they were in the direction of moving the electorate to the left.

[Greyhound]

63. How do you do that? I've been around the local and state parties

in several states and districts of different political stripes. The one common thread I've seen in the Democratic Party, and I imagine it's the same in the Re:puke:, is that it is a click, and outsiders are definitely not welcomed.

Just give us your money and your vote, then STFU and go to your corner. We aren't interested in new viewpoints or ideas and we are definitely not concerned with what you'd like to say. We decide who will run. We decide who gets the money. We decide what the campaign will be about. And mostly we don't care if we lose election after election, this is our turf and you better watch your ass.

[union_maid]

85. I guess Democrats do own my vote

My congressman does not agree with me enough of the time. He voted for the bankruptcy bill and I think that's terrible. He does believe in defending and protecting social security. I think that's good. He wants universal healthcare, but I think his ideas as to how to go about it are pretty bad. Basically, he's pretty DLC. I don't like that as much as I would a more progressive representative.

He has no primary to deal with. He's popular in his district. You think I'd throw a vote to a Republican by voting against him? Never. He's far from my ideal, but he'll vote right a LOT more than any Republican ever would.

[Totallybushed]

26. Trouble is, then the

Dem incumbents couldn't move right to take in some of the "moderates". You may think they shouldn't; I may think they shouldn't. But keen observation tends to make me believe that this is what they want to do, if their feet aren't held to the fire.

[w4rma]

46. Hold them to the fire in Democratic primaries.

When liberals are too busy campaigning for Greens instead of involving themselves in Democratic primaries, then DLC candidates will always win those primaries.

[Totallybushed]

81. You are correct

:) :)

[SaveElmer]

38. Green Party is just as much an enemy as the Republican Party...

Not as big a threat perhaps, but to be fought against as well...

As far as I am concerned.

[Dr Fate]

42. God Bless- It's nice to agree with you for a change.

There are perfectly good progressive & left-leaning Democrats for these Green types to get behind- and they fight for all the issues the OP is concerned with.

I would rather see left-leaning voters strengthen DEMS by going with them.

[SaveElmer]

43. I totally agree with that assesment...

I see it is mentioned up top...but their behavior in the Minnesota 2002 Senate race was despicable. Paul Wellstone was a great man, and the Greens were ready to jeapordize his reelection in a very close race.

[ProudDad]

120. This is how we Greens really felt about Paul Wellstone

Check it out...

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_25_02b.html

[depakid]

100. This kind of thinking is why the Dems lose

and why they'll keep losing.

As a party, they no longer stand for anything- their whole modus operandi seems to be chase the ephemeral center- whatever and wherever some pack of consultants thinks that might be.

Traditional democratic values be damned.

[LoZoccolo]

41. That won't happen, Greens are hobbyist deviant contrarians.

It's not about getting what they want, it's about acting like a smug and arrogant ass like they're smarter than 98-99% of voters. Co-opt their issues and they'll still have the smug arrogant asspipery all over them.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Kerry's an environmentalist. So is Gore. Wasn't good enough.

Not pure enough i guess.

[Greyhound]

52. Funny, I remember Gore's campaign emphasizing technology education

after they (Clinton/Gore) had already decimated the field. Kerry was all about how patriotic he was for supporting the mass murder of thousands of Iraqis.

I don't think it was a matter of purity at all.

Seems to me they both spent most of their time trying to figure out what we wanted to hear, rather than taking a position and fighting for it.

And when they both won, and had it stolen, they folded. Now that's conviction.

All I'm saying is that the Democratic Party had better reclaim its position of advocating what is best for the "little people", before they find themselves all alone in the parade.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Only if you'd never paid attention to them before the campaign

And at the VERY least, Gore did not immediately fold. Your view is skewed.

How could you miss that Gore is a longtime environmentalist? Kerry too.

