Ahh the true Green mentality-- let's make it worse to get it better,

[trumad]

An interesting diary over at KOS about the Maryland Green candidate for Gov. It seems the Greenie candidates kid posted here at DU and showed his true colors. When will these idiots learn?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/10/214755/16

[bryant69]

1. I don't know - I can sort of understand where he is coming from

I mean I agree that it is stupid to work for any democrats loss, and there is clearly an element of self-angrandizement here (I'm better than the guy I'm running against - well, yeah, I'm not surprised you think that).

On the other hand we need Democrats who will stand up to the Bush Administration - and if this guy isn't one - well, it's nice that he will give power to a lot of democrats who will stand up (we hope), but I'd still rather have a stanud up guy in there.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[trumad]

2. That was Naders talking point in 2000

Look where that got us.

[bryant69]

5. I know - i voted for him and I've regretted it ever since

Bryant

[havocmom]

6. Any accounting of GOP $$ to green spoiler candidates?

Seem to remember there was money funneled into a campaign or too. Not unlike what is going on in CT Senate race from some of the things we read.

[LynneSin]

38. That was Santorum/Romanelli in Pennsylvania...

Rick decided we needed other voices for the US Senate although not the voices of the Libertarian or Constitution Parties (parties that would draw votes away from him). So his supporters ante'd up $100k to help Carl Romanelli gather the signatures, which at least a third of them were invalidated.

Two court appeals later, Romanelli is off the ballot, about $100k in debt and the Santorum party refuses to give him anymore money

When you sleep with the snakes you're probably going to get bit!

[LoZoccolo]

39. Ha I didn't know about the debt.

That's funny.

[LynneSin]

40. I posted that about 2 days ago

Turns out he owes about 80k in legal fees and another 25k to the firm that helped gathered signatures. And the press person for Santorum said that they were providing no more funds for Romanelli.

I think that's why the Green candidate for Governor dropped out. She too benefitted from the Santorum money; however, she knew that she could never cover the legal fees. I guess Carl was hoping that either his fans or the Santorum folks would kick in the cash to get him through the rest of the legal process.

Dumbass!

[Bandit]

32. No it was not

Nader never said he wanted to make things worse to make them better. He said things are going to get worse before they get better and I dare you to say he was wrong....

[trumad]

34. Semantics... same thing

wouldn't you agree that he helped?

[Bandit]

35. Would you consider it only semantics if I said

You are a LIAR or you made a mistake. Are those also the same thing? You said he wanted to make things worse to make them better. He said things were going to get worse before they get better. Things most definitely have gotten worse. Nader did not make them so the Republicans did with no opposition from the Democrats. I say words do have meanings even if you wish to ignore that fact.

[Ravy]

37. Nader played his part in making them so.

Florida, 2000, 90,000 votes. Ring a bell?

[Ravy]

36. Yes, No doubt, Nader and the Greens made it much worse.

So, whether he wanted to is a moot point. The fact is, he did.

[demwing]

44. OK, NADER WAS WRONG. (Sorry about the caps)

Whether Nader said it or not, it was a big part of the campaign, and a rationalization of many of his followers.

Plus, Nader did say that he would vote for Bush over Gore, if forced to chose between the two. If Nader didn't believe it had to get worse before it got better, then explain THAT quote.

And, since you're daring people, I'll say it loud and clear, one more time.

NADER WAS WRONG.

Ralph Nader was wrong about Al Gore, and Ralph Nader was wrong about GW Bush.

Ralph Nader was wrong to stay in the race in late 2000, and wrong to get in at all in 2004.

Ralph Nader was wrong to call for the challenging of good Dems for their congressional seats, and wrong to take financial support from Republicans.

Now what?

[Zhade]

69. More like "look where the STOLEN ELECTION got us".

Jesus, people - Nader was so insignificant in that coup. He's insignificant now. Try focusing on the thieves who stole their way into power, not the egomaniac who made it only slightly closer.

[OneBlueSky]

3. how old is this kid? . . . has he ever taken an English course? . . . n/t

.

[sam sarrha]

4. NeoCon Mysticism says a Utopia will rise out of the radioactive ashes

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[skipos]

9. Greens are running against Lamont

So the fact that Lamont has learned "to actually start acting like (he's) liberal and progressive" didn't seem to be enough for Greens in CT.

