I DO support the Green Party!

[Guy Fawkes]

In fact, I support every "Third Party." The non-mainstream parties play a very important role in our representative democracy- they allow people to more concisely voice their opinion. What is a political party, anyway? A political party is a group of people with similar political views. The goal of a political party is to get candidates elected. So go ahead, join a "third party." I salute you for standing by all of your principles!

And for those of you who say that the Green party killed the 2000 or 2004 elections: The green party didn't have a statistically significant vote in any state that would've changed the election. And Ralph Nader... Didn't even run as the Green Party candidate in 2004.

Do you want to know why people support parties like the Green Party? Because small parties aren't afraid to voice their opinions. Only one Democrat in congress was man enough to stand up and vote against the PATRIOT act when it came out- Russ Feingold. He was, in fact, the ONLY PERSON to vote against it- as well as one of the few (if not the only one) who read the whole thing.

The Green Party isn't afraid to voice it's support of choice or gay marriage. They don't back down on environmental or privacy issues. Third parties are a great alternative, and they make our country what it is.

[MadHound]

1. Prepare yourself, the flames are coming

But frankly I think yours was a great post. Good job:thumbsup:

[LynneSin]

79. Great for someone who supports Rick Santorum

Green Party Supporters = Rick Santorum supporters.

Go google it!

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Careful, they ban people for speaking out like that

:hi:

[flyarm]

3. They don't back down on environmental or privacy issues.

not to flame and i do not condone flaming..

but just dialog..

but how has :

They don't back down on environmental or privacy issues.

worked out for us lately??

just a simple question...

and never in my 54 years have i seen things this bad in my democracy...

with or without the greens!!

fly

[Guy Fawkes]

6. If people were more supportive of third-parties...

We may not have found ourselves in this mess. Sure, it would probably still be bad, but if there were greens or libertarians or such in congress, there would've been much more of a dissenting voice on issues like Iraq, Clean Air/Water, the PATRIOT act, etc.

[flyarm]

14. no ..at this point in our history Third parties only split our votes..

and if you can not see the results for yourself then you are blind..

in idealic times ..its great..when the balance of democracy is on the line..the only ideal any of us can afford is to save this republic and democracy before its too damn late..

how do you like a one party system..so far?????????

because that will be guaranteed for the next 50 years if our ideals and ideas of a three party system, at this point of history ..split our votes..

at some point people have to use brains instead of just heart!

remember democracy is just an idea..and it is an ever so fragile idea..

when people throw out the idea of democracy ..for single issues ..they throw out democracy along with their ideals..

how has the one party system worked for the greens so far??

has the enviornment been protected??

have the poor been protected??

is our air cleaner?

is there less mercury??

were we lied to by the epa about air quality in nyc after 9/11..you know ever single dog that worked the site are long dead

have we had less red tides?

has global warming been slowed?

are seniors more protected?? how's the donut hole to your liking?

have children gotten better schools, or better air to breathe, or better medical care?
how have we been doing with energy under a one party rule??

how are our privacy rights/?

or our national security??

don't worry JOES BAR IN EAST JABIP NOWHERE .. HAS GOTTEN HOMELAND SECURITY MONEY..BUT THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING OR STATUE OF LIBERTY??????/ NAHHHHHHHH

AND HOW DID THE PEOPLE OF THE GULF STATES MAKE OUT WITH A ONE PARTY RULE??

these are just a few little reminders of what a split vote brings you..

but i know..your ideals are intact!!

the rest of the country has gone to hell in a handbasket..

and i am not reassured by your ideals..but as long as you are..Ce la Vie right?

fly

[Guy Fawkes]

29. First: this isn't a one party system

If more democrats in congress had spines we wouldn't be in this mess. And if you think that a one party system is so bad, what makes you think a two party system is any better?

I've heard just about enough of this "voting with your ideals will destroy America" Bullshit. You have no logical arguments to back up your statements. "when people throw out the idea of democracy ..for single issues ..they throw out democracy along with their ideals.." My ass! Democracy is about voting for your ideals- be they for a single issue or a range of issues!

[gully]

49. But this IS a ONE PARTY discussion board.

Note the name above.

Progressive ideals are supposed to be about the big picture, about our collective needs. Nader's agenda was not.

[Guy Fawkes]

54. 1.) Nader != end all of Green Party politicians.

2.) This board is for Democrats and other progressives.
3.) I consider myself a Democrat. I helped locally in 2004 and I plan to volunteer again. There are many democrats I like. And I hope that the party can start living in the present, stop pointing fingers for it's loses and that (more of) our politicians gain backbones.

[gully]

55. 1. This board is for Democrats and other progressives who SUPPORT

Democrats.

Also, If Nader has the right to oppose Democrats, we have the right to critique him as an opponent. I wish people who consider themselves democrats would stop trying to resurrect a dead progressive.

Let's move on shall we? Onward to 2006 and 2008.

:hi:

[cgrindley]

183. Thanks for defining the party so perfectly

The Green Party's stance is a hell of a lot more progressive than the Dems were prior to Dean. Dean's the hope for the party. It had lost itself completely prior to his rise. I wouldn't even call the Kerry Edwards ticket Democratic. More like Republican circa 1970.

[flyarm]

56. EXCUSE ME...THIS IS A ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW..

are you really this ignorant to whats going on??

tell me you are not this ignorant to what has been going on??

the rethugs put bills up and minutes later they call votes on the bills even if it is in the middle of the frigging night! and dems do not even get to read them , nor do modertates!

and even if dems do prevail..little lord pissy pants has signed over 800+ signing bills neutering the damn laws and bills..what part of that do you not get yet?

no dem has subponea power..so little lord pissy pants and his government of rethugs just ignore and brake our laws, at will, and no one with subponea power is doing a damn thing about it..

you are really not this naive or ignorant are you???????????????????

fly


please do us all a favor..go read a few history books or constitutional law books..

or better yet..don't vote until you understand how our republic's government works..or is supposed to work..

and the checks and balances our forefathers warned us about loosing!

we are on the cusp of fascism..and its because peiple like you think you know whats going on!!

you scare me!

[Guy Fawkes]

62. This isn't facism...

Democrats and progressives still have a voice. But they aren't using it, because so many democrats are scared to stand up in congress and say what they think.

And for the record, I have read "a few" history books. Let me tell you this: The founders of the United States didn't originally want political parties. There is no constitutional basis for them because a lot of people thought it was a bad idea. It was thought that political parties would divide the country and stop the government from getting anything done.

Please, do us all a favor... learn some grammar and cut down on the awful spelling and punctuation????? OKAY!!!!111!!!1!oneoneone

[flyarm]

72. how do you know many aren't speaking up??..by our media??

hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha

fly

[krkaufman]

130. Exactly. Where are all the Green Party candidates on the nightly news?

Why is the Green Party so supportive of Bush's pro-war, pro-death agenda? I mean, based on their lack of criticism -- as evidenced by their mainstream news presence -- they must support Bush's policies.

[vssmith]

80. One could be a little more polite!

[flyarm]

i am out of polite.. the well is dry since this is one of several threads

like this today,.with nothing but propaganda!

this is Democratic underground..not green underground..

and one of the rules here is we support democratic candidates..

we do not support greens who are taking rethuglican money to defeat our candidates....period the end..if you want to see nicey nice ...then support democrats at democratic underground...

not people who are calling themselves greens and taking blood money from rethuglicans to split votes and steal more elections in my country

i was finished with nice when Nader did it in my state in Fla in 2000..

and i was finished with thrid party when nader took whore money from rethuglican operatives in 2004..

and i am done with nice now when greens are taking rethuglican money to try to defeat a dem candidate in PA...

the problem as i see it is..dems have been too damn polite for too damn long!

fly

[LynneSin]

101. I am so on your team!!!

I'm tired of being polite. I'm tired of trying to appease the Greens here on this website. If they don't denounce what Romanelli has done then they can go fuck themselves because obviously they want their party to be no better than the other two

[gully]

123. "i am out of polite"

Im singing that "song" myself these days.

Nice job telling it like it is.

[vssmith]

161. You mention "The Rules" -- check rule 3. Civility

[flyarm]

162. i see you are new here...welcome to du..

you will have to have a tough skin here..or you won't like it here a bit!!

I DO NOT NEED A LESSON IN CIVILITY.. i tried to be civil in 3 other threads like this..today..

but when someone is attempting to steal our elections again,,and there are apologists for it..i will not excuse that...

not any more!

i was nice and polite through 3 elections being stolen in my state..i am done with nice over this subject..
see my job as a parent, is leaving a democratic country to my children..i take this very seriously!

and if a green , purple, chartruse ..deliberately tries to steal my childrens country and their democracy, and republic.. ..i am going to get damn ugly!

fly

[flyarm]

self delete du stuck on me!!