And Kerry literally wrote a book about anti-terrorism. He did NOT say what he did because he was trying to pander. He believes it. Whether you agree or disagree with him, that much is certain. And Kerry has since reexamined his stance on Iraq and reversed it, apology and everything. He gave the Iraq elections about six months to produce a government and when they didn't, he started squaking. Even now that something of a government has formed, he's still pushing for a withdrawl, though not as fast as some want.

[Greyhound]

56. Right, it's my fault. Yeah, that's what has gone wrong, the political

junkies like me didn't pay enough attention to what they really meant, we were just listening to what they said, how stupid of me. He wanted to be president, just not enough to make his real positions clear.

BTW, unlike those of us that live for this shit, nobody pays attention to what they do before the campaign, that's the purpose of campaigning.

And yes, Gore almost stood up for us, but, well, you know...

[LittleClarkie]

57. Sorry you feel defensive.

I didn't say anything was your fault. Just that I disagree with you and feel you are wrong. But that's what a discussion board is for, no?

[Greyhound]

60. Not defensive, frustrated. If we can't have an honest discuss of the

issue here among others that we supposedly have at least nominal agreement with, what hope is there for our country? BTW, I replied before you edited your post, so missed the part you added.

As for Kerry changing his mind, I just can't buy it. He worked with Richard Clark for many years before *, and was privy to way more information than we, yet we saw what was happening and had a pretty good idea what would come of it. How is it possible that he didn't? I don't believe it is, I know that he is far to smart for that. I do believe he, along with the rest of the ruling class, thought they would get away with it, but didn't count on the utter incompetence and ulterior motives of the cabal.

[MrBenchley]

67. Irony is SUCH a wonderful thing.....

Yeah, by all means let's have an honest discussion of the honest Green party and their honest behavior and their honest sugar daddy, Dog-Sex Ricky.

[LoZoccolo]

69. "Dog-Sex Ricky"

Oh fuck dude, that's hilarious!

[MrBenchley]

70. Wish I could take credit

but I think it was tbogg who came up with that....

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. ...

:spray: :rofl:

You owe me a new keyboard.

[MrBenchley]

77. oops....

By the way, it speaks volumes that Santorum can't even cheat competently, doesn't it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. It sure does.

It also speaks volumes about the depth of dishonesty and sleaziness present in the Green Party. For all their caterwauling about the corruption of the Democratic party and its DINO corporowhores or whatever the fuck, they sure do seem to love taking the GOP's money. I wonder if the Greens actually *like* feeling like cheap roadside whores?

[MrBenchley]

79. By the way, it's interesting to see

who's running around this forum tonight trying to stick up for the Greens and spin the news away....

[Dr Fate]

101. I thought it was turtles.

And I always wondered how Ricky got around the shell.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. That was Cornyn

In his Christian grace and wisdom warning us that if gays can get married, what's to stop people from marrying box turtles?

Ricky warned us that "man-on-man" sex was really no different than "man-on-boy" or "man-on-dog" sex.

Sad when there are actually multiple incidents of Republican fascination with bestiality that one could get confused in the first place...

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. Your insistence on an "honest" discussion is disingenuous

You have replied angrily to any point of view in this thread that doesn't parrot your own - all you're interested in is hearing some kind of bullshit me-too chorus.

Kerry was never for the invasion of Iraq and he never campaigned on "the mass murder of Iraqis" and to say something that ignorant, wrong-headed, and full of disingenuous hyperbole just puts the lie to your bogus claim that you want an honest discussion. You don't want an honest discussion, you just want to bitch about Democrats so you can feel smugly superior about your alleged ideological purity. I've frankly had enough of smarmy leftists trumpeting their moral superiority while hypocritically propping up the dishonest Green party stooges who take blood money from the GOP cabal. Fuck the Greens and fuck their windmill-tilting purer-than-thou hypocritical apologists.

[Greyhound]

80. I only got angry when attacked for daring to have an opinion.

No, I don't agree with the "Greens are to blame for all our troubles" BS, but neither did any one of them offer any explanation or answer to the OP. This thread is a pretty good example of why we have lost consistently for 6 cycles in a row. "We know best", "our way or the highway", yeah, that will work.

