Quinnipiac: Greens Helping Santorum Gain Ground

[ruggerson]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=946

August 15, 2006 - Casey Leads Santorum 48 - 42% Among Likely Voters, Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Poll Finds; Incumbent Has Gained Ground On Challenger



"Bob Casey's lead over Sen. Santorum has shrunk to single digits in part because the Green Party candidate is siphoning votes from the Democratic challenger."

[calico1]

1. Thank you again Greens!

:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Maybe the Dems should try offering a choice.

Emphasis on the word "choice" since Casey and Santorum are against it.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Bingo.

[ruggerson]

6. Maybe the Greens should get their collective heads out ot their asses

and realize that in a two party system, the name of the game is getting majorities in Congress, so that we can stop anti choice judges from being confirmed.

The issue is who is going to control the Judiciary committee in the Senate, not one individual Democratic Senators personal views on abortion.

[Buzz Clik]

8. The name of the "game" is representation.

If the Dem candidate doesn't represent their point of view, then the Dem candidate doesn't get their vote.

That's the way it is and that's the way it should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Well, you named the problem. "a two pary system".

Which, in reality, is a one party system made up of the rightwing and the "not as right wing" as exemplified by the likes of Casey.

[Selatius]

13. No, I'd go further than that

If you really want to get blunt, you've got the left wing and the right wing of the Corporate Capitalist Party. When it comes to major policy issues like foreign policy, they're pretty much on the same page as far as raping third world countries. The only difference is Democrats prefer to rape a country under the guise of international cooperation rather than unilateralism. The same is true when we're talking about idiotic notions like "free trade," which is just a more sophisticated, indirect version of union smashing. Sure, you've got a few good guys like Kucinich and Conyers, but they're a minority and will always be because people who fight for the poor will generally be outnumbered by Bidens who are whores to corporate interests in some form or another.

Now, I'm not saying Dems are the same as Repubs. That's the cheap cop-out argument Nader used. There are differences between the two, especially on social issues, but on far too many significant economic issues like free trade and foreign policy, they're very close if not identical, and that's what pisses me off.

[TahitiNut]

26. Exactly. It's hard to see daylight between Casey and Santorum

... on too many issues, particularly social issues including Choice. The "political calculus" of positioning just barely to the 'left' of the right-wing candidate is a holdover from the days when the parties (each containing their own liberal and conservative 'wings') jockeyed for the 'fat side' of the electorate. It's become a hypocritical art form - a bit like basketball players bumping and blocking while allegedly keeping a distance. As an anti-partisan independent, I'm repeatedly stunned by the duplicity of those who support this 'Go-moku-like' tactic and then claim to be appalled at the perspective of many voters who see little difference when that's exactly what the result of the tactic is. The failure to view the political spectrum as seen by individual voters (who do NOT have a 'choice' between Conyers and Casey) is a kind of partisan myopia that's indicative of how people lose perspective, imho.


Let me see if I can say this more clearly. A voter in Pennsylvania does NOT have a choice between Santorum and Conyers (a choice with a clear difference), they have a choice between Santorum and Casey. If I had a choice between Conyers and Casey, there's zero doubt that I'd pick Conyers - and, in effect, voting AGAINST a "Democrat" (Casey). But that's not the choice I'd see. I'd see a 'choice' between a social conservative with an 'R' and a social conservative with a 'D' - branding without substantial difference in content.

A partisan Democrat in Pennsylvania, however, probably sees themselves as choosing between some fictional amalgam of Casey-Conyers and against some alternative fictional amalgam of Santorum-Delay. It is the partisanship itself that alters the voter's view - and it seems to be virtually impossible for the partisan to remove the contact lenses. (It's interesting to me that the more zealous partisans around here never regard it as a choice between some fictional amalgam of Casey-Nelson or Casey-Landrieu and the alternative fictional amalgam of Santorum-Chaffee or Santorum-Snowe.)

[Mark E. Smith]

3. The Green Party Is A GOP Spoof

Why else would they be giving them all that money?

The Big Green Lie: "There is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush."

[Buzz Clik]

4. OMG. Santorum was 80 points behind, but if he wins...

BLAME THE GREENS!!!



If you cannot beat Santorum, you can't beat anyone. And you won't get my sympathy.

[Ioo]

7. So A Vote for Green is a Vote for the Republicans!

Damn those f'ing greens, they have given us 2 Bush terms, and we are going to get man on dog again!!!