[flyarm]

100. self delete dupe ..it multiple posted!! n/t

[LynneSin]

81. Clearlly so now that republicans are buying Green candidates

:eyes:

[mike_c]

4. K&R-- great post-- I too support the green party, and generally...

...vote green since 2004. Now I support candidates who actually represent my liberal views, rather than "centrists" who want my vote, but won't represent me in return. I'll be happy to support dems again-- when they stop supporting policies to the right of Richard Nixon!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. I agree

I only wish there had been at least one outspoken Green Party Senator during the Iraq War Resolution vote. The way Democrats completely folded to Bush in agreeing to go to war with barely a debate on the issue completely disgusted me with the Democratic Party's official representatives in our government. I still haven't recovered from my hatred for the Dem leaders who kissed Bush's ass.

I wish we had a parliamentary form of government where we could hear a full spectrum of views expressed in Washington.

[bvar22]

15. The MAJORITY of Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR!!!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, 21 Democrats courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq:

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

United States House of Representatives
126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

[Perky]

7. The Green Party would be more effective if

It became a Grassroots organiation like MoveOn and then endorse or not endorse major party candidates. Rather than propping up candidates at the national level who pissand moan about inclusion and there being just one party.

Influence the Dems influence the liberal republicans, but to stand up a candidate who'se sole purpose is whine when you have no hope of winning only cedes power to conservatives and wingnuts.

[Guy Fawkes]

8. That's a whole other beast, entirely...

Political parties and political organizations exist for different reasons. Political parties are there to get politicians appointed. Political organizations (like Non-Governmental Organizations or NGOs) seek to influence politics by lobbying, demonstrations, etc.

[meganmonkey]

10. LOL

Yeah, MoveOn is soooo grassroots :rofl:

[jonnyblitz]

12. i know, that cracks me up. it also cracks me up that they are

considered radical left by some when the real leftist groups complain about them for the reasons you imply in your post.

[meganmonkey]

21. Well, just like most Dem party leadership

they are doing virtually nothing to help with anti-war efforts despite their members seeing this as a major priority.

And I just fail to see how online petitions and form emails are 'grassroots', but maybe that's just me...bottom line, imo, is that it isn't working.

[krkaufman]

133. What reasons?

[Mrspeeker]

19. well actually it is pretty effective

Its almost impossible to get a third party on a ballot in most districts because of the way that the 2 party system works toward a 1 party system.

The Greens have done a great job getting support where there really is none and have actually been able to get on ballots and spread there message. I tell ya, if we are debating this which we are now then they have reached us obviously.

I don't think that a very good solution to a 2party 1 party system is to form a organization that wines and dines Democrats and Republicans that work together basically and control every district with BS legislation. Normally wine and diners are called lobbyist. Move-on.org should move on!

Obviously a true DEMOCRACY would have more than one or two partys!

[Warpy]

9. When both parties are running putrid candidates

the Greens are a place to go. A progressive's vote NEVER belongs to a conservative, no matter how party loyalists howl about it.

Use that vote well and wisely, though. One Green vote per slate will keep your vote being flagged as a straight party ticket vote and tossed out by crooked machines. School board is a great place to stick it if your state is running reasonable candidates on the Dem ticket.

[patcox2]

11. Then go be irrelevant on GreenUnderground.

The green party takes republican money to defeat democratic candidates. Why be here? Go off and do what you do, but why be here? This is a place for democrats.

[Guy Fawkes]

13. This is a place for liberals and progressives.

From the rules: "Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives." I don't go straight-ticket anything. My state happens to have my favorite Democrat, Feingold, and I'd vote for him in any election.

[frylock]

42. i've gone straight ticket for the last three elections..

and what the hell has it gotten me?! This is the last election I vote straight Dem, because until more than a handful of these poltroons are willing to stand up and speak out about stolen elections, it won't make a damn difference how you vote.

[flyarm]

22. there is a place here for all points of view..but and i say with a caveat.

if those who really care about this country ..really care about this country..why would anyone support splitting votes to keep this one party system, that has all but killed our constitution, and our democracy and our rule of law, in place..they would either have to be very naive..or down right stupid@

i am glad we have people who care about the enviornment, and all different causes and issues within our system of government..that makes me proud..thats what this country is about..but use your heads damn it..

do you want a 1 party goverment for the next 50 years??

and what does anyone gain by that??

do green party issues even get fucking heard then??

do your voices get even considered?????????

damn, even now..the sequoia trees in calif are on the block by rethugs..to be cut down and destroyed

what is gained by spliting votes and keeping in place this one party government??

use you heads..pleaseeeeeeeeee..we are on the verge of fascism..is that what the greens want????????

people in NYC are dying because this pres and epa lied about air quality in NY after 9/11 ..is that what greens stand for??

or how about scientists being censored about global warming..is that the goal of the greens???????

i think not..

so use your damn heads and brains...

there are many incredible people in the green party..and just like all parties..there are some damn ignuts..

please let the people in the greens that care about wonderful issues ..take a stand..do not let the rethugs use you and then spit you out..

because that is precisely what they are doing ..and have been doing..and many in the green party have allowed to be done..by taking the dirty facists money ...

yes dems do to..no one is innocent..but just like we are seeing with lie ber man..we will together rid ourselves of the dirt ..one dirty congress person at a time..

but the greens must do the same!
TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

fly

[Mrspeeker]

23. LOL

are you sure you are really a democrat? Because that was a very conservative republican type post!

[patcox2]

69. Think so? I am a Democrat.

You sound like someone who has no idea what it means to be a party member. Why should I welcome someone who says they are going to support Rick Santorum by voting Green in PA? Whose the conservative republican, the person who uses his vote to get Santorum elected, or me?

If you like Santorum, if, like Nader, you were glad Bush was elected because it would teach us a lesson for not voting green, then sounds to me like you are the conservative republican, or at least a dupe and a tool of the conservative republicans.

[warrens]

16. Absolutely not true

The Green Party had WAY more than enough votes to throw NH to Gore. And with NH, Florida would not have mattered.

[Guy Fawkes]

18. I concede the point: 3.9% of the vote..

may have gone to the democrats, giving Gore 270 electoral votes. But I would imagine that if Bush had been worried about NH, he would've just rigged the vote there anyway.

[warrens]

33. It wouldn't have been easy to rig it in NH

The state may be a lot of things, but corrupt ain't one of them. I grew up there, and they DO believe in fair play. Someone tampering with the vote would be skinned alive.

[Ron Green]

17. I'll never forget the "debates" of 2000,

when Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and the Libertarian and Natural Law candidates (as I recall) were not allowed to participate, despite the fact that they had serious and diverse views that needed to be heard.

I think that's when I really knew that politics in this country is fixed on a major scale.

[gully]

28. Consider that over 200 people ran for office in 2004 alone.

Those who sponsor the debates need to consider who's got a chance to win. I'd have had no issue with Buchanan and Nader in the debates, but I think they would have needed to demonstrate that they could get at least 5% of the vote?

[Ron Green]

36. If Nader was capable of spoiling the deal, as many think he did,

he was due a spot on the dais at the great Dog and Pony Show.

[gully]

39. At the expense of humanity huh?

Sorry, if Nader is going to call himself a progressive, he should behave as one. He harmed people who could least afford to be harmed, all the while his own stocks in the defense industry have made him a "killing" under this administration. I have no issue with as many people as possible running for President, I have an issue with lying and hypocricy. Nader is a lying hypocrite who is an opponent the Democratic Party.

Progressives were played, thankfully hader has since been found out.

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

[Ron Green]

59. That's beside the point.

At least the point I'm making, which is the 2-party system has become a closed one that desperately needs other ideas, including Green Party ones as well as Libertarian ones. What happened at the 2000 "debates" was unconscionable.

[gully]

61. We have as many ideas as we do people in this country.

eom

[Ron Green]

77. And we have 4 or 5 or 6 different ways to group these ideas together,

not just 2.

[gully]

85. Actually we have about 200 different ways to group these ideas together.

Over 200 people ran for President in 2004 on various platforms. There are a select few that get mass media attention, one of whom is Ralph Nader, the other two are major candidates. Curious? Not really. Buchanan got attention because of his former connection to noted white houses. Perot, because he spent loads of his own money to get out his message, and Nader - because he harms Democrats.