No surprise really. They are just staying true to their name...

Getting
Republicans
Elected
Every
November

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[stuartrida]

17. Oh that's good.

Ignore the fact that Greens still run against progressives like Lamont and Wellstone and take Republican money to do it. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Ravy]

47. And Casey, and McCaskell.... the list goes on (n/t)

[BootinUp]

10. Its going to take all Dems on the left-left, left--center,left-right

to turn this thing around. If Greens want to participate all they have to do is become an active member of the Party. I think some of the netroots/grassroots activists from the 2004 campaign that hadn't been active before have begun to influence the party. You see it in Dean getting the Chair of the party, and in Lamont getting the nom in CT.

[MadHound]

14. Then frankly the Dems need to put something on the table

Take up a Green issue, a truly liberal issue like UHC. Give Greens(who are overwhelming made up of disenchanted Democratic party members) an actual bona fide reason to vote FOR the Democratic party, rather than simply demanding their alliegance.

Frankly, from the liberal viewpoint the choice between Dems and 'Pugs comes down to whether we want to be boiled slowly or quickly. With the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting the straight corporate line these days, it doesn't leave a person much to vote for, sadly again, it is a question of who to vote against, the lesser evil. Many of us are tired of dealing in the morality of the lesser evil, thus we either drop out of voting or go Green. If the Democrats would actually address our wants and needs, even a bit, you could have an overwhelming coalition of voters who would put Democrats back in power time after time.

[BootinUp]

18. I'm just explaining how it works.

Parties are not generally changed in the way you would like by sitting outside with a small handful of people. You will find more people in the party that agree with you and then you can effect change.

[MadHound]

23. The vast majority of Greens have been there, done that,

Tried the whole "change the party from within" schtick for years and decades now. And frankly we're tired of beating our heads against a brick wall, as the Democratic party continues to slide to the right, and give up its spine in the process. Continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result every time is another definition of insanity, and most of us on the left are tired of acting insane.

Again, it is past time for the Democratic party to put something on the table that we can vote FOR, if they want to win us back. Hell, they've pandered to every other group on the right, center, and in the halls of corporate America. Don't you think that it is time to do something for the group that was once considered their base, the liberals, leftists and progressives in this country? I do.

[BootinUp]

29. Anyone in politics

that long can see that the political landscape changes all the time. So having a message that falls on mostly deaf ears can be very frustating I am sure. But after 30 years of moving right, there are more people who are saying very similar things to you now and looking left. All I'm saying is you traded a brick wall for a sharp metal spike. And brick wall is not accurate anyways becuase no political movement or party remains unchanging over longer periods of time.

[MadHound]

43. And why are the wiser ones amongst the Democratic party finally looking

Left? Oh, yeah, that's right, because they're seeing a growing threat from the left, the liberals, the Greens. However this awareness of what is going on hasn't translated into any solutions within the party. In fact it seems to being doing the opposite right now, exacerbating the problem, prompting both the rank and file and the leadership of the party to try and beat wayward leftists into line, rather than doing what FDR did and entice them back to the ranks of the party.

Yes, there is progress, at least the threat from the left is being recognized by some of the more astute members of the party. However the vast majority don't recognize this, they just want to continue with more of the same ol' same ol'. Thus the left is going to remain a threat, something that the party will have to deal with, one way or the other. Solve that problem, and you can have Democratic victories for generations. Ignore that problem and the 'Pugs will continue to eek out win after win.

[BootinUp]

46. People not pols

its all about the political landscape what story resonates with Americans. I wasn't talking about the pols.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Has their strategy done anything besides attract scorn and ridicule?

You keep saying that the reason the Democrats keep facing these spoiler attempts is because their strategy doesn't work. And what, may I ask, has the Green Party accomplished with it's Stalinist spoiler strategy? Actually, scorn and ridicule is the least of it; they've spread death and destruction with it (but I imagine that's the point for many). You say the Democrats are responsible for their strategy, but aren't willing to take responsibility for the Green one that you chose out of all possible strategies.

Nader's 2000 strategy didn't even increase support for third-parties! Look at the Green/Nader percentages for 2000 and compare them to 2004 and you'll actually see that it pushed more people back to the Democratic Party.