FUCK THE GREENS...

[MadHound]

10. Yay, it's another two minute hate session!

Let's all foam at the mouth and rage at the Greens for daring to exercise their Constitutional right to run for office. That way we can completely ignore the many problems that are of the Dems own making, like running an anti-choice candidate:eyes:

Hey, maybe if Casey would actually articulate some real, liberal positions he wouldn't have to worry about the measly 2-4 percentage points the Greens are going to take. Those points only come into play when you're running two candidates whose POV is quite close on many issues.

[LynneSin]

14. Look the probably isn't that we don't want Greens running for office

But when the Green party candidate is pretty much funded by the republican candidate (who didn't bother funding the Constitution or LIbertarian Candidate) and the signatures were gathered by a company that is notorious for filling the petitions with fake names, dead people, Mickey Mouse and other non-registered PA voters, then yeah, I get a tad bit pissed at the Green Party.

Carl Romanelli is a skank who doesn't care that his money is all coming from the republicans who are hoping can keep them in office. And yes, I know that democrats receiving monies from questionable sources but the Green Party is the one that screams out to everyone that their party is above this sort of shenanigans. Well guess what - they no better than the democrats they scorn.

PA Democrats have every right to challenge those signatures because the company used was busted in Ohio for filling the petitions with illegal names. The Green candidates for Gov/Lt. Gov dropped out because they don't have the $50k in their campaign funds to fight it; however, somewhere Carl Romanelli has the money to fight the charges. Probably using a Lawyer recommended and paid for by the Santorum Campaign

[MadHound]

15. I have no problem with the signatures being verified

That is as it should be.

However I find it rather infuriating when Dems loudly proclaim in '00 and '04 that the Greens should stick to statewide offices, build up their party that way, instead of running for national offices. Well, here are the Greens, doing just that, and now the Dems are all pissed off and demanding that they don't run for office. Sheesh, who in the hell are the Dems to tell another party what office to run for anyway? What's next, Dems saying that Greens should only run for dogcatcher:eyes:

And frankly I can see way the Greens are taking money from the 'Pugs. Money has got to come from somewhere, that's the way the game is played. And since Dems probably aren't donating, they'll take the money where they can get it:shrug: Besides, look at it this way, it is less money that Santorum has to run on.

And frankly, if Casey and Santorum weren't so close on issues like abortion, the war, the Schiavo fiasco, etc. then a Green candidate wouldn't matter at all. But as it is, with Casey and Santorum as close as two peas in a pod, well sure, that 2-3% is going to matter. But really, what in the hell is the use of having a Dem get the nod when he's agreeing with his opponent on many significant issues? Would it make things more palatable for women when Casey pushes through an anti-abortion measure, know that he is a Dem instead of a 'Pug? Somehow I doubt it.

Look, if Casey and PA Dems are so damned worried about that 2-3%, then there's one easy way to overcome it, simply adapt one or two of the Green positions, you know, like pro-choice, and the liberals in the state will vote for their own self interest, rather than a protest vote as they now see as their only option. You can't simply give people a label to vote for, you've got to give them a real difference between the candidates. If you don't well people are going to find a way to make their displeasure known, and in this case it will be by voting for the Greens.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

16. Open your eyes...

..."But when the Green party candidate is pretty much funded by the republican candidate (who didn't bother funding the Constitution or LIbertarian Candidate) and the signatures were gathered by a company that is notorious for filling the petitions with fake names, dead people, Mickey Mouse and other non-registered PA voters, then yeah, I get a tad bit pissed at the Green Party."


That shoots your post down. The rest is just apologies. If I want to see GOP apologists, I'll hang out in a politics chatroom. They have the same "apologies" for the Green candidates as you do. No legit political party can be dictated to exist from a bully pulpit, no matter the "good intentions". Political movements and parties have to grow from the grassroots level to be legit, and by legit I mean having a real base.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

20. There you go again...

... eom

[Buzz Clik]

27. That is correct.

[LynneSin]

37. Then why aren't you posting at the Green Underground

This is the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and it states right in the rules that we are here to support the DEMOCRATIC candidates.

Progressive are welcomed but we're not here to elect Greens.

[Buzz Clik]

43. I'm not a Green, but I'm also not a robot.

Daily "I hate the Greens" threads are ridiculous.

If you think I should be spanked for this, contact the moderators.