[krkaufman]

138. Here's step number one, then ....

http://www.fairvote.org

[krkaufman]

136. Wholly agree.

I think third party candidates SHOULD be included in the debates, as we all benefit from a diverse discussion. But where do you draw the line? What criteria is used to set the threshold for including or excluding candidates from the debates?

One of the best moments of the 2004 election cycle, in my opinion, was the period of the Democratic Primary debates. It was wonderful to hear all those candidates up there arguing for their various positions, with perspectives ranging from Joementum over to Sharpton, Moseley Braun & Kucinich. And I'd love to see a "Progressive Debates" town hall-like program traveling the country this Fall and on, with progressives of whatever political party coming together to debate how to solve the country's woes.

(Though I support third party candidates in the debates, until such time as IRV voting is embedded within a state's electoral process, third party votes are typically spoilers.)

[saracat]

20. in some states the margin was so narrow

the Green vote would have been enough to sway the elction. Part of the blame for 2000 does go to Nader. It really annoys me when people try to white wash this issue. As for the Green Party not being afraid, they have nothing to lose, they are not in danger of being elected! And that great alternative you mention brought us George Bush!

[Mrspeeker]

26. BUSH versus GORE

Did you miss something because btw GORE won.

Then Bush took his quest to be emperor to the supreme court, where its not spose to go it should have gone back to congress.

It was fucking rigged! WAKE THE FUCK UP DAMMIT!

Yeah sorry it had nothing to do with Nader or the dang green party!

[gully]

31. Nader assisted in the rigging.

YOU wake the F up.

[Guy Fawkes]

32. Do you have any proof of that?

Or are you going with another wingnut conspiracy theory?

[gully]

34. Yes, it's in my post above.

Ralph "I want to punish the democrats" Nader knew exactly who he was assisting.

[flyarm]

37. HERE START READING HERE1

Naders sell out in 2004


on edit: here is one story that the link works from my files..and a couple others that links may or may not work ..

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html

Ralph Nader Accepts Campaign Contributions from Funders of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

October 6, 2004

snip:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.

snip:
Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.


snip:

Robert Brandon, a former Nader associate, public interest attorney and co-founder of UP for Victory said, “Now we learn that Bush, through his proxies, is funding Nader’s campaign. If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

Altogether, UP for Victory research has documented over $100,000 in cash and known in-kind contributions to Nader by GOP donors and consultants. This does not count the unreported in-kind contributions made by the GOP in circulating his ballot petitions in many states.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sorry the following the link no longer works..but i will excerpt it here
from Boston globe online..
if you want search the archive..

BREAKING: Bush Finance Honcho Donated to Nader
The Associated Press

Thursday 12 August 2004

BOSTON - Ralph Nader has found an unexpected friend in Massachusetts.

Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard Egan, the Bush campaign's finance chairman in John Kerry's home state, has personally contributed the maximum amount allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's presidential campaign.

Egan's son John and daughter in law have each also "maxed out," bringing the family's total to $6,000.


Bush backers are hoping Nader will siphon enough votes from Kerry to tip the election to President Bush.
The co-founder of data storage giant EMC Corp. and Bush's former ambassador to Ireland, Egan is legendary in Republican circles for his ability to collect hundreds of thousands in campaign dollars.
He's a member of an elite group of Bush fund-raisers known as "Rangers" -- those who have helped raised more than $200,000 for the campaign. Egan's two sons are also Rangers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/...

Republicans Helping Nader to Help Themselves
By Brian Faler
Washington Post

Monday 19 July 2004

The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state's November ballot.

Of course, this is not really about helping Nader. It is all about helping President Bush and hurting Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's campaign in a closely contested state.

The Michigan GOP denies that, of course. Matt Davis, a spokesman for the group, said it was merely concerned about third-party candidates being left off the ballot. He could not name, however, another third-party or independent candidate his party has helped.

Nader may need the Republican signatures. He has been endorsed by the Reform Party and had planned to use its line on the Michigan ballot. But a dispute over who runs the party's state chapter - and which candidate it supports - has thrown that into question.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


i kept asking at the time..what does the GOP have on Nader...i never got an answer!

[Guy Fawkes]

43. RALPH NADER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GREENS IN 2004!

[gully]

44. The Greens wouldn't have him.

So why are you on a Democatic discussion board defending a democratic political opponent?

Guy, your time is spent better doing something else.

[flyarm]

63. he did when he started running..then he was dismissed...so you are not

correct...when he began running in 2004 he was running as a green ..he was voted out in the convention after it was disclosed he was taking rethug think tank money!

fly

[Mrspeeker]

48. LOL

keep it up I don't care, I'm a registered democrat that has supported this party for years.

If you really think that the green party is responsible for all the election problems and Emperor Bush then so be it.

But you are wrong!

We have no one to blame but are selves!

Did you march to capital hill in protest?
Did you raise up your arms up to fight the take over of our government and election system?

No you were at home like me caught up in the very control that enables the system to keep the system.

Keep posting I love your work, cause I love a great laugh!

[gully]

51. You keep on putting words in peoples mouths and laugh all you want.

Ha ha.

I said "Nader" assisted in the Bush rigging. I maintain my position that he is part of the blame for election 2000 going to Bush. LOL, He he, ho ho ho.

[Mrspeeker]

64. You said but present no facts

I will continue to laugh at you of course you are blaming all our problems on Nader which is just ridiculous.

No Democrat rose up at anytime to challenge or do anything really but just plain roll over.
Sure we had our Kucinich but we also have a Lieberman.

At no point will you ever be able to convince me that third party's and specifically the green part is bad or any worse then our present two party's, and has or is responsible for rigged elections.

If you have Prof that Nader assisted in the rigging of the election then more power to you, hire a attorney and go to bat.
If you have internet garbage that probably surface from a freepers website and feel like posting it everywhere then this is the type of discussion you should get use to!

[gully]

71. I presented the facts above. If you wish to absolve Nader of any

responsibility for his words, actions you do so.

[krkaufman]

147. I think the term "rigged" is over-the-top relative to Nader

Nader had *nothing* to do with "rigging" the 2000 election. (I've heard no such accusations, ever, anyway.)

It is simply argued that his third party candidacy drew enough potential net votes from Gore in a few critical states to swing the election to Bush -- much like Ross Perot is considered to have swung Poppy Bush's re-election over to Clinton. Many feel that this "spoiler effect" was obvious to predict beforehand, and Nader's insistence on standing independent (rather than forcing a compromise with Gore) was a foolish, blindly idealistic misstep.

"Winner-take-all" elections contribute to the two-party system and spoiler scenarios. Until something like IRV is implemented, third party candidates stand a strong chance of being spoilers -- so pre-election compromises and voter bartering need to be considered.

See http://www.fairvote.org

[krkaufman]

141. One thing does not negate the other.

All are contributing factors, to varying degrees, with no one factor being responsible for "all the election problems."

The largest factor, and I think we agree here, is us. A largely ignorant, indifferent public. This couldn't be happening to the collective "us" if we didn't allow it.

[krkaufman]

140. Nader, election fraud, less-than-optimal campaigning, ...

... woeful news media coverage (during and after), Supremely whorish Court, imbalanced Electoral College system, an ignorant public ... ALL contributed to the 2000 Pres election results.

[krkaufman]

139. Please don't forget that it wasn't just the vote totals

Nader helped contribute VERY MUCH to the prevalent myth during the 2000 cycle that there was "no difference between Dems and Reps, no real difference between Gore and Bush."

Had Nader been honest (please reference the resulting 5+ years we've experienced under Bush), he would have seen and trumpeted the difference -- but used the opportunity to push for issues critical to himself and the Green Party to be included in early Gore Admin legislation. (And to urge that Instant Runoff Voting be taken up by the states.)

[Redneck Socialist]

24. Well, NH and Florida would beg to differ with you.

At least in regards to 2000.

[Guy Fawkes]

35. Okay, Florida was so obviously bogus...

I don't think the green party votes would've mattered at all. If Gore had won 98% of the vote, Bush would've still managed to rig it and win.

[flyarm]

41. 90,000 votes nader took in fla in 2000...

please go educate yourself...

from an elected fla delegate

fly

[Guy Fawkes]

46. 97,488 votes. And about 500-600 would've changed everything?

I doubt it. Sure, "polls show..." that a bunch of people may have voted for Gore if Florida had been a strictly two-party race. But this is a DEMOCRACY. We have multiple parties. We didn't win in 2000 or 2004. GET OVER IT. Democrats can still take back the country in 2006/2008 if they finally decide to stop blaming third parties and actually get people like the Green Party to endorse their candidates officially and help with the race.

[flyarm]

50. oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee...

get a clue!