This may be news to you, but the Green Party is irrelevant, and if we are so weak that their 2% really will make the difference, then getting that 2% is simplicity itself. Unless, of course, our candidates have no interest in fixing The Party or the process for their own reasons.

And as for Kerry's candidacy, it is all on the record. He voted for the authorization, he ran on his military record (reporting for duty), and if you expect anybody to believe he didn't think * would invade the moment he got that authorization your fooling yourself alone. Or maybe you think he believed we could invade a nation of 30 million people without killing thousands or innocent people that just wanted to live their lives.

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. Maybe you should get a clue instead of repeating stale talking points

And actually read WHAT Kerry SAID about his vote and about the war instead of repeating intellectually bankrupt tagphrases that mean nothing because they do not even come close to telling the right story. The IWR had a specific set of provisions that needed to be met before military action was authorized; Bush did not meet those requirements, and ergo IWR could actually be used to impeach him. But you don't care about the nasty little facts, do you, when you'd rather pretend, ludicrously, that both parties are the same?

Kerry's speech at Georgetown in January of 2003: "Mr. President, do not rush to war": http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

Yes, he ran on his military record. Do you think serving in the military and being a war hero are somehow Republican traits? If so, you must be content to campaign for the 10% of the population that holds military service in disdain. And people wonder why most Democrats laugh at Green party ideas?

YOUR post is a perfect example of why so many Democrats hold Greens in contempt - they absolutely DO NOT CARE about the actual dirty little facts if said facts get in the way of their petulant, rigid agenda. The only way they ever attract any voters is to repeat the abominable lie that there is no difference between the two parties. Ordinarily I'd be content to let them live in their delusional fantasy world and leave them alone, but when their delusions are contributing directly to the destruction of the world around me, then NO, I will not sit back and pretend that their twisted version of reality is somehow equal to my own.

[Greyhound]

122. Thanks for not answering again.

Good Luck.

[WildEyedLiberal]

144. You didn't ask any questions.

Unless by "answer" you mean "agree with me." In which case...

I think YOUR non-response rather proves my point quite well...

[Greyhound]

161. One more time. If the "other guys" are such a threat, and since the

issues they are so concerned about are, in fact, right in line with what the Democratic party says it's about, why aren't the Democrats emphasizing those issues to convince the "other guys" to vote for them?

If you are interested in improving the situation, give this article (4 parts) a gander;

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11443

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11449

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11455

If, OTOH you would rather continue to try to blame a tiny, insignificant protest party (sorry Greens, but you know it's true), for all of our troubles, feel free.

Have a wonderful day. :kick: :patriot:

[LoZoccolo]

62. If the Greens are such a progressive party, why don't they

fuck off.

[Greyhound]

64. Wow, you told them. Very helpful. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

65. About as helpful as their lying-ass garbage.

There's nothing more to say to people who are that fucked up or malicious. When you cause harm, let wars happen, drown people, and ruin the environment, that's what you get. People who aren't interested in reason don't get reasoned with; they get beat the fuck down.

[MrBenchley]

66. By the way, it's worth noting

that for all they're hot-shit issues, without the GOP financing them they wouldn't exist. America wants no part of the Green party or its pompous, self-righteous rhetoric.

[LoZoccolo]

68. It's a fair deal between the two parties.

One group gets world domination, the other gets to whack off.

[MrBenchley]

71. The Greens have been such a success, why shouldn't we emulate them? hahaha

[Tesha]

83. Dems haven't been winning much of anything lately either.

Or did all those elections since 1994 escape your notice?

Tesha

[WildEyedLiberal]

93. Maybe we would have won in 2000 if Nader's ego hadn't gotten in the way

Maybe if, instead of pretending that the lives of millions of people around the world aren't at stake and having a self-centered circle jerk, the Greens actually worked WITHIN the Democratic party and voted for Democratic candidates, we wouldn't have Bush* in office today!

Or are the Greens still desperately trying to contort themselves into logical pretzels to disavow themselves of any blame for the coronation of the Chimperor?