[LynneSin]

48. I'm tired of the Green Enablers that come in here and criticize

thus of us who still believe in the democratic party and are willing to fight for it. I came here to talk & debate the issues and to help raise awareness of how to get more democrats elected. I believe in my party and that does NOT make me some robot who is willing to accept things as they are.

Every post I see of yours is usually in connections with the Green Party Candidate in PA and the policy that we MOST VOTE SINGLE ISSUE or else. Bob Casey is a good candidate for a state like Pennsylvania and plus it gets him out of the position of being the heir apparant to governor in 2010.

So you know what, reply all you want. I'm just tired of this negative attitude when it comes to people who are here to elect Democrats. Republicans would love nothing more than threads like yours questioning that we shouldn't support a candidate based on a single issue. They prey on crap like that. Pennsylvania had a democratic party and Bob Casey was the choice for the party. And as a Democrat I will fight to support the nominee

[Buzz Clik]

50. You're missing the point. Intentionally?

"I'm tired of the Green Enablers that come in here and criticize thus of us who still believe in the democratic party and are willing to fight for it."

I have no trouble with you fighting for the Democratic Party, but I do have two problems with the endless criticism of the Greens: 1) The Greens have become disillusioned with supporting a party that has the single focus of winning at any cost, including complete compromise of basic ideals. They would fight for the Democratic Party if it didn't abandon them. 2) Your approach is "you're with us or against us"; so, you leave no other options.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, and you really cannot complain when people walk away once you've turned your back on them.

[LynneSin]

57. The only person missing the point is you

What part of

"I'm tired of the Green Enablers that come in here and criticize thus of us who still believe in the democratic party and are willing to fight for it."

You have been nothing but a Green Enabler in every post I have instead of trying to do something productive like how to get Bob Casey elected/Rick Santorum out of office.

I'm trying to unite a part to fight against the republicans and perhaps gain control of either the house or senate. And I know I'm going to have to vote for some real shitholes, like my very own Lieberman Supporting Democrat Tom Carper, in order to help gain the majority and give democrats I admire & respect an opportunity to have control of the committees and pass meaningful legisilation that might actually stop the Bush Juggernaut.

And even if the Democrats gain control and only succeed to do 10% of what we want them to do, that's still 10% better than what we have now. We access our weakness, find strong candidates to go against the troublesome incumbants and then work together in the general election once again.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

24. And when the Democrats are funded by the same

Corporate sponsors as the Republicans are, and hence take the same stances and marching orders that the Republicans do, what is a good progressive supposed to do? Cheer on the Dem simply because they have a D behind their name, even though their stances on issues like the war, choice, stem cells, etc. are just as repugnant as their so called oppenent? Sorry, but that's just not right.

Casey is supposed to be a Dem, not a 'Pug lite clone. Yet he continues to fail to differentiate himself from Santorum, thus why should a liberal compromise his/her ethics and vote for somebody who represents everything they're against?


Sorry, but this is simply more two party/same corporate master system of government at work. Elections are rigged to put the D & R corporate donors first, and those of us who are looking for real change last. If the Dems want liberal votes, don't automatically assume that they're yours, you still have to work for them. That means NOT being Republican lite. Offer something different, a real change, steal a plank or two from the Greens. But don't just give people regurgitated Republican stances and expect us to vote for them. People will go to the Greens or stay home in droves.

[LynneSin]

17. Personally I think it's wasted money on these statewide elections

Let's face it - we vote with name and party recognition, something which most greens do not have.

Republicans didn't one day just take over congress, they started way back in the 80s with the 'little' offices, getting people to run for the school board, city council hell dogcatcher if there was someway that position could use influence on the people. They rebuilt their image by starting with the smaller stuff and getting people to believe that Republicans are the party they should support. They did such a great job that since 1994 we STILL haven't figured out how to crack their stranglehood on congress.

If Greens want to be a viable party they are not going to do it with statewide races. They do nothing but drain money from real campaigns where Greens could be a viable candidate. When people get use to seeing Greens winning some local elections, then they'll start to believe in the Greens as a party they can vote for statewide.

[MadHound]

21. And there's the political conundrum

If you only run in local races, you get no party name recognition to move up to the state races. So if you're going to build a party, you've got to get some name recognition, thus you have to run in some statewide, and dare I say it, national races just to get the name recognition.