FLY

[LSK]

104. nice of you to skip over the NH vote in 2000

[gully]

25. I have a salute of my own for Mr. Nader.

"I salute you for standing by all of your principles!

It looks like this:


And for those of you who say that the Green party killed the 2000 or 2004 elections: The green party didn't have a statistically significant vote in any state that would've changed the election.

First off. I don't think ANYBODY considers the Green Party responsible for anything in 2004. Their candidate (a true progressive) ran a safe state campaign. They realized they were used and muddied by Nader and that they should follow their platform which promotes "global responsibility."

However, in 2000 Nader (running on the Green Party ticket) got 97421 votes in Florida alone. Gore 'officially' lost Florida by 537 votes. Polls showed that 47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore, and and only 21 percent for Bush if it had been a two-man race. In 2004 Nader took money and help from Republicans to attempt another Republican assist, thankfully most real progressives have awakened to who Nader is, and he was marginalized to the point of being even more laughable.

And Ralph Nader... Didn't even run as the Green Party candidate in 2004.

No kidding, they didn't want him.

"I'm voting for John Kerry this November. I'm voting my conscience." ~ WINONA LaDUKE
- Nader's running mate in 1996 and 2000:

[zalinda]

27. Then go support them some place else

I'm really tired of Greens who bash dems, take repub money, and then say "well, if he ran a better campaign, he would have won". Grow up!

The Greens have done NOTHING for choice, gay marriage, the environment or privacy. What they have done is make sure that repubs will make those decisions for us.

zalinda

[Guy Fawkes]

40. Oy, I'm not "bashing dems"...

I'm saying: Hurray for people that vote "outside the box," and go with Third Parties. Without them, the US would be a hell of a lot worse than it is now.

[Karenca]

88. No, The US would be alot better

if people did NOT vote "out of the box".

The Repukes would have a lesser chance of stealing the election.

Maybe Gore would still have been president
if that fucking Nader didn't ruin it for him and us!!!!!!!!

[flyarm]

45. thank you zalinda i couldn't say it better!!

i really think many young get caught up in this line of bull without knowing the damage it is doing to our "once proud " democracy!!

fly

[gully]

53. Bravo!

:toast:

[omega minimo]

30. We need a second party

[Mrspeeker]

38. Folks us urging the rigged elections is ridiculous

Its not a particular party's fault, and more party's in a democracy is not a problem, its a evil group of people known as the NEO-Cons who have successfully lined the courts and legislative bodys with cronies.

Both elections where rigged and it had nothing to do with third partys!

A great start to whats really happening with our election system is Mark Crispin Miller of course.

[flyarm]

47. i disagree..without nader in 2000 taking 90,000+ votes in fla

the chads would not have mattered..the supremes would not have been able to do the coup..and we would not have these fuckers destroying our republic bit by bit and day by day..

and nader was eyeball deep in taking rethug money...

and then ..the voting machines wouldn't be being run by one party rule!

fly

[Mrspeeker]

57. hummm

So you where down in florida and counted 90,000 votes for Nader, interesting, very interesting.

And You no Nader, what a bad guy, cause I hate seat belts.

This is pure non sense the whole election system is rigged and it has nothing to do with 90,000 so called votes for Nader in florida where Jeb Bush is Governor.

In some weird way this all leads back to my first post of the day!
Governments need a enemy to maintain there control as a government, and even within the government.

War is Peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

Highlight on the Ignorance part!

Your statement
"and then ..the voting machines wouldn't be being run by one party rule!"

humm but yet its the third party that lead to the downfall of this modern day republic, what about the 2nd party It couldn't have possible been them, they are to good for that.

[flyarm]

65. Mrspeeker..wha??????lol..n/t

[Lindacooks]

134. Ever heard of spellcheck?

and Word has grammar check too.

[CrispyQ]

52. We need a party that will address corporate power.

From the Green Platform:

The U.S. intentionally defines corporations through charters or certificates of incorporation. In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws to limit corporate authority and ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter.

In the late 19th century, however, corporations claimed special protections under the Constitution. They insisted that once formed, corporations might operate forever with the privilege of limited liability and freedom from community or worker interference in business judgments.

One point remains unequivocal: Because corporations have become the dominant economic institution of the planet, they must address and squarely face the social and environmental problems that afflict humankind.

1. The federal government doles out billions in subsidies and tax breaks to corporate special interests. The current level of influence now being exerted by corporate interests over the public interest is unacceptable. We challenge the propriety and equity of corporate welfare that comes in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, payments, grants, bailouts, giveaways, unenforced laws and regulations; and in historic, continuing access to our vast public resources, including the airwaves, millions of acres of land, forests, mineral resources, intellectual property rights, and government-created research.


2. We support strong national standards for labor rights and the environment so that corporations can no longer force states and cities into a brutal competition for jobs at any cost. Legal doctrines must be continually revised in recognition of the changing needs of an active, democratic citizenry. Huge multinational corporations are artificial creations, not natural persons uniquely sheltered under constitutional protections. We support local and state government attempts to define corporations and to prevent them from exercising democratic rights that are uniquely possessed by the citizens of the United States.

[Mrspeeker]

70. the GOP paid for this

according to fly lol

The more partys the better!
I love partys

[LynneSin]

76. Yeah I'm supporting a party paid for by Republican money

I once had respect for Greens

But they're nothing more than stoodges for the Republican party to enable them to win. Just ask Carl Romanelli

[AtomicKitten]

58. The GOP supports the Green Party too.

GOP Aids Green Candidate Carl Romanelli
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15166569.htm

By PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; 1:48 AM

Excerpts:

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Thanks to the generosity of GOP donors, a Green Party candidate is expected to make it onto the ballot in Pennsylvania's Senate race and siphon votes from Democratic front-runner Bob Casey in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

While Santorum said Monday that he would welcome another candidate on the ballot, Casey's campaign accused Republicans of "trying to steal the election."

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, making his first bid for statewide elective office, acknowledged Monday that Republican contributors probably supplied most of the $100,000 that he said he spent gathering signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot.

Romanelli said he expects to turn in far more than the required 67,070 signatures by Tuesday's deadline.

Romanelli, of Wilkes-Barre, supports abortion rights, while both Santorum and Casey oppose them. Political observers say Romanelli's candidacy would likely draw votes from Casey, the state treasurer, who has held a double-digit lead over Santorum for months.

and ...

PA Race Turns GOP Green

If politics makes strange bedfellows, Pennsylvania's senatorial race is a regular old key party. With Republican incumbent Rick Santorum trailing Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., the GOP has poured thousands of dollars into the campaign of Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, in the hopes of siphoning away votes from Casey. This so-called "Ralph Nader Technique" has obviously been done before, but what makes this so unique, is how vast an ideological difference there is between not just Santorum (pro-life) and Romanelli (pro-choice) but also between Romanelli and Casey (pro-life). The political gamble, which experts say will help shrink Casey's double digit lead, comes with a risk for conservative Republican's who might, by their own funding, foist a pro-choicer into Santorum's seat.

[gully]

60. Huh, that's curious.

:P

[Guy Fawkes]

66. Here is how that works...

The Republican party has seen that many liberals will vote for the most liberal candidate (in other words, the person they agree with). Usually, that person is a Green Party member. This takes possible votes away from the Democratic candidate. But instead of reaching out to the Green Party as fellow liberals who should fight together behind one candidate... Democrats attack the Green Party as "GOP enablers" and call for the Green Party to completely drop out.

What we should be doing is just the opposite. We should be asking the Green Party to endorse our candidates in important (close) races, and we should be getting Democrats to reach out to Green Party voters in an attempt to get conservatives out of the Capital.

[AtomicKitten]

67. More accurately, the GOP are Green Party enablers

... as per my post, which is intended to put a monkey wrench in the Democratic candidate's campaign, which is perfectly fine with the Green Party, and sometimes the Republican is elected instead which is the intention of the GOP all along, thereby no left-of-center agenda is fulfilled.

That's how it works.

[LynneSin]

78. Give it up AK - they don't want to acknowledge they want Santorum to win

Perhaps they want someone who is anti-gay, anti-women, anti-environment & pro-war still in office. I mean the article was as clear as the nose of my face. Republican paid for it and Carl Romanelli gladly accepted it.

I would love to see the 67k signatures they got - probably just knocked on Republican doors and said "Hey you want to help Santorum to win - sign here"

[theanarch]

86. okay...let's see...

anti-gay? check
anti-women? check
anti-environment? check
pro-war? check
pro-gun? check
pro-corporate? check
anti-abortion? check....DINGDINGDINGDING...and we have a winner: Bob Casey, JUNIOR!!!!