[Tesha]

94. I wouln't know.

> Or are the Greens still desperately trying to contort
> themselves into logical pretzels to disavow themselves
> of any blame for the coronation of the Chimperor?

I wouldn't know.

In 2000, I was hard at work on the Gore campaign.

Tesha

[WildEyedLiberal]

96. I'm glad to hear it, thanks for helping save America from *bush

I would have voted for Gore but I was too young, and I don't take too kindly to Naderites who want to pretend that their vote to help install the Chimperor was somehow justified even as Bush continues to wreck my country's future.

[sandnsea]

99. People think Dems are Greens, that's why

That percentage we need to win hears kooky leftist shit like Hezbollah has a right to exist, connects it to Democrats, and vote Republican. That's another reason I wish people who are truly NOT Democrats would quit pretending they are and celebrate their Greenness so that regular voters would understand the difference.

[Tesha]

102. Yeah, shit like women's rights is *SUCH* a pain-in-the-ass...

Yeah, shit like women's rights is *SUCH* a pain-in-the-ass
for real Democrats, ehh? If only we'd all just sit down,
shut up, or go away, ehh?

Tesha

[Dr Fate]

104. The vast majority of Democrats R pro medical privacy & pro-women's rights.

And national Democrats dont refer to the abortion isses as "gonadal politics" like St. Nader did so glibly.

Should I LIST the literally thousands of Democrats nationwide who can actaully get elected- who are pro-choice?

Sure, some Democrats hold conservative views, I dont care for those guys either. But you are being awfully general- especially when Greens have not done a damn thing to protect women's rights or medical privacy.

[Tesha]

108. So why aren't we running pro-choice politicians?

> The vast majority of Democrats R pro medical
> privacy & pro-women's rights.

So why aren't we running a vast majority of
pro-choice politicians? (That would be:
politicians who are actually willing to
stand up for choice when it counts such as
in Supreme Court nominations, anti-choice
bills, funding for contraception, and
other trivial matters.)

Why do people keep asking me to hold my nose and vote
for anti-woman, anti-gay, white Christian guys?

Tesha

[Dr Fate]

109. In what alternate reality are we NOT running pro-choice candidates?

Like I said, I could list literally thousands of elected Democrats across the country who are pro-choice.

And if you think Kerry or Gore would have appointed anti-choice judges, then you atre being dishonest.

I could probably list 3 or 4 ELECTED greens who are pro-choice- which would be all of them in the whole country. Dont they have a Mayor somewhere or something? I'm sure he is doing a lot to keep it safe & legal.

[Tesha]

111. Umm, Pennsylvania? Virulently anti-choice Dem Senate candidate. (NT)

[Dr Fate]

114. But you worded it like we are not running ANY pro-choice candidates.

Instead of the misleading post title : "So why aren't we running pro-choice politicians?"

It would have been more honest to say: "A tiny percentage of Democrats in red states are anti-choice."

In reality, the VAST MAJORITY of all elected Democrats are pro-choice.

The vast majority of Greens cant get elected, and their leader, Ralph nader frames it as a non-issue.

I dont like every Democrat on every issue either- but we need to look at the big picture. A Green cant beat Ricky- that is why Ricky is funding the Greens.

You are going to protect choice a lot better by putting Democrats in the majority than by helping Ricky & his Greens.

[Tesha]

125. A *HUGE PERCENTAGE* of Democrats head for the hills...

A *HUGE PERCENTAGE* of Democrats head for the hills
whenever tough "rights" issues turn up.

Tesha

[sandnsea]

107. What Green issue is that???

Women's rights is not a Green issue, Democrats fight for women's rights and if it weren't for Democrats women would have lost all their rights a long time ago while Greens were sitting in a tree somewhere.

I don't say Greens should sit down and shut up. On the contrary. I say they should stand up as GREENS so that America clearly hears the left viewpoint, the two main parties become Greens and Democrats, and so that people clearly see the difference between left/Green, Democrat and Republican.