Then there is also the matter of money. If the Greens can pull in five percent of the vote for a presidential race, all sorts of funding doors open for them, including federal matching funds. The two biggies, Ds and Rs don't have to worry about this sort of shit, but smaller parties do, and thus they will run in races where they have absolutely no chance in hell, either to get that magic five percent, and to get name recognition.

Hey, it was the two big parties who rigged the system, all to keep other parties out. Now that the Greens are going through the process, and potentially becoming a spoiler, you want to yank the rug out from underneath them? How undemocratic is that?

And again, Casey could negate the Green's run for office if he would start actually differentiating himself from Santorum. But apparently, like a lot of Dems, he feels the best way to run is to present himself as simply the milder, less abrasive sort of Repug, er Dem:eyes: The candidate for the Green party is actually giving people a choice, something that the public and especially those of us on the left, have been clamoring for for decades now.

[LynneSin]

25. Casey is a hell of alot different than Rick Santorum

Take the time to read is issues link on his website. I know about the choice issue and even that isn't as harsh as what Santorum wants (Casey is ok with EC, federal funding for family planning and a comprehensive sex education program).

Comments like that is the type of bullcrap out there that Rove hopes we democrats use in order to help secure a Santorum win.

BTW - if you're so gung-ho about the single issue then we better get rid of John Murtha. He is a harsh anti-choice democrat

[Buzz Clik]

31. No one is suggesting Casey should be "gotten rid of"...

Our problem is your suggestion that the Greens are some sort of traitors to the cause. If I were a pro-choice voter in Murtha's district, I'd be tempted to find an alternative.

[LynneSin]

36. If I was a pro-choice voter in John Murtha's district

I'd be out there campaigning like hell for the guy. When we vote with a single issue, the republicans always win. John Murtha is doing more to save lives with his fight to end this war.

I'd be honored to have him as my representative even if he was pro-choice

[Buzz Clik]

44. And I fully support your desire to do so.

It's what this country is all about.

I'm curious why so many DUers have trouble respecting the rights of others to choose their own path.

[paulk]

47. I respect the "rights of others"

it's their intelligence I question.

I've never been able to suffer fools.

Anyone who would vote Green, especially after the last six years, is a fool.

[Buzz Clik]

51. Ah. So, people who disagree with you are fools who lack intelligence.

Nice.

[paulk]

58. on this issue, yes.

that is what I said.

[Buzz Clik]

62. Well, then, you have defined yourself.

[paulk]

70. LOL

Hey - this isn't grade school, buzz clik. You're going to have to do better than that if you're trying to insult me.

You tell me how anyone, after the last six years, can still say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. You tell me how this is not the conclusion of a fool.

You tell me how it is an intelligent decision to support a Green candidate when that support could very likely help in the election of someone who's positions are 100% opposed to that of the Green candidate.

[LynneSin]

53. You can choose any path you want

But don't come in here and feel you have the right to put me down, criticize the party I support and question posters that the democratic nominee of choice is somehow unacceptable (even though it was overwhelming acceptable to those who live in those states).

When I see that kind of crap being dished out then I feel every right to dish back.

I'm not here to elect Greens, I'm not here to support the Green Party and I have about as much respect for the Green Party as I would for a raging case of foot fungus. If they want to make a change in the world then fight in the democratic party to get more progressive people on the ticket. Greens are simply too lame to even bother trying and then try to paint themselves as something special for supporting a party that serves no purpose other than spoiling a few races. And yes, I truly believe they were a factor in helping Bush steal the election. How they sleep at night is beyond me!

[Buzz Clik]

59. Suddenly you're the victim in all this?

But don't come in here and feel you have the right to put me down, criticize the party I support and question posters that the democratic nominee of choice is somehow unacceptable (even though it was overwhelming acceptable to those who live in those states) ... When I see that kind of crap being dished out then I feel every right to dish back.

I certainly have not attacked you, but the attacks on the Greens are a daily occurence here at DU. The only criticism being leveled at you, if it is criticism at all, is the request that you either let the Greens go or try to understand why they have parted ways with the Democrats.

You energies would be better spent addressing defeating Santorum or attempting to understand why the Greens left. An undending barrage against the Greens merely accomplishes exactly what the GOP intended -- splitting the party.