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[theanarch]

96. i have edited my post...

...to accomodate you criticism, with all due respect and apologies. Is there anything else on the list you wish to dispute?

[LynneSin]

98. YOu can eliminate about all of it but the choice

Casey would oppose the federal gay marriage amendment and supports a timeline to end the IRaq war (his thinking is pretty much along the Levin amendment).

I don't mean to be rude but you just rolled off a bunch of stuff without once considering "Gee I wonder where Casey really stands on the issues".

If you correct your thread to anti-choice, which he is (although he is pro-birth control, pro-EC, pro-funding of family planning AND would consider abortions for rape/incense/life-threatening so he is hardly the anti-choice candidate you make him out to be).

[LynneSin]

103. Oh btw, Caseys have been some of the biggest pro-environment

here in Pennsylvania. I know alot of this is from what Bob's father has done but Jr. has vowed to continue his work on improving the environment.

I post this because when I first posted I was so outraged by the anti-union that I didn't bother reading much of the rest. But anyone calling Casey anti-environment should have their brain checked for functioning cells.

Your rant was nothing more than a really bad excuse to justify why you think a republican supported Green person has the right to run

[LynneSin]

74. Get a fricking clue and your head out of your ass

SANTORUM AND HIS CRONIES PAID FOR HIM TO BE ON THE TICKET

They paid the $100k to help gather the signature (probably from republican voters)
They have contributed most of the candidate's campaign money

So in a nut shell - if you support Romancelli then you're telling me you want an ANti-Woman, Anti-Gay racist bastard in office.

Didn't realize how much you support Santorum

[flyarm]

97. hmmm there have been several threads here today...

on a democratic board..where the rules state we support democrats..and yet some here are supporting greens who are taking big bucks from rethuglicans and rethuglican operatives, corporate rethuglican whores..hell bent on defeating democrats...

and we are told we are not polite to these greens coming here and supporting this crap..and trying to shove it down our throats..

not buying..i am not buying this green crap at all..not when they are attempting to help the rethugs beat our dem candidates...

why do the greens not go to green annonomous ..or green underground..where they can take war mongering , environmental issues , child poverty, lost jobs..global warming classes from the rethuglicans..since they are so fond of taking the rethuglican money ..

and leave us dems to really take on the green issues..

seems those they have taken money from haven't done such a sweet job on their their behalf and their issues to date..but they haven't turned down the money yet have they??

yes go on greens vote for the green in PA who is taking rethuglican whore money...but you are voting for santorum....the sick sob who took his dead fetus home ..and exposed his other children to this mentally deranged sickness!

oh and by the way greens supporting this crap..santorum doesn't even live in PA..he has a huge home in VA...

fly


oh and LynneSin

i 100% agree with you!!

[seaglass]

68. Of course they aren't afraid to voice their opinions because

they have no power and therefore don't have to worry about retaining their power.

There's no doubt in my mind that by the time a 3rd party becomes as big as the Dems and/or Repubs - they will be just like them.

[LynneSin]

73. So you'd vote for a Green Party Candidate paid for by Rick Santorum

you're pathetic!

[Guy Fawkes]

83. So you enjoy putting words in my mouth?

you're pathetic.

[LynneSin]

93. Just as pathetic as how blind Greens are!

The guy even admits the money came from republicans and doesn't care.

So stop judging my decision to support the democrats when the Greens are absolutely no better.

If they Green Party had any moral dignity they'd renounce what is happening in PA, return the money and get their own signatures

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. I agree with them a helluva lot more than the "good cop" wing

of the Nationalist/Capitalist party(s) now in power.

[Karenca]

82. I do like the Green Party,

but,
I would NOT EVER support them.

Supporting a third party affects Dems in the way
that it's the same as handing over our votes
the Republicans.

So, I will only vote Democrat.
and
PRAY
that these NEOCon bastards can't steal our next election.


Gore/Clark!!!!!:dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem:

[still_one]

84. well you can thank nader and crew to where we are today

because there is one fact, that without his crap in 2000, Gore would have been president, and if you don't like gore, or prefer an non-democrat, then maybe you should not be part of DU

[Guy Fawkes]

87. "Blame nader!"

Nader and other third party candidates are not the reason Gore wasn't president. It's high time for democrats to stop blaming other people are realize that it's their own damn fault if they lose elections!

[still_one]

91. BS, he knew how close it was

the bastard said there was no difference between Gore and Bush, well just on environment alone there is a huge difference

Nader can go to hell

Incidently, this is a Democratic blog, NOT a green party blog

[Meshuga]

109. I also resent Nader

and this is a Democrat forum to help support Democrats. Not to support a party that hurts Democrats.

[still_one]

126. you and I are on the same page

I think I heard that the green party candidate got on the ballot for the Senate race in Penn. Most of his contributions came from Republicans, so that should tell you exactly what they are trying to do

[greguganus]

89. I agree! I'm voting Whig next election n/t

[Karenca]

90. This is a Democratic forum and I think this topic should be locked. EOM!!

[Guy Fawkes]

92. This is a Democratic forum, and as a Democrat, I resent free speech EOM!!

[Meshuga]

107. By your logic...

We should allow Republicans here. Are we hurting their right to free speech by not allowing them to come to DU?

[flyarm]

read du rules ...this is a democratic forum ..

where we support democratic candidates..

not candidates that attempt to subvert elections away from our candidates!

fly

[Meshuga]

113. flyarm

I agree with you. I am questioning the logic of the poster.

[flyarm]

116. yeah sorry i realized that after i posted..having proibs with du right now

its double posting on me and very slow ..

yes i know you are a democratic supporter..and i thank you!!

fly

[Meshuga]

125. No problem!

:-)

[flyarm]

108. yes this is a democratic forum and the rules state we support democratic

candidates!

and when greens take rethuglican money to defeat our candidates deliberately..you are damn righ,t i will speak out loud and clear!!

if you don't like that ..suggestion..start a green underground forum!

i will not today, and not ever support anyone who will undermine a democratic candidate..period the end!

i am a democrat and i support democratic candidates!

and i come to democratic underground to do so!

fly

[LynneSin]

94. They're Green Supporters - They want to be indignant to anyone

who won't accept them and turn a blind eye when they're clearly being used by Republican party like the Pennsylvania case.

I find them pathetic and anyone who supports the Greens to me are supporting the republicans. I would have never said that before until the very clearcut case in Pennsylvania came out where the Green even admits they got the money from the republican and doesn't care

[Karenca]

150. 100% Agreed! ... EOM

[557188]

99. I voted for Nader in 2000

Saw Nader speak shortly after that and regretted my vote.

HOWEVER...

I would've never vote for Al Gore with Joesph Lieberman as a Vice President. I would've voted for another fringe canidate, even if I had to write them in myself.

The Democrats lost my vote when Lieberman was annouced as the VP canidate. I consider Liberman worse than Bush, because he pretends to be my friend. At least I know Bush is my enemy.

2004 I voted for Kerry while holding my nose.

I hope the progressives can take over the Democratic party and clean out the right wing "moderate" trash. First step is Lamont winning the upcoming primary.

I do think it's rather sad how Democrats try to close off ballot access to 'protect' votes. If you want those votes, run a canidate that actually speaks to your base. Don't take us for advantage when you run a moderate right wing campaign and expect us to blindly vote for you. It's a horrible strategy that doesn't work.

As for the Green party as a whole, Nader killed that party.

[MrBenchley]

102. Hooray for Republican dirty tricks!!

"Do you want to know why people support parties like the Green Party? "
Because Rick Santorum hired them.

[LynneSin]

106. My god these people won't even look at the proof - such idiots

"Oh we Greens are so wonderful and so much futher to the left than those democrats and btw thank you very much for getting us on the ballot Mr. Santorum!"

I accepted Greens - now they are no better than republicans and I will treat them like I treat Republicans - like a dumbass with their heads up their ass. This is how I feel until I start seeing some Greens ADMIT that Romanelli is nothing more than a tool of the Santorum/GOP agenda. He ADMITS the money came from republicans and yet these Green dumbasses just don't get it.

[MrBenchley]

110. I'm damn tired of greens and libertarians ratfucking this forum

especially when their own parties don't amount to a small cold turd.

[citizen snips]

120. LOL

It takes ignorance to vote for cold turds in a two party system

[MrBenchley]

122. Or brazen dishonesty...as Santorum and his green chum are proving.

[EFerrari]

124. Cool. The lines are being drawn.

I decided to register Green after being shamed out of my shorts when not one rich white Senator would stand up with the Black Caucus in 2000. Not one. Not one rich white Democrat that would stand with the CBC in protest of all those disenfranchised Black voters.