[Dr Fate]

110. Nader CLEARLY stated that it was a NON ISSUE for Greens.

He jokingly brushed off the issue as "gonadal politics" and even falsely assured us that the Republicans he was helping would not do anything to curb privacy & womans right.

[Tesha]

112. Nader said it was a non-issue for Nader. (NT)

[Dr Fate]

113. And Nader is the God-Father and face of the Green party.

And he seems to be the most popular as far as what few votes they garnish.

Sorry, but I cant let you bash the Democrats who fight for choice and then let you brush off the fact that Nader refused to.

If you want to see what Greens will do for Choice, look no further than Nader's own statements and his party's poor election results.

[MrBenchley]

124. And how much of that is due to the fuckwits in the Green party

and much more damaging to the Democrats than their tiny clot of addlepated supporters is their loud antics and feeble-minded rhetoric.

The smartest thing Democrats can do is condemn the far left, including therse crooked turds in the Green party.

[Tesha]

128. Do you always talk like this when you're trying to win converts? (NT)

[MrBenchley]

129. Geeze, you mean you think

someone should want the sort of imbecile still enamored of the Green Party?

That's a BIG laugh.

[Tesha]

140. That's right, toss away voters.

*THAT*, friends, is why Democrats are losing elections.

Toss away women.
Toss away gays.
Toss away Hispanics.
Toss away African Americans.
Toss away religious minorities.
Toss away environmentalists.
Toss away folks opposed to war.

But make sure to try to get Republicans to vote for your candidates.

Unfortunately, paraphrasing you, "that's (the) BIG laugh."

Tesha

[WildEyedLiberal]

146. Democrats support all those causes you just listed

So who's tossing anything away?

[MrBenchley]

149. Hilarious, isn't it?

[Tesha]

155. So why are those points I raised controversial with so many Dem pols?

So why are those points I raised controversial with so many Democratic
politicians?

Why do so many run from the room whenever these topics come up?

Tesha

[WildEyedLiberal]

157. Who runs away from those issues?

At leasr 90% of Dems support all those issues.

[Tesha]

162. Okay, BUT OUR POLITICIANS *DON'T*!

Great. Democrats support these issues.

BUT OUR "DEMOCRATIC" POLITICIANS *DON'T*!

Routinely, they sell us down the river every time one of
these issues comes up. Whether it's the need to block a
Right Wing court appointee, or an idiot attorney general
who never met a constitutional right he couldn't trample,
or a bill that just happens to restrict abortion in yet another
way, Democratic politicians don't seem to even approach
that "90% support" that you assure me these issues have.

And that's why no one can figure out what Democratic
politicians stand for: currently they don't stand up for
anything, preferring to roll over and hope the Republicans
will rub their tummies. (And, of course, the Republivans
just kick them instead.)

Tesha

[MrBenchley]

164. Don't let the door hit you in the ass....

If you really think Democrats are selling you "down the river," feel free to join another party.

[Tesha]

165. Do you have anything to offer besides insults?

Do you have anything to offer besides insults?

Tesha

[MrBenchley]

170. To whom?

To somebody pissing and moaning about how awful Democrats are? No, insults is all I've got for such a specimen--and it's all such folks deserve.

[Tesha]

172. As I said, then when you come to ask for my vote, you can... (NT)

[MrBenchley]

173. Geeze, you mean you think it isn't evident

what a lost cause you are?

I'll concentrate on voters who aren't pimping for a GOP dirty trick.

[Tesha]

174. Actually, you have *NO FUCKING IDEA* what my politics are.

> Geeze, you mean you think it isn't evident what a lost cause you are?

Actually, you have NO FUCKING IDEA what my politics
are or what I've done in election cycles past or even this
election cycle.

But spout on, you're doing your side of the debate lots
of damage. ;-)

Tesha

[MrBenchley]

175. You say that like I'm supposed to give a crap....

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to join my fellow Democrats selling specimens like you "down the river" (snicker)

[WildEyedLiberal]

167. What a tiresome load of bullshit.

Does ranting make you feel better? I hope so, because there certainly aren't any actual facts to back up your absurd statements.