[Dawgs]

89. Why shouldn't Democrats attack Greens?

1) This is DemocraticUnderground!!
2) Many feel, and justifibly so, that the 2000 Green Presidential candidate helped Bush get elected.
3) Just because you support the Green Party does not mean that the members of this site should as well.
4) You should act like an adult and accept these three items as this site is not a pro-green party site. I certainly wouldn't go to a site that supported the Green party and expect them not to attack Democrats.

[MadHound]

39. Yet on the big issues

The war, abortion, stem cell research, etc. his positions are similar to Santorum's and other 'Pugs:shrug: Sorry, but I would like to see a candidate who is really different. My God, sixty percent of the people the US population want us the hell out of Iraq NOW. Not some vague future date when Iraq's government is ready, that's not going to happen while we're still there. Would it be so damn hard for a Democratic candidate to support the will of the majority in this country?

And while Murtha is against abortion, he is for stem cell research, fully, unlike Casey who has essentially take Bush's '01 position, limited, failing stem cell lines. And also, unlike Casey, Murtha is actually with the majority opinion on the Iraq war, ie bring 'em home, NOW.

Look, I never ever expect any candidate to fully represent my views on matters. However I do expect them to represent me at least on the big issues. And on the two biggest of the day, abortion and the war, Casey is leaving myself, and many other thousands like me, far, far behind.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

33. Settle down...

..."If you only run in local races, you get no party name recognition to move up to the state races. So if you're going to build a party, you've got to get some name recognition, thus you have to run in some statewide, and dare I say it, national races just to get the name recognition."

That is blatantly false! That is exactly the way grassroots growth occurs. You GROW the party, you do't dictate it's existence from the pulpit. You grow the party by getting your GREENS elected to local offices, moving up as reputation and results on progressive issues are achieved. Political parties are not created in a vacuum, at least not those that endure, ie.... Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt.

BTW, there may still be a Bull Moose Party out there somewhere, if so, what was the last election they won?

[MadHound]

42. You know what,

The Greens have been running, and winning, in local elections for years now. It is time for them to take the next step up and run for statewide offices. And yes, it is a political fact that if you want name recognition for a third party, you've got to run for national elections. Not just for the name recognition either, but for that magic five percent number, with the matching funds and other money that it brings.

The Greens have been effective in developing their party, and they're taking that next step. If the Dems want to eliminate the threat from the Greens, it's real simple, stop acting like 'Pug lite, start acting like old school Dems, and nick a couple of Green planks for the Dem platform.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. It's not about Casey.

It's about the 'D' behind his name. If he is not sufficiently progressive, then recognise that his party is the more progressive, and when the 'D' controlls the committees then something might actually get done. If the Greens do nothing but bleed the Dems, ensuring that Santorum returns to office (because really, does the Green have a snowball's chance of defeating Santorum?)how does that help the progressive cause? There is a reason they are called 'spoilers', and it's not because they are spoil-sports.

Now if the Greens had a real chance in the general election, more power to 'em. The could help create a progressive block, and drag recalcitrant Dems to the left with them, restoring some balance in DC. But do you really see that happening? Here, and now?

That's why you have to build the base.

It never fails to amaze me how so many otherwise politically astute people can have such tunnel vision about this.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. You are deceiving yourself.

Lieberman lost to a moderate DEM candidate, who (if Lieberman is not a spoiler) can keep the CT seat in Dem hands. His Repub opposition is nominal.

Santorum is neck and neck with his Dem opponant - just bleed a fraction of Casey's base, and Santorum will win.

How does that help us?

If the Dems control the committees, they control the agenda. Assuming legit elections, it is possible to stop the GOP dead in its tracks in November. I would accept Casey, or Lieberman, or the devil himself if it meant regaining control of the agenda. Once we're set, THEN is the time to pressure the RW shills to return to their party.

IOW, if we control the agenda we won't let Casey vote against R v W, because we won't allow that to come up on the agenda. If we control the agenda, we can stop * from appointing any more anti-choice judges. If we control the agenda, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq, and forstall any planned attacks on Iran.

BUT WE HAVE TO CONTROL THE AGENDA TO DO IT! And we will only control the agenda by putting Dems in office.

Is this willful obtuseness, or do you really not understand how party poliitcs works?

[Buzz Clik]

76. Just a few months ago, Santorum was 30 points down.

Now, it's neck and neck. Why? Santorum is pure scum, but Casey can't maintain a smothering lead?

Casey and his supporters are looking for an excuse for failure. I suggest they focus on Santorum.