And these are the guys that take my vote for granted. The same guys who wink at hundreds of thousands of minority votes being "spoiled" every four years.

Call me a dumbass, Lynne, but that mattered to me. And it still matters to me, today.

Today, when there's a thread from the NAACP in GD that can't even get 5 votes.

I guess I must be a huge dumbass to care about that and to come here and try to change that.

God, you may be right. This jackass in PA took 100k dollars from the Thugs, but hundreds of thousands of my folks votes get taken every year.

I am a dumbass.

[LynneSin]

142. Wow, something we can agree upon

You're willing to help elect republicans = dumbass!

[EFerrari]

143. There you go.

:)

[citizen snips]

105. go ahead and throw your vote right down the toilet

because that is what you are doing when you vote third party in a two party system.

[LynneSin]

111. You know what's funny - I wouldn't have cared before today what they vote

but after the story about how the GOP & Rick Santorum financed getting a Green Candidate on the ticket, my eyes have been wide opened.

I'd rather vote for Joe Lieberman (as a democratic not independant) than any Green Party candidate

[flyarm]

115. nader did the same damn thing ..and the greens sent him packing..

what is it going to take for many of the apologists??

enough is enough for me..i have seen enough..

and i will not be polite about it any longer!

i see what the greens have done..and i have heard what they supposedly stand for..but they no more stand for their so called issues than the man in the moon!

this is fraudulent...and this stinks ...

i heard all the damn excuses for Nader..and i kept asking ..what do the rethugs have on him..it must be damn good...

well i ask the greens now..how can you possibly say you stand for anything..when you support this shit??

or are all of you frauds?? bought and paid for by the rethuglican party of fascists??

fly

[citizen snips]

117. I agree

I have lost all my respect for the green party for accepting rethug money.

[EFerrari]

121. Then you both are guilty of alienating progressives over the

behavior of one jackass.

I hope that works for you.

[flyarm]

128. hardly one..

Naders sell out in 2004


on edit: here is one story that the link works from my files..and a couple others that links may or may not work ..

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html

Ralph Nader Accepts Campaign Contributions from Funders of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

October 6, 2004

snip:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.

snip:
Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.


snip:

Robert Brandon, a former Nader associate, public interest attorney and co-founder of UP for Victory said, “Now we learn that Bush, through his proxies, is funding Nader’s campaign. If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

Altogether, UP for Victory research has documented over $100,000 in cash and known in-kind contributions to Nader by GOP donors and consultants. This does not count the unreported in-kind contributions made by the GOP in circulating his ballot petitions in many states.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sorry the following the link no longer works..but i will excerpt it here
from Boston globe online..
if you want search the archive..

BREAKING: Bush Finance Honcho Donated to Nader
The Associated Press

Thursday 12 August 2004

BOSTON - Ralph Nader has found an unexpected friend in Massachusetts.

Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard Egan, the Bush campaign's finance chairman in John Kerry's home state, has personally contributed the maximum amount allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's presidential campaign.

Egan's son John and daughter in law have each also "maxed out," bringing the family's total to $6,000.


Bush backers are hoping Nader will siphon enough votes from Kerry to tip the election to President Bush.
The co-founder of data storage giant EMC Corp. and Bush's former ambassador to Ireland, Egan is legendary in Republican circles for his ability to collect hundreds of thousands in campaign dollars.
He's a member of an elite group of Bush fund-raisers known as "Rangers" -- those who have helped raised more than $200,000 for the campaign. Egan's two sons are also Rangers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4 /...

Republicans Helping Nader to Help Themselves
By Brian Faler
Washington Post

Monday 19 July 2004

The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state's November ballot.

Of course, this is not really about helping Nader. It is all about helping President Bush and hurting Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's campaign in a closely contested state.

The Michigan GOP denies that, of course. Matt Davis, a spokesman for the group, said it was merely concerned about third-party candidates being left off the ballot. He could not name, however, another third-party or independent candidate his party has helped.

Nader may need the Republican signatures. He has been endorsed by the Reform Party and had planned to use its line on the Michigan ballot. But a dispute over who runs the party's state chapter - and which candidate it supports - has thrown that into question.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


i kept asking at the time..what does the GOP have on Nader...i never got an answer!

now i see a pattern!

[BooScout]

112. Then you shouldn't be here...

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate."

[EFerrari]

118. Read it again, Boo, The rules say, you can support any party

in your heart as long as you don't work against a Dem candidate or proselytize for any other party.

And this whole tempest is just dumb.

When have we EVER needed to make common cause more than now? Yes, that guy in PA is a jackass. But don't worry, unless all you PA people who are oh so outraged help DUer demodonkey with the election systems, it won't flaming matter.

Please. They are organized, own the media and cheat like hell.

Be outraged at the behavior of this guy, fine. But please try not to make it impossible for those of us who want to work with Dems and who regularly do work with Dems to do that.

People, grab yourselves and let GO. We have stuff to do. Take a walk. Beat up a pillow. And then, let's get back to work.

[flyarm]

135. and what helps them cheat?? getting the race closer than it would have

been so they can cheat away and the public at large is no more aware of the cheat ..than they are now..

so supporting election reform in PA will keep the rethugs from stealing it this late in the election cycle??

no it won't...

i am still awaiting that to happen in my state of Fla and i will be waiting till hell freezes over..in fact, every day Jeb makes it harder and harder...for honest elections.. no matter how hard we fight..no matter how many hours, and days and months and years we work..

and the game the rethugs play, is to get the vote close enough ( or the perception of a close vote) so they can steal it..without having mass protests by the general public..to keep the general public from being aware of the steal..

i have stood side by side with green party people for many,many, many years..but if they refuse to condemn this practice..well..

then i will speak out loudly and clearly about it!

we in Fla begged Nader to stay out of our state in both 2000 and 2004...

to campaign in states that he would not be the spoiler.. he didn't give a rats ass!..not in 2000 and not in 2004 ..

i will stand with any green party person who says no to what this man is doing in PA..and if a Green condones it..they will get my wrath!

i feel that strongly about it..

but then again, my state has had 3 elections stolen..

and i will be silent no longer!

fly

fly

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. Fuck The Green Party And Those That Vote For Them.

I'm a democrat, and will vote for democrats, thank you.

And let's hope come election time you don't come on here and support or otherwise try and persuade people to vote for the greens. If you persuade anyone to vote for a candidate at all it best be a democratic one.

[Codeblue]

119. Interesting

Basically, everyone who has posted on this thread besides the OP is against Democracy and democratic ideals. Two parties? Give me a break. They're both just different branches of the same pro-corporate, pro-capitalism party.

Ok, Fuck Nader, Fuck the Greens...that doesn't matter. What everyone has said here is equivalent to "We want Democrats to always be in power and never relinquish it to anyone. Democracy is for Democrats only." A very Republican thing to say. We NEED third parties. They are absolutely essential to maintaing a working Democracy. Not everyone can fit into two parties.

Frankly, I know none of the parties in existence agrees with my ideals totally. The Democrats are closer than the Republicans are, but the Greens are closer than the Dems and there is probably another party even closer to my ideals than that. All of them should have equal access to funds and media. NOTHING in the current electoral process is right, and hardly any of it stems from what the Founders laid forth in the Constitution.

If you want to blame Nader go ahead, but I think it is better to blame a more root cause, that of the Electoral College. If there wasn't the Electoral College, Nader's votes would be totally insignificant and Gore would be President right now. We could have powerful third parties with a popular vote system, but the Electoral College system prevents it and fucks up everything else in the electoral system.

I wish you all would go back and read everything you've posted and see how childish, rude, mean-spirited and totally out of line you've been today.

Thank you.

[LSK]

127. thanks for that New Hampshire vote in 2000

[krkaufman]

129. I support the Green Party and other third parties, too. I *love* them ...

... for the diversity they bring to the political discussion.

However, a vote for third party candidates in our less-than-optimal winner-take-all electoral system often results in minority support of winning candidates -- and a bastardization of democratic representation. Feel free to support third party candidates, but understand that it can be a Pyrrhic choice.

But don't take my word for it, check the Green Party's website for their number one election reform bullet point: Instant Runoff Voting. Why the priority support for IRV if the current election system doesn't result in third party "spoilers"? The answer is obvious. The Wikipedia page on "spoiler effect" provides a succinct indictment of our current elections system: "The spoiler effect is one of the components contributing to the effect known as Duverger's law, which states that the first-past-the-post election system creates and preserves a two-party system.

I'm a strong supporter of IRV, and look forward to the day when a vote for a third party candidate can be cast without fear of the greater evil that may result. Until that time, except in select, fortunate locales, the reality is otherwise.