[MadHound]

25. Strawman question LZ. The problem that we're addressing here

Is how to bring back Greens(mostly former Dems) back into the Democratic fold. If you want to do that, offer those of us on the left something to vote FOR, no just more of the same ol' "lesser of two evils" schtick. Hell FDR did that with the Socialists, why can't the Dems do that today? If they persued this policy, then they would win every election from here on out, for not only would you attract back the Greens, but you would also attract back the majority of non-voters in this country, who after all, the largest single political block in this country.

[LoZoccolo]

27. I gave you a great reason.

The reason is that what they're doing does not give them what they want, and makes things worse.

Newsflash: Greens don't stand for anything. They seem to be largely middle-class white people and college students who are affected little by the gulf of difference between the two major parties. Actions speak louder than words; these are people who are repeating a verifiably futile and harmful strategy and won't take responsibility for it.

[MadHound]

42. No, you gave me a strawman question

That avoided answering any issue I brought up. Then you threw ad hominem attacks on top of it, which you've just repeated. Do you know any of the issues that Greens are interested in? Have you ever studied the demographics of the Green party? I would suggest that you do both, if for no other reason than to know your "enemy" better.

By the by, how can running third party candidates be a "verifiably futile and harmful strategy"? Again, let me point to the example of the Socialist party of the '30s. They were running a serious third party race for President, so serious that FDR took them quite seriously in the role of spoiler. In order to forestall this from happening he nicked a couple of planks from the Socialist party plank and made them his own. In doing so, he persuaded many Socialists to vote for him, realizing that it is better to get part of what they wanted than none at all. People, when you come down to it, are a pretty pragmatic lot in politics. Their basic question is "What's in if for me?" If you offer them a tangible, pragmatic reason to vote for you, they will abandon their "ideal" candidate and vote where they feel they can be reasonably successful in fulfilling part of their needs. FDR recognized this, and thus held out a carrot to the Socialists. They took him up on it and voted him into office, thus securing the carrot. Good thing he was so wise, and a good thing that the Socialist party was applying the pressure they did. Otherwise we wouldn't have had Unemployment Insurance and Social Security.

The Democratic party could do well to learn this lesson. Greens, like everyone else, are a pragmatic lot. If the Dems held out the carrot of say, UHC, or publicly financed elections, you would find overwhelming success amongst both the Greens and the non-voters. Instead, the Democratic party seems to have completely forgotten this lesson, and is insteaad resorting to trying to beat people into voting for the Dems, a dubious strategy at best.

[LoZoccolo]

51. It is not a strawman to ask you openly what the Greens have accomplished.

By the by, how can running third party candidates be a "verifiably futile and harmful strategy"?

I can't believe this shit.

This argument is over. Anyone who wants to believe you will, and the rest will see your argument for what it is.

[MadHound]

53. So, you're not going to acknowledge the lessons of history?

Gee, good thing that FDR didn't heed your advice. Otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Or are those "verifiably futile and harmful strategy"?

Nice of you to decide the arguement is over when you haven't even taken it up in any sort of meaningful way yet. Typical.

[LoZoccolo]

56. Bush 2000?

Oh, I get it:

- When you run a spoiler (your word, not mine) and it works, it's a lesson of history.
- When you run a spoiler and it backfires, we don't have to talk about it.

La la la la, no one believes you, la la la la.

[MadHound]

61. You know LZ, after all the times we've crossed paths

I would at least think that you would have the sense to stop trying to blame for '00 on Nader and the Greens. OK, sense you can't seem to get this, I will spell it out again for you, please pay attention.

Nader did not cost Gore the election, for several reasons. Let's get into them.

First and foremost, the Supreme Court selected Bush in a one of a kind court case that even they said shouldn't be used as precedent.

Second: When the vote counting in Florida was finally done, long after the Selection, it was found out that Gore actually won.

Third: Greg Palast, in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can But" describes in great detail how, early on in the recount process, he handed the entire VoteScam scandal to Gore and his handlers on a silver platter. Names, dates, numbers of voters disenfranchised, during the recounting process. Now think of this, with the election still contested here's Gore who is in pocession of evidence that if revealed would not only win Gore the election, but would banish Bush and his cronies to the political wilderness for at least a generation. What would you do with such information? Well, Gore sat on it, and thus lost the election.

