As Opponents of Dems, is there a difference between Lieberman and Greens?

[Sparkly]

Let's face it. Whatever your thoughts and feelings about Lieberman and Green candidates, both (all) represent opposition to Democratic candidates, supported by the party and those who voted in primaries.

So, is there a difference?

[serryjw]

1. Greens are closer to

the party of FDR. I love the DPC but DK and his fellow progressives have no voice in the party.

[welshTerrier2]

2. there are lots of ways to answer this question

one could stop with the simplest analysis and say they are both opposing Democrats ... nothing wrong with that analysis: it's true ...

but i prefer to take a longer term view ... and that view is also pretty simple ... it says that when the party chooses its policies and chooses its candidates, it makes choices ... the goal, looking solely at the politics, is to win the most votes ...

to achieve that goal, the party's message has to be meaningful and credible to as many voters as possible ... that seems pretty elementary ...

to come along after the fact, i.e. after the party has "made its calls", and make as much anti-Green noise as we've seen on DU today, is pretty much pointless ... saying that as Democrats, we disagree with Greens and think they're making the wrong choice is fine but it accomplishes virtually nothing ...

if the Democratic Party hopes to win the votes of Greens, or Lieberman supporters, or Libertarians, or Socialists, or anybody else, the time to consider the best electoral strategy occurs far before election day rolls around ... and there certainly is no guarantee that no matter what the Dems do, they can prevent Greens or Liebermans from running against them ... still, the more inclusive we are, and frankly, the better our ideas are seen by more and more voters as being REAL SOLUTIONS to the country's problems, the more likely it is the Democratic ticket will prevail ...

so, after all that, i guess my view is that there really is no difference between any of our opponents ... they may hold very, very different positions on the issues but they are all there because we, as a party, have not won their votes and their support ...

[MH1]

3. Other. Lieberman is more of a traitor.

I don't like the way some greens are behaving - but there was even a Green Party guy (sorry I forget who) who was on NPR saying that asshole in PA shouldn't have done what he did - but if they are up front about who they are and what they are about, then they aren't as bad as Lieberman.

Lieberman takes "asshole" to a whole 'nother level, imo.

[Ken Burch]

6. There's been no Green equivalent of Lieberman's behavior since August 9th.

I think that this year its a really stupid idea to vote Green anywhere(there is, for some incomprehensible reason, a Green standing against Barbara Lee!)

We need, however, to make a distinction between Green candidates and people with green and progressive values.

We are justified in fighting against the former, especially in the districts where there is no justification whatsoever for their candidacies.

We need to start a dialogue with the latter. We need to listen to them when they tell us why they felt they were not welcome in our party, and we need, wherever possible, to reach out to them.

Bellowing orders at Green voters serves no purpose other than to make it a point of honor for them not to listen to us.

[Sparkly]

27. "Bellowing orders at Green voters"

I agree with a lot of your post.

But I'd dare say Democratic candidates and elected politicians have the same reaction to Greens who bellow orders at them.

[Ken Burch]

39. True, but, as the larger party

I think we have a greater obligation not to be overbearing.

[creeksneakers2]

4. So many similarities

Both have a holier than thou attitude and both are traitors to the cause. I'd rather vote for a Republican than a Green though. Greens drive me nutty.

[Zensea]

10. "Traitors to the cause" is a bit myopic ---

What Cause?
I''m not sure I'd rate the Democratic Party as a cause. It's too amorphous an entity.
Certain principles of the Democratic party I would rate as a cause ... you can be a traitor to those principles, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Greens or even Lieberman are traitors to principles per se.
As for holier than thou attitudes, Greens and Lieberman certainly have no monopoly on that attribute.
Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are just as guilty of such a thing.
It kind of cuts across political boundaries and is more of a political ill or character flaw which exists independent of political affiliation.

[RiffRandell]

5. I've been wondering about this myself the past few days.

Shouldn't we be embracing Joe's right to run as an Independent?

After all, that is what democracy is all about!

Ralph did it when the Green party wouldn't endorse him in 2004.

So what if Joe lost the primary----we should never prevent other parties from being on the ballot!

My vote was "other". Lieberman actually had a chance of winning.

[crispini]

16. It's called "Party Unity"

Joe is not a member of another party. He lost the Democratic Primary -- it happens. Now he needs to STFU and endorse his opponent and get behind Lamont. That kind of thing happens every election, all across the nation, in races from State House Representative to D.A. He does NOT have the right to come in as a spoiler and should not get the support of any good Democrat.

[Zensea]

7. Greens are a party, Lieberman is a man -- that's the difference

Lieberman is running, it appears to me, purely from personal ambition & not as part of an organization.
That's a big difference.
He may want people to think his motives are purer than that, but I have my doubts.

[RiffRandell]

30. I was being sarcastic. n/t

[depakid]

8. If the Democratic party hadn't taken such a profound turn to the right

The Green party would be irrelevant.

Now of course- because of its failure to stand for much of anything- to draw a contrast with its opponents- and its failure to oppose to the far right on issue after issue and vote after vote... it's the Democratic party that's become largely irrelevant in national politics and policy making!

It always surprises me how few people seem to get that- even after 6 Congresional losses in a row- and maybe a 7th coming up.

Until the party decides to stand up for tradtional Democratic values again- and discipline and run serious primary challenges against its DINO's as has happened with Lieberman -as long 8-10 Senators and 40 or so congress people consistently legitimize far right policies, the Dems as a party are going to keep losing.

And in many races, they'll keep drawing Green party challenges from candidates with the potential to take 3%-5% of the vote- or maybe more.