Cheers!


p.s. By the way, Nader vote totals in 2000 were sufficient in a minimum of two states -- Florida and New Hampshire -- to swing the election to Bush, assuming some percentage of Nader voters would have selected one of the top two viable candidates and in a slightly greater percentage for Gore.

Further, Nader's primary campaign schtick of "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, between Bush and Gore" was disingenuous to the extreme, as many recognized at the time and many have since learned. Had Nader either not run or negotiated his support with the only viable non-Bush candidate, the election would have been a lock. Instead, Nader opted to stick to his guns, and now guns are all we see.

[EFerrari]

148. That's simply untrue. What they used to steal it was what they always

use.

Disenfranchising Black voters.

You know, when I screw up, I want to know about it so I can cut it out. And although in that election I was still a Democrat, even *I* can do the math.

Your Nader argument is simply bull. And it's simply bull according to Al Gore.

Gasp! Did Al turn? Or, are you out of touch?

[krkaufman]

165. "simply bull" -- well, not really.

As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the Nader factor was just *one* among the many affecting the election results. I do not and did not claim, by any stretch, that Nader is solely at fault for the 2000 election results.

However, Nader's candidacy did have an effect on the election outcome in 2000, in the same fashion as other spoilers have in the past -- such as Ross Perot in 1992. If in doubt, reference the Green Party link provided in the post to which you replied. The Green Party itself admits to the "spoiler effect" resulting from our current winner-take-all method of elections, and stresses the need for IRV.

The "final" vote difference in Florida 2000 was something like 538 votes. Some net percentage of Nader's more than 95,000 votes in Florida would easily makeup that difference.

The painful thing is, though ..... Yes, Republicans disenfranchised voters as they are wont to do, and ultimately stole the election through the Supreme Court. But Nader, a supposed progressive, made the conscious decision to remain in the race and contributed to perhaps the greatest setback in US history -- when he could have forced comprimises from the Gore campaign on critical issues, and urged his supporters to defeat the obviously far-Right Bush.

Forshame, Ralph. Forshame...

[EFerrari]

176. For shame yourself for spreading disinformation.

Frankly I'll take Al Gore's wore over yours any day of the week.

[krkaufman]

188. You have the right to your opinion, but not to misleading on the facts.

Please indicate exactly what I said that is factually incorrect.

Al Gore dismissing the spoiler effect in 200 does not change the facts, any more than his asking the country to support the President-elect on that fateful night mitigates the Supreme Court's judicial coup. Gore's statements on the subject have been political in nature, meant to calm the populace and to prevent internal fighting amongst progressive groups.

Again, please see the Green Party website, previously linked, for their election reform priorities -- with IRV being number one on the list, in order to reduce the spoiler effect and thereby give people more freedom to vote third party.

[AnOhioan]

164. Thank you for one a the few intelligent posts on this thread

Let me second your thoughts on this matter.

[krkaufman]

167. Very welcome. Thanks.

Can't emphasize enough that we all need to get on the IRV bandwagon ...

http://www.fairvote.org

[krkaufman]

131. Ok, for this thread to be this long without a single IRV-related comment

... is silly.

Until our mechanism for tallying voter intent is adjusted in some way that is supportive of third party candidacy, such as Instant Runoff Voting, we're pretty much screwed w/ a 2-party system.

Implementing IRV at every level of voting should be a top priority for every progressive.

[MaggieSwanson]

132. Dennis Kucinich voted against the PATRIOT Act

And has been very vocal about his opposition to it.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php

It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act.

Just 45 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush rammed the "PATRIOT Act" through Congress with virtually no debate. This law poses an unprecedented threat to Americans' individual freedoms and is a violation of our civil liberties. Many provisions of the act had been long sought after by law enforcement and repeatedly rejected by Congress in the past.

Without a warrant or probable cause, the FBI can now search your private medical records or access your library records. Your doctor or local library is forbidden from notifying you when these searches take place. The government may search your home while you are away and in some cases even confiscate your property. Judicial oversight of these measures is virtually nonexistent. These are only a few of the PATRIOT Act's provisions that compromise our civil liberties.

I believe the only way to stop these unconstitutional infringements on basic American freedoms is to revoke the exorbitant powers the PATRIOT Act has granted the government. I voted against the PATRIOT Act. I am working to repeal it.

Along with 20 other members of Congress, I have introduced the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, which would repeal several major sections of the law. It would eliminate the PATRIOT Act's subjective search-and-seizure provision, unwarranted incarcerations, and the authority of federal officials to search our private records without probable cause. The act would restore the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege, revoke various Department of Justice secrecy orders, and repeal provisions harmful to the rights of immigrants. In addition, it would restore transparency to Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security administrative procedures by revoking Freedom of Information Act secrecy orders.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In eroding our civil liberties, President Bush has taken our freedom while making us no safer, no better protected against terrorism. The "PATRIOT Act" is not what American patriots fought and died for. As Americans, we cannot allow fear and scare-mongering to lead us to a place where we abandon our most precious traditions.

[Guy Fawkes]

137. What I should've said: Only 1 nay vote in the Senate...

66 nay votes in the House, all but one of those opposed were Democrats. The other opposed? An independant, Sanders.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 ">Vote record for H.R.3163 in the Senate
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml">vote record for H.R.3162 in the House

[gully]

146. So ONE independent and ONE Democrat - ZERO Greens.

:eyes:

It's easy to critique when A) you're not running with the intent to win and B) you continually have the benefit of hindsite.

[EFerrari]

154. That's "hindsight" n/t

[gully]

155. Ah yes, so it is.

eom

[MaggieSwanson]

151. Much better. :)

Peace,

Maggie

[BlooInBloo]

144. As far as I'm concerned, green party candidates are simply....

... republicans in green clothing. Bought, paid for, and owned. Fuck them - they serve no one's purposes other than the republican party's.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_el_ge/santorum_green_candidate;_ylt=AnmHoqQTnkYkIs4uKuokcmCyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

"HARRISBURG, Pa. - Thanks to the generosity of GOP donors, a Green Party candidate is expected to make it onto the ballot in Pennsylvania's Senate race and siphon votes from Democratic front-runner Bob Casey in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record).

While Santorum said Monday that he would welcome another candidate on the ballot, Casey's campaign accused Republicans of "trying to steal the election."

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, making his first bid for statewide elective office, acknowledged Monday that Republican contributors probably supplied most of the $100,000 that he said he spent gathering signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot.

"I have friends in all political parties. It's just that my Republican friends are more confident about standing with me than my Democratic friends. And as a group, my Republican friends are a little better off," he said in a telephone interview. "

[NNN0LHI]

170. I am with you n/t

[gully]

145. "The GP isn't afraid to voice it's support of choice or gay marriage?"

Nader calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy" ~ see link below

Sorry that's not "support" where I come from.

See Gloria Steinem's "10 Reasons" here:

http://www.designcommunity.com/law/notes/21.html

[Guy Fawkes]

149. Nader is not the voice of the Green Party

Green Party official platform on social justice:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#998980

[gully]

156. And Clinton isn't the voice of the Democratic Party.

:eyes:

I see the platform, thanks. Too bad it didn't mean enough to the Green Party to find a candidate who felt the same way.

[EFerrari]

153. LOL! Ralph isn't a Green. Next?

You know, this is really, really STUPID.

The Greens that come to DU come here to make common cause.

What is your agenda, in disrupting that? Really?

Nothing like splitting the left to make a neocon's day.

:eyes:

[gully]

157. common cause my ass. Nader isn't a green, true. But he was their

Presidential Candidate in 2000. You do know that I presume?

And by the way, I AM "the left."

people who come here to make peace can talk about the merits of the Democratic Party. I didn't come here to talk about how great Republicans or Greens are.

[EFerrari]

158. It never occured to me that you don't know your ass from

common cause.

:rofl:

[roody]

152. I hope that those who are intolerant

of a third party are not criticizing Cuba for not being a multi party state!!!

[mainegreen]

163. Ha! good point!

Lost on many people here I'm sure.

[Duncan Grant]

159. Those fucking Greens ruin everything! (cries, pouts and stamps foot)

For what it's worth, I'm with you in principle, Guy Fawkes. You deserve better treatment from your fellow DUers than this.

From the looks of it, there's a group of Democrats here who are unwilling (or unable) to explore substantive issues of interest to all progressively-minded voters. That's a pity.

Just for the record, allow me to say that I will never support another candidate (of any party) who doesn't support civil equality for GLBT people. No exceptions. And if that means the GOP will be goose-stepping in the streets because Democratic candidates (and voters) are ashamed of GLBT people and our political legitimacy, then so be it.