[MadHound]

78. Then perhaps it would be wise for both Casey and Dems in general

To start supporting a couple of liberal/progressive issues. The Greens aren't dumb, most are very pragmatic people, who would support a Democratic candidate that is behind a couple of their major issues over a Green candidate that supports all of their issues. But the trouble is, candidates like Casey aren't even behind a couple of the Greens major issues. Instead he has come out as for the war and against abortion.

A lot of us over here on the left have gotten tired of constantly holding our nose and voting for "the lesser of two evils". We would like to actually vor *for* a candidate rather than being forced to vote *against* a candidate. Continuing to demand the left's blind support without even tossing us a bone is starting to wear very thin with a lot of people, therefore many of us have decided it is time to do something. And going third party just may be the trick. Back in FDR's day, he was facing a stiff challenge from the left, from the Socialist party. Rather than moan and groan and demand absolute party loyalty, he instead nicked a couple of planks from the Socialist's platform and made them his own. Good thing he did too, he not only was re-elected, but the US received both Social Security and Unemployment Insurance as a result.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. I'm not disagreeing about what they SHOULD do,

but the fact is, because they DIDN'T you are going to see Santorum re-elected. Boy, that'll sure show THEM.

Does cutting off your nose to spite your face have any resonance with you?

[Buzz Clik]

18. Excellent summary of the situation.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Buzz Clik]

28. I think the problem is not the Greens but your reaction to them.

[MadHound]

41. Then I tell you what

Start putting up Democrats, old school Democrats, who actually take positions on issues that are best branded as 'Pug lite, and you wouldn't have to hear about the Greens ever again.

Instead, the Democratic party has been infested with candidates who are pro war, anti abortion, pro "free trade", pro business, pro WOD, etc. etc. There has been a trend going on now where the positions of the Dems and 'Pugs have become increasingly more compatible. Put a halt to that, return the party to what it once was, and you won't have to worry about the Greens again. Don't do that and eventually the Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs. Because people want real choice in their representation, not just a choice between the marginally lesser of two evils.

[LoZoccolo]

49. I TELL YOU WHAT

TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS

[Buzz Clik]

54. Likewise, my friend.

Compromising the basic ideals of the Democratic Party will have logical consequences, including the abandonment of the Party by those who refuse to become neo-cons in order to get elected.

[LoZoccolo]

64. Would you blame angry mobs for beating Green Party members?

Yes, when there are myriad options before you, and one will get you the most of what you want, and you pick the one that gets you none of what you want and drowns people and fucks up the environment, you're responsible for that. If you don't think so, then you should also absolve the people who wanna beat the bloody piss out of Green Party members for this bullshit of responsibility for the logical consequences of Green Party actions. Got it? Harming other people by getting Republicans in office has logical consequences too.

[Buzz Clik]

67. That sounds like a threat. Is that your intention?

If you're suggesting that Greens will be beaten for participating in the voting process, then you have lost your way.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Deja Q]

60. PERHAPS THAT'S WHY GREENS ARE GAINING GROUND??!

Not that I'd vote Green, but life is never as simple as we want it to be.

[Buzz Clik]

68. exactly

[MadHound]

69. I am taking responsibility for my own actions

That's why I'm seriously considering going Green. After thirty plus years of working my ass off for the Democratic Party, dutifully working on every Presidential campaign from McGovern to Kerry, donating money, sweat, time and my vote, all to watch it pissed away as the Democrats have become increasingly right wing, yes, I figure it is high time I took responsibility for my actions, and refuse Democrats my support until they actually supporting issues that I hold dear, and that the majority of people in this country support, you know, like getting the hell out of Iraq. Continuing to enable "the lesser of two evils" doesn't do this country any good, it simply means that we merely approach the cliff edge at a slightly less breakneck speed than under 'Pugs. It is no longer a change in direction, just a change in speed.

PS. Yelling at myself and others isn't winning you friends or influencing people. It simply makes the impression that you are substituting volume for well thought out, well reasoned conclusions.

[LoZoccolo]

80. No you're not.

If I made you take responsibility for your actions here, I bet you'd hit alert on it.

[MadHound]

82. LZ, I'm not sure what you're saying here,

Nor how it relates to my post above. However it does sound like you are trying to threaten me, either physically or verbally. If that is the case, I would suggest that you are careful before you proceed any further. I'm not a pleasant person when I get angry, and I don't respond to threats well.