Fourth: Both Greg Palast and Jim Hightower have written about how during the campaign, Gore cost himself a lot of votes. Specifically he cost himself nearly 200,000 registered Democratic votes and 400,000 self described liberal votes. Why? Because rather than listening to the will of the people(his job after all) he insteaded to side with his corporate sponsor, BP Amaco, over the issue of off-shore drilling in the Gulf waters off of Florida. Think about this now, Gore pissed off nearly 600,000 voters so much that not only did they fail to vote for Gore, but they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Gee, if Gore had compromised a bit, done his job, be the represenative for the collective will of his constituents, he would have won Florida by a huge margin, a swing of 1.2 million votes. Ooops, I guess that doing what's profitable for his corporate master is more important than we the people.

Fifth: Even Al From, former head of the DLC, states that Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Quite the contrary he states, if Nader hadn't been in the election, *more* votes would have been cast for Bush. Gee, looks like contrary to popular opinion, Nader actually was helping Gore. "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

But hey, keep on putting out that tired old mantra, that it's all the Greens fault, the leftists fault, the liberals and progressive's fault. And keep on watching as the Dems lose time and again. Face it, if you want people to vote for the Dems, you just can't beat them into line. You've got to give them a reason to vote for the Dems. FDR recognized this, and was voted into office four times. Why can't you and the Democratic leadership recognize this?

[LoZoccolo]

62. Everyone sees your argument is disingenuous.

The far left taking responsibility for it's victories and not it's catastrophes!

[MadHound]

66. Unless you've got some facts, stats, and source to back your ass up with

It would be you who is being disingenuous. I've given you some sources to back up my claims, you got anything other than hot air to back up yours?

[The Magistrate]

24. Put Bluntly, Sir, Greens Need To Show Solidarity With Others On The Left

In effectively opposing the worst elements of reaction in our polity. No one can cater to a niche market and a mass market at the same time successfully: national politics are a mass market, and the Greens a boutique niche only.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[MadHound]

26. We've done that for years and decades

Most of us have worked hard for the party for decades, and what has it gotten us? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. We've looked on in horror as the party has become ever more corporate driven, and moved ever rightwards. There comes a point where you can't give anymore, and it is high time that the Democratic party started showing solidarity with the Greens and other disenchanted leftists. This means addressing our issues and concerns. So far that isn't happening, which is why the Green party continues to exist. If the Democratic party would start feeding us some scraps, then you wouldn't have to worry about the Greens, they would all be voting Democratic.

[Ferret Annica]

52. You know what...

...We Greens don't have to do anything of the sort if we chose not to. Just as Demos feel they don't have to make t easy for our party's growth if they don't want to/

It would not be hard to say offer a two stage voting option where if a third party candidate did not meet the thrush hold of a set percentage of the plurality voter's second choice for an office would be defaulted to.

Democrats build and agree to road bocks in the system to preserve their monopoly on power. And this is obviously unhealthy to do.

You make people frightened to vote for us least a horror story of a Repug win. You make your platform and talking points move closer and closer to those of the Repugs until you all look like the republicrat/Democans party. It is often hard to make a choice without having to hold one's nose.

Stop whining, it's lame. You Democrats are greedy with the power like the Repugs. If we piss you off, too bad, you do that to us all the time and like the 1000 pound gorilla you are, you think this is normal, cool, and groovy.

[LoZoccolo]

54. "We Greens don't have to do anything of the sort if we chose not to."

Right, and neither do the Republicans. But then we don't have to keep ourselves from calling both groups a bunch of fuckups.

[Ferret Annica]

64. But you base criticism...

...of the Repugs on arrogance of power. A perspective we Green understand because both major parties have this affliction. Democrats were playing footsie with Puggies about a clearly illegal and immoral war coming to the table late with criticism about it so to us you look bad and deserve a share of the slamming over the conduct of these international war crimes.

Democratic criticism of the war is nowhere near strong enough because George McGovern's loss in 1972, and Jimmy Carter's Iran hostage crisis mis-management has made you all myopic and your testicles smaller.

And you base your criticism on the Greens based on your own arrogance of power that comes about by rigging the system to make it exceedingly hard to grow a third party because of the roadblocks in place to artificially preserve power and deny people hope of a real choice when voting.