Interest group ratings and votes have been posted here time and time again, proving that the nearly every Democrat in Congress votes "our" way at least 80% of the time. Time and time again, all the bullshit that you just spewed has been proven to be nothing more than a shrill Green party far left lie. You know good and goddamn well you can't point to more than ONE Democrat who consistently votes against the Democratic agenda - and that one Democrat would be Ben Nelson, who is the most liberal politician who will ever be elected in Nebraska.

Why don't you and your fellow dishonest "not a dime's worth of difference" crowd go peddle your bullshit somewhere else? I'm sick and tired of DU's bandwidth being wasted by people who collude with the rightwing.

[Tesha]

168. Actually, I have plenty of facts.

> What a tiresome load of bullshit. Does ranting make you feel
> better? I hope so, because there certainly aren't any actual
> facts to back up your absurd statements.

Actually, I have plenty of facts. Here are some of them:

o Antonin Scalia
o Clarence Thomas
o John Roberts
o Samuel Alito

o John Ashcroft
o Alberto Gonzalez
o Condaleeza Rice

o (Soon, we can add Steve Bolton to this list as the Democrats "keep their powder dry"!)

o The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
o The Interstate Abortion Bill
o The USA-PATRIOT Act and re-authorization
o The failure to force a substantial raising of CAFE standards all these years.
o The many Democratic votes for the constitutional amendment banning flag-burning
o The many Democratic votes for the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
o The many Democratic votes for all the budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy

Shall I go on? Or is this all just "a load of bullshit" too?

Tesha

[Tesha]

169. Oh yeah: *AND MEDIA CONSOLIDATION*

Oh yeah, add to that list:

o MEDIA CONSOLIDATION!


Democrats have been for that in the past, even though many
of us warned them that this would not be good for them in
the long run. But financial contributions speak louder than
constituents, so they rolled it right through.

And then theres:

o Appointments to the FCC and CPB


Tesha

[Tesha]

176. Cat got your tongue? (NT)

[MrBenchley]

148. The only "voters" I'm tossing away

are the Green party fuckwits, who were NEVER voting Democratic anyway. In fact they were hired by the Republicans to fuck up our party.

[Tesha]

156. "Fuckwits", ehh? I'll remember that...

> The only "voters" I'm tossing away are the Green party fuckwits,

"Fuckwits", ehh? I'll remember that the next time someone is trying
to convince me to once again hold my nose and vote for the Democrat
because this is, "you know, like the most important election *EVAH*"
so even though the candidate stands for practically nothing (and
certainly nothing I believe in), I should vote for him anyway.

So I can later be called a "fuckwit".

Tesha

[MrBenchley]

158. Hey, it springs to mind everytime one sees a Green party doofus

Fuckwit fits such idiots perfectly.

"hold my nose and vote for the Democrat"
Then don't let the door hit you in the ass. Far be it from me to force anyone to vote for the better political party that has answers to America's problems. Nor do I give a shit what such a specimen has to say on any issue.

Especially not someone who wants to stick up for a Republican dirty trick that's battling with the Temperance Party for last place at the ballot box.

But its noticeable that people who think Democrats stink still seem compelled to come over and clog up a Democratic forum. There's a term for that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

145. It should be obvious

The self-proclaimed "independents" I know who voted for Bush explained their vote not by saying that they liked Bush, but that they thought he'd do a better job than the Michael-Moore loving far-left loony Kerry. Never mind that Kerry had nothing to do with Fahrehnheit 9/11, nor is he a far-left loony. It didn't matter because the media, cleverly, chose to portray the entire Democratic party as being one and the same with the far left/Greens. This turned off more voters than it attracted.

So we can thank the far-left for not only slandering Kerry by implying that he was the same as Bush, but also for creating the impression that Kerry was too radically left. This is why Dems can't win - the far left won't support them because every Democrat is a "DINO," and conservative-leaning centrists won't support them because all they see in the media are the far leftists and conflate their views with the Democratic party as a whole. In their screaming over the impurity of our candidates, the Greens manage to scare off any independent voters who might otherwise support a Dem if they actually knew what the Dem stood for.