Therefore I suggest that we drop this one here and now, and simply agree to disagree. Going any further my put us both in positions that neither one of us like OK.

[LoZoccolo]

83. What? It is YOU who is physically threatening EVERYBODY.

The Republicans are a physical threat, and so is their left flank the Green Party.

All I'm saying is that I would have some choice words for you were you not able to hide behind the rules on DU.

[MadHound]

84. LOL, LZ, you are a card

And perhaps your anger at everything Green has made you delusional, but point out to me anywhere, anyplace, any post where I have physically threatened anybody. Go ahead, I'll wait.

And I'm so sorry that the DU rules leave you feeling so confined, but frankly that's the way things are. I'm not hiding behind them, in fact I haven't even brought them up, that would be you who is fretting about them.

But one thing I do notice amidst all this bluster and bravado of yours is that you fail to address a single relevant point of mine in the post I made earlier. Funny, isn't it, I bring up real issues, real suggestions, and all you respond with is bullying and braggadocio. Funny, and quite telling.

[KingFlorez]

38. It's not the Democrats fault

The Republicans are helping the Greens get on the ballot, the Greens know they can't win so they'd rather send Santorum back.

[Buzz Clik]

45. The Greens want Santorum to win?

That doesn't make sense. What they want is for the Dems to reconnect with their base rather than sell out by becoming Democrat Neoconservatives.

[Selatius]

11. Casey should rethink his platform to halt the bleeding of votes

If Santorum couldn't beat Dems, then he could sure split off votes from them using Greens. The only thing I'd recommend is Casey either maintaining course or moving a little more to the left to halt the hemorrhaging. Maybe if he rethought his anti-choice position, he wouldn't hurt himself with more liberal voters.

[skipos]

12. GREEN= Getting Republicans Elected Every November

nt

[LoZoccolo]

23. WE NEED TO PUT DU GREEN PARTY LACKEYS ON MASS IGNORE!

UNTIL NOVEMBER!

WHO IS DOWN WITH THAT?

EVERY CLOWN NEEDS AN AUDIENCE!

[Buzz Clik]

29. Good idea. And when do you intend to start ignoring them? Soon?

[oasis]

35. Now's the only time Greens can raise their issues and get an audience.

Come November, they'll do the right thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. What makes you think that?

They haven't yet.

[oasis]

86. Green would be on their way to extinction should the GOP remain in power.

By the next election cycle, Greens would have to go up against an airtight authoritarian state.

If Dems regained congress in 2006 and the WH in 2008, Greens would have the kind of establishment that they could chip away at.

Greens are educated enough to know that nothing can be gained by blowing thier last chance.

[MoonRiver]

30. Every time I think going third party may be a viable option...

Anyway, voting Dem, no matter how flawed the party may be, is definitely the only way to go.

[Buzz Clik]

32. If you tie yourself to the mast of any political party, ...

... then you will be taken for granted, and invoking change will be nearly impossible.

[MoonRiver]

34. I'm registered unaffiliated.

I never say never. But I also want the good guys/gals to take back our government.

[WI_DEM]

40. Well, even in a two way race Santorum has gained ground and is

only seven-points behind compared to the double-digits he was behind. It was bound to tighten but for an incumbent to be this far behind for this long doesn't bode well for November. Besides the Greens got a lot of bad publicity from having the Republicans help get them on ballot--I don't think it's likely they will poll five percent in November.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. And if Santorum wins by 3%?

The Greens will have once again shown their strength.

:eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

52. choose: blame the Greens or earn their votes

yes, we all understand that some people just hate those stupid Greens ... everyone is entitled to their own opinions ...

the question is, what do you do about "those stupid Greens"???

you could, let's say, insult them ... i'll bet you could come up with a really, really, really long list of great insults ... you could probably make a great case about how damaging they are ... if you had enough power, some of you might even make it a crime to vote for a third party ... or maybe you would just ban third parties all together ... that would certainly solve the problem you're having with "those stupid Greens" ...

as a Democrat, it is certainly disturbing to see the Green vote match the current polling difference between Casey and Santorum ... there's gold in them thar hills ...

what did the Democratic Party expect the reaction from "those stupid Greens" to be when they chose an anti-choice candidate? not what reaction did you want the Greens to have but what reaction did you expect them to have? all this hand wringing about Greens, whether you think they're right or wrong, does absolutely nothing ... it's just noise ... scream all you want to but it is nothing but noise ...