:thumbsup:

[LynneSin]

166. So you suport a Green Candidate financed by the Republicans?

I mean, this isn't just a "we swear they're in cahoots". Just google "Santorum Green" and you can read all about how the republicans paid to get the signatures he needed and help finance his came. 30% of the donations came from people who also donate to Rick Santorum.

This is what you support.

Green have no sympathy from me. I tried not to call them the party of spoilers thinking that perhaps there was room for greens here at DU and somehow they would help make us a better party.

But now I know that Greens are opportunists that takes a clearly no -win situation and handouts from Santorum & the GOP just to help try and defeat Bob Casey. Any Green in here who somehow thinks that is ok should be labelled a Santorum Supporter. The Green Candidate even ADMITS he got the money he needed from the GOP.

So personally, I'm not sure how anyone can support the greens because that, to me, means you support the republicans. And trust me, I wouldn't have cared if then Green Party did this on their own - but instead they allowed the GOP do it for them.

So you wanna be in bed with Rick Santorum? Go support the Green Party

[Guy Fawkes]

168. Okay, seriously...

You have only had one thing to say on this thread, and it's always been something like: "A Green party candidate took money from Republicans!" You've said it OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I'm sorry, but if pointing out one thing you don't agree with about one candidate over and over is your entire argument, then I'm really not going to miss you once I've put you on ignore.

Do I support the GOP? No. Do I support Rick Santorum? Hell no. You're making leaps in (il)logic like "Nader = Green Party" or "Connecticut guy takes money from GOP = all Green Party members love GOP." I'm sorry, how about this classic leap: "Hitler was German and hated Jews = All Germans (for all of time) hate Jews."

You know why you hate the Green Party? Because Gore lost in 2000 to the stupidest man on the planet and all you can do is find a scapegoat, not realizing that the very people who supported Gore the most are the people that made him lose. That's right: foaming at the mouth Democrats who shout down their opponents instead of having reasonable and civil conversations. People just like you. You have one line and you stick to it. And then, when someone disagrees, you insult them and do everything you can to demonize them.

Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck if the GOP gives the Green Party money. I don't care if Santorum thinks this is how he can win the election. I think it would be funny as fuck if the Green Party candidate dropped out after getting all that money- but you know what? He isn't going to know, all because the attack dogs who support the Democratic party are going out of their way to demonize him. There is no way he's going to back down now- and the same thing was done to Nader in 2000. Its called "ego," and everyone has one.

[Duncan Grant]

171. No LynneSin, I do not support a Green candidacy financed by Republicans.

I would personally condemn any Green candidate who accepts money from the GOP -- it's antithetical to any legitimate progressive movement. Funds from the GOP and its operatives should be returned immediately. I'll read for myself what the National leadership of the Green Party is saying about the PA race. I have a feeling that it may be a deal-breaker. However, I still consider myself an uninhibited progressive.

For instance, I support the principles found in the Green Party platform. My personal philosophy has been to support the most progressive candidates I can find in local elections. In any election above the level of the California State Legislature -- I still intend to vote for the most viable progressive candidate; we all know that's going to be a Democrat. However, if they're anti-gay or indecisive about civil equality for gays: screw 'em. They won't get my vote or my money.

Let me also mention my deep frustration with Democratic campaigns on the national level. If the next Democratic candidate for President cannot articulate a clear and supportive position regarding civil equality for GLBT people -- I won't vote for the office. That's my choice: it doesn't make me the anti-Democrat or a DU rule breaker. In my mind, the party must take an unqualified stand against ignorance and bigotry. To do anything less is to be a Republican.

[upi402]

160. ME TOO! I lost my Democratic party somewhere in the cashpile

:evilgrin:

[GAPeace]

169. I think we should support them at a local level, BUILD them

Because they represent me personally far better than the Democrats. We need to consistently work with them to make them big, but until they get enough popularity to win major elections to mostly just keep voting for Dems, trying to make them as progressive as possible through primaries.

[eridani]

172. 59% of Dems in the legislative branch voted against the Iraq war

How many Greens did?

[fujiyama]

173. The Green Party...

I suppose I'd consider supporting them if I lived in Europe...

but the US green party? Ha, what a joke.

Sorry, this country is pretty hostile to the likes of the greens (I'm not saying I am, but many are)...Until I see one actually win statewide office or a federal US seat, I'm not really going to take them seriously.

For now, they are doing OK in a few small college towns. If I lived in one of those areas, I'd also consider voting for them for a local office.

[w4rma]

174. That's too bad. The Green Party will always be used to keep liberals

out of voting in Democratic Primaries and as a spoiler in general elections.

The DLC and the Republican Party thank you.

[cynatnite]

175. Then tell the Green Party to quit letting the repukes use them!

The Green Party would be more appealing to me if they wouldn't take money from repukes and allowing themselves to be used like this.

The Dems have got their issues, but at least I can be one and look in the mirror every morning.

[adwon]

177. Third parties are generally useless

They usually stake out the most ridiculous ground on the spectrum (Constitution Party, anyone?) and are little more than shrill mouthpieces for people who don't understand that compromise, as a general rule, is necessary in the republic. Further, the only time they get noticed is when they pick up a candidate who is known for things other than working with that party (TR, Thurmond, Wallace (Henry and George), Perot, Nader). Further, all they can do is campaign negatively. They seek to draw a distinction between themselves and real parties by claiming no difference between the real parties, etc. This is a fairly stupid strategy as it immediately antagonizes those with whom you'd have to work. Not that they could deliver even if they got elected, of course.

[EFerrari]

178. Which must be why the Democrats had to bring in Bill Clinton

to defeat the Green candidate in our last Mayoral campaign? And even that wasn't enough. Willie Brown had to use city employees to round up votes for Newsom. And even that wasn't enough -- they found ballots floating in the bay.

If that was an uncompromising, negative and stupid Green campaign, you might want to find the people who organized it and hire them immediately. :)

Greens do hard and homely work in neighborhoods. And because Howard Dean is a very smart man, he's training a bunch of kids to do the same out of the DNC. It's a good idea. One of them came by the other day for no particular reason. That's the first time I've ever heard from the DNC in any form other than a repetitive email asking for cash. I was very impressed.

[adwon]

179. Exceptions always exist

In some locales, in local races, third parties can be a good thing. On the national level, though, they fail because they can't deliver. There's a world of difference between a mayoral election and a congressional race.

My main problem with third parties is that they tend to be overly idealistic and unwilling to compromise. I don't mean compromise for the sake of compromise, like the Gang of 14 seems to believe, but compromise in the sense of getting the half loaf. But then, I find the struggle of politics to be something that is passed from generation to generation. Each generation gets it chance to improve, maintain, or worsen the situation.

[EFerrari]

180. I think that particular candidate is exceptional, in the best sense.

If he hasn't changed his mind, there is a congressional run in his future. It will be interesting to see how he does.

[adwon]

186. Always an exception to the rule

I wouldn't mind seeing one, it's just that I don't hold out much hope. :P

[WilliamPitt]

181. Rick Santorum thanks you

As a result, the Santorum campaign has pushed supporters to donate money to the Green Party and aid their signature drive.

Casey spokesman Larry Smar criticized the effort. "I think Rick Santorum is afraid of Bob Casey, he's afraid to face him alone. That's why he's directing support to the Green Party," Smar said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15177658.htm

[EFerrari]

185. Every party has its scum. And taking money from SANTORUM

is about as scummy as it gets. There's no wiggle room there.

[LWolf]

182. I agree, but

when you say: Only one Democrat in congress was man enough to stand up and vote against the PATRIOT act when it came out- Russ Feingold. He was, in fact, the ONLY PERSON to vote against it- as well as one of the few (if not the only one) who read the whole thing.

Do you mean he was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against the Patriot Act? There were Democrats in the House who also voted against it.

[IronLionZion]

184. Greenish Underground! EOM

[personman]

187. A compromise?

My homeslices Chomsky and Zinn have a reasonable solution for those who are conflicted on voting between dems and greens. This is written about the 2004 election, but I think it could apply here as well. They suggest voting Dem in the contested states and voting green in the safe ones. Chomsky in particular seemed concerned with "effectively" voting for Bush.

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is “Bush-lite.” And that stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader’s campaign.

However, Chomsky and Zinn, both residents of John Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, say they plan to vote for Ralph Nader.

But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote,
“Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”

In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance.”


http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html

As usual, very reasonable stuff from Chomsky and Zinn.

Has pretty much been my personal philosophy about this since...whenever it was I read this.