I blame the media for most of this, for refusing repeatedly to let Gore and Kerry get their message out but instead by using people like Michael Moore as unofficial spokesmen for the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

151. Here's the difference between the two extremist groups

The far right knows it's out of touch with the average American and so it tries to hide what it's about.

The far left hates the average American for being out of touch with them and thinks that the problem is that they aren't loud and obnoxious enough yet.

[WildEyedLiberal]

154. Sad but true n/t

[depakid]

103. The Vichy Dems would rather emulate Republicans

and lead the country farther to the right.

That they've alomst completely lost all relevance in national policy making. They're routinely disparaged and abused- and even ridiculed- by Republicans procedurally and by the media conglomerates that they helped to create- yet that doesn't seem to bother the so called "leadership."

Sucking up to corporate money seems more important than winning on the issues.

[Dr Fate]

105. But hundreds of good Democrats fight hard for the issues listed in the OP.

There are hundreds of them- IN elected postions. I wish they were actaully in power rather than in the minority too.

It will happen-Unlike the Greens who cant even win a congressional district in a blue state.

[sandnsea]

115. Well no, it's Vichy Greens

Greens are the tool of the Republicans, that's patently clear in Pennsylvania.

[ItNerd4life]

106. Maybe the Greens don't want the Democrats to win?

Makes you have to wonder.

Either that or they don't understand how the political game is played. If you don't have the people in office, you don't have the power to make the desired changes.

[NNadir]

132. The Green Party is not a threat to anyone anymore.

It was a historical accident that it became significant, not by having real issues, but by running propaganda slandering Al Gore.

The main Green Party point was that Bush was the same as Gore. The obviously fraudulent nature of this argument will prevent the Green Party from ever being worthy of any respect at any point in the future.

It's done.

[Greyhound]

133. I suspect you are absolutely right about that.

I had no idea this would turn into the furball it has and over what? The coup in 2000? It just seems like scape goating to me, after all Pat Buchanan got some ridiculous number of vote in another district where even he said something is screwy.

Yeah, that's it it was Pat Buchanan's fault. :hi: :rofl:

[chieftain]

138. If the Greens are for fair elections, why are they letting

themselves be used by Santorum. I never wanted to believe that Nader was purposely throwing the elections to Bush, but I am beginning to wonder.

[citizen snips]

147. If the Greens were not so closed minded

they would realize that the democrats stand for those issues

[McCamy Taylor]

150. RNC gets Greens on the ballot to use E-vote fraud to switch Dem votes.

What the Greens have to say or who they run is totally immaterial. The Greens could run on a platform of more mac n' cheese for the homeless and they could run a blind possom on their ticket. It would make no difference. In Republican controlled precints, those in charge of the screwdriver would still manage to reassign 4-5% of the Democratic vote to the Green candidate.

[MrBenchley]

159. This discussion board has been ratfucked repeatedly by Greens

and Libertarians...one wonders if that was volunteer work or if it was funded by the GOP

[LynneSin]

171. I don't know that Mac&Cheese platform sounds tempting

:eyes:

We can't assume that every voting machince is full of fraud. I don't think the fix is in Pennsylvania. They don't have a Harris or Blackwell purging the ballots and other corruption especially since the SoS is appointted by the Governor, which is a democrat. (well for Pennsylvania)

Not that there isn't potential

[omega minimo]

160. Scapegoating Greens lets *some* Dems avoid varied issues, strategy, work &

responsiblity



Looking in the rear view, driving deeper into Bushworld :evilfrown:

[MrBenchley]

163. Yeah, that's what the Greens getting exposed as a Republican ratfuck is

Scapegoating.

And Quisling was just misunderstood.....

[RiffRandell]

166. Didn't Paul Wellstone do that?

And the Greens still ran someone against him in 2002. Bullshit.