Democrats need a different and more effective approach to Green, and other, third party voters ... if you want to view them as so weak and ineffective that you don't need their paltry support, that's fine ... but don't come around at election time whining about needing that paltry support ... the way to earn Green votes is to earn Green votes ... screaming into the wind is DOA ... the Democrats went with an anti-choice candidate ... when they did, they made a political calculation ... they thought Casey could win; perhaps he will ... but to be oh-so-shocked now that "those stupid Greens" would not "help out Democrats" who are running an anti-choice candidate is beyond ridiculous ...

there's an old zen parable that says "if you don't have room in your living room for an elephant, don't make friends with the elephant trainer" ... Casey is the elephant trainer; and "those stupid Greens" are the elephant in your living room ...

OK, go back to your screaming now ...

[Deja Q]

56. OMG, you mean politicians think they are entitled automatic acceptance?

:wow:


Sorry for the sarcasm, but there are politicians - both D and R who laugh at voters because the politicians think they are entitled simply by showing up waving their banner.

The Green voters are a symptom of a larger problem and are not THE problem.

The last 32 years of DUers asking "Why are Dems doing this instead of that?" might have some weight as to why the Green party gets even a single vote.

Who gives a fuck about other people? We need to work on ourselves first.

[welshTerrier2]

65. just for the record ...

some of those people voting Green are "ourselves" ...

32 years, eh? where does the time go?

[Deja Q]

88. Oops. I think I meant '3 years'... silly typo on my part,

but to reiterate, I am not Green (anymore - thanks to DUers mentioning what a two-face Nader had become). But I do maintain a politician needs to earn respect, and not be given an automatic carte blanche just because of party affiliation.

[Deja Q]

55. True-but what are the Dems doing to disenfranchise voters in the 1st place

:shrug:

[mod mom]

61. Did you ever consider that it is a rovian ploy to spread hate toward the

Greens instead of having the Dems and Greens work in coordination?

Do these values sound closer to R or D?

Grassroots Democracy

Social justice and equal opportunity

ecological wisdom

non-violence

decentralization

community based economics and economic justice

feminism and gender equality

respect for diversity

personal and global responsibility

future focus and sustainability

Now I would like to suggest that the Ds and Gs work together. Instead of creating a wedge between the two parties by hateful rhetoric, perhaps a constructive dialogue would be more appropriate. It would seem to me that the hateful right is creating and perpetuating this division to support their own evil agenda.

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. "...he hateful right is creating and perpetuating this division..."

Which is why they are funding the Greens to undercut the Dem candidate.

Casey may be neolithic, but supporting him supports the Dem party -- in this particular instance, as well as others we know of, supporting the Green candidate directly helps the GOP.

The Dems are not nearly as progressive as I would like us to be, and in local elections I am likely to vote for a Green rather than a conservative Dem, but that changes on the national elections. Voting for a Green who shares your views, but who will be trounced in the general election, may feel good for a moment, but then you have years of dealing with the GOP who trounced him.

That is not acceptable.

If Greens want Dems to work with them, they have to return the favor.

[warrens]

75. Dirtbag fascist enablers

Go to hell, Greenies.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Fascists? LOL!

[depakid]

79. Turned out not to be a good time to run an anti-choice candidate

About two weeks ago, a rape victim was denied emergency contraception in an emergency room- had to find her ObGyn to write a scrip- and then the local pharmacy didn't carry it- and so- traumatized- this young women had to make the drive a considerable distance to a neighboring town to get it.

People who stand up for reproductive freedom were outraged- and it's been all over the Pennsylvania papers.

Under the circumstances, it's no surprise that the Green candidate has some appeal at the moment.

Lesson to Dems- enable and legitimize far right issues (like being anti-choice) and you'll face problems on your left flank. Do it often enough, and you may well lose.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Fuckin Goddamn Greens. No Respect For Those Fuckers At All. (Well, The

ones that VOTE for the green anyway. Greens in spirit with enough layman common sense to vote for the dem are A-OK with me.)

[Dawgs]

91. Abso-fucking-lutely!!!

I think most of us don't have problems with Greens. It's just the ones that vote for Greens when it helps get a Republican elected that makes so crazy. It makes no fuckin' sense.

[rhombus]

90. Does the GOP ...er... Greens have any principles at all?

Sad. I hope their signatures get disqualified.