[ulysses]

9. your first sentence summed it up nicely.

If the Democratic party hadn't taken such a profound turn to the right, the Green party would be irrelevant. Yes.

[Sparkly]

13. Do you think the Green party, opposing Democrats, helps us "move left?"

What's the first step toward moving left?

[ulysses]

20. in certain cases, against certain Dems, yes.

What's the first step toward moving left?

Admitting that one has an addiction to right wing talking points.

[Sparkly]

21. I meant as a party, as in post #8 -- what's the first step?

If indeed it's "admitting that one has an addiction to right wing talking points," and influencing more people to admit that, what's the way to change it?

[flaminbats]

22. voting in the primary is the first step..

this means watching and listening to the candidates, and holding them accountable. Democrats did this on August 8. Lieberman announced he would leave our party if he lost the primary, and Democrats voted for Lamont to give someone new a chance.

[Sparkly]

26. I agree.

Much of it happens at the primary level.

[Ken Burch]

23. the first step is LISTENING to these people when they say

why they went Green.

Now, some of them were never with us and we can't do much about them.

But some were and we could get a large chunk of them back. Many came back on an ad hoc basic in 2004 even though the party offered few if any conciliatory gestures towards them or did anything to acknowledge the step they were taking, a step which was deeply painful for many.

We need to try to bring as many of their values as possible back into the party. Compromise on both sides will be needed.

the second step is BACKING ELECTORAL REFORM.

Had we fought the 2004 and 2000 elections under an Instant Runoff Voting system, Bush would never have taken the oath of office and a new and more positive politics could have emerged. IRV and abolishing or proportionalizing the Electoral College are steps ALL DEMOCRATS should be fighting for.

The existing electoral system will always be our enemy.

Other steps include changing the way the party is run and focusing on creating a culture of enthusiasm, passion and HOPE around our candidates and our principles. The era of triangulation is over and we never really got anything out of it. In any case, we need something new.

[Sparkly]

25. Who are you saying should listen, that aren't listening now?

And how can you get them to listen, and heed or act upon what you want them to hear?

[Ken Burch]

35. Basically, those who are running our party at the highest levels

Should be doing the listening. To those who've left, and those who've come back.

[Sparkly]

36. So if you're saying they're not listening, how do you propose getting them

to listen?

On edit -- How will you know that they are listening?

[primative1]

11. Greens ...

Love em or not they are what they are; unlike some candidates who shall remain nameless.

[skeeters2525]

12. Thank God

More stories about Lieberman.

And who said Democrats couldn't bore the shit out of us

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Every Green I've met has been honest and sincere

Those are qualities that Lieberman most certainly does NOT have.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

15. As a proud member of the Green party

Who voted for, and still loves Gore,
Who voted for Kerry even though his campaign stunk because I was really voting against Bush
Who gave more money to Howard Dean than I have ever givin to a candidate in my 56 years on this planet,
Who donated to Lamont's campaign,
Who still thinks that Ralph Nader speaks the truth,
who still thinks that Noam Chomksky speaks the truth,
I will continue to support the Green candidate who runs against Dianne Fienstein.
If you don't like it, run a candidate who actually cares more about people than war profits

[Sparkly]

17. "run a candidate who...."

Who decides which Democratic candidates run, and how, and why??

Who are you actually telling to "run a candidate who..."?

Just askin'.

[demigoddess]

18. In our state the republicans ran and funded the green party's candidate

for governor, apparently an effort to split the liberal vote and get their candidate in. However, I was interested in the fact that these were well known republicans, who were working on the republican governor candidate's team at the same time, and the green party did not tell them to take a hike!!!!

[flaminbats]

19. yes..Lieberman was never a Democrat, now the Greens can be

and Democrats can too, because Lamont will not switch parties on us just if he loses a primary!

[beyurslf]

24. I support the Democrat who is chosen by the Democrats of that

district or state.

[mmonk]

28. There is no difference, they are not the democratic nominee.

That being said, people can vote their conscience, but there is no difference.

[paulk]

29. in general, no

There is one difference specific to the Connecticut race, though. Lieberman does actually have a chance of winning. Greens never have a chance of winning.

[Joey Liberal]

31. Greens help the GOP

Republicans count on Greens to take away Democrat votes in elections.

[Joey Liberal]

32. That doesn't mean I hate them

I admire them.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. At least the Greens are progressive in their positions.

I have voted Green on occasion, though not where the polls were close enough that it would actually make a difference to the outcome of the race.

I will make an exception for my senator Ken Salazar. By supporting Lieberman, he is saying that he supports third party runs against Democrats. I will therefore be supporting whatever third party progressive is running against him when he's up for re-election, no matter how close the race is.

One thing that I will NEVER do is to openly support a third party candidate on this board. I figure that since old Ken's not up for re-election for another 4 years, it's okay for me to talk about it now. I'll shut up about it long before the actual campaign though.

I do also think that there is a major difference between ordinary voters being "disloyal", and actual officials of the Democratic party.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. A Dem opponent, is a Dem opponent

End of Story

[Jack Rabbit]

37. #2: So I owe you an explanation

The point about the Green candidate in number 2 is hypotheitical. Yes, I could support a Green candidate over a crooked Democrat (Edwin Edwards, for example). Note: crooked does not necessarily mean pro-war; it means knee-deep in graft. A lot might depend on the specific Green in question.

There is nothing hypothetical about Lieberman. We know who he is and for what he stands. It would have been hard enough to support him as a Democrat, and I'm certainly not going to support him as an independent.

[Mark E. Smith]

38. They both suck

Period.