I am voting Democrat this year because we are in a crisis modus with a dictator minded criminal in power who is blind to the gutting of the job base with over three million manufacturing jobs gone on his watch, a poaching of treasury monies to make his buddies on the private side rich and to remold the world in the NeoCon image, and because of the false flag operations he conducted in New York and Washington, D.C. killing our own people.

You all need to wake the hell up and see what your power addiction has done to your party as well as worry about the evil of the Repugs.

I used to be Democrat, and I have no problems with an uneasy alliance with you all to get a crime syndicate out of the White House. But you all need to wake up to your own problems as you know what? It is easy to take over power in Congress and retake the White House, but without deep and systemic reforms and re-invention of what you all stand for so you are more distinguishable from Republicans, it is hard to hang on to it.

I am proud to be a Green, and if you all were wiser to things, your party would either look more like mine, or you would belong to my party.

[BoneDaddy]

82. Thats right

Let's eat oursleves alive on the left, good for the repubs. I respect the Greens for doing whatever it is they want, this is still America. Pure and simple, the green party people are as pluralistic as the Dems. What is being done in MD is wrong and I am glad it is exposed, but it is not a reflection of the Green party overall, just as "bad" democrats are not about the whole.

If the Dems want support they better earn it. That means working with and sharing power with strong green candidates and their supporters.

The Democrats did not lose in 2000 due to Nader. They lost it due to the republicans stealing it.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Why would Nader get an autographed book from a lesser evil?

Evil is evil period. I don't know why he would go near such a thing?

[MadHound]

48. Sorry, but I didn't mention Nader, and I have no idea what you're talking

About. Perhaps you have me confused and wished to post to somebody else. If not, please explain you point a bit clearer to me please.

[Uncle Joe]

58. You remember, the lesser evil argument was used in 2000,

by Nader and the Greens. Remember Gore and Bush tweedle dee and tweedle dumb, there was really no difference between the two. Al Gore as the argument goes was the lesser evil. Now Ralph has stood in line to an get autographed version of Al Gore's book "An Inconvenient Truth". So if Al were evil or the equivalent, I am curious as to why Nader would do this?

I guess, I am trying to put up a warning light against people breaking away from a party because they are tired of supporting a "lesser evil", instead of changing it from within, thereby enabling a greater evil to power. Or in other words "lesser evil" may not be evil at all.

[MadHound]

63. I don't know why Nader stood in line for a Gore autograph

Maybe he has a deeply developed sense of irony, maybe likes Gore personally, maybe he collects autographs:shrug:

As far as the meme about Nader costing Gore the election in Florida, see my post #61 below. Nader didn't cost Gore a damn thing.

And frankly, many, many of us tried to do the whole "change the party from within" thing for decades now, and apparently it is ineffective. You don't keep doing the same thing when it doesn't work, so it's time to move onto another tactic, that simple.

[Zhade]

70. Indeed. People seem to forget GORE WON FLORIDA...

...and was prevented from taking office.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Actually, I never mentioned Florida

For example, I believe it was close in New Hampshire as well. I am speaking of the election in general, between the Nader faction, and the War Against Gore by the mass corporate media because he empowered us when he championed the internet, not to mention the judicial coup by the Supreme Court, the deck was stacked. Nader was just one of the cards, enabling Bush to power. I guess it all does boil down to whether you are for the people or the powerful.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Good call. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

13. Uh, the party is beholden to the people.

We have primaries, we have elections. Greens who don't like the direction of the Democratic Party just don't want to take responsibility for changing peoples' opinions enough so that those people vote in a direction they'd like. Whining and complaining and spending all of a half hour participating in democracy by casting a spoiler vote is all the dirty hippies can be counted on to do. If you took the time to be compelling, you might get somewhere. Hint #1: fucking people over by getting Republicans elected isn't compelling.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Dirty hippies" ? Is that you, Spiro Agnew?

[LoZoccolo]

21. I'm making a distinction between them and the clean ones.

As in, ones that get up and take responsibility for changing this country and the world.

[High Plains]

41. It was "Stalinists" a few posts upthread.

Sneering disdain and insults. That's all he's got.

[LoZoccolo]

50. No, it's an apt metaphor.

Stalin tried to convince German communists in the 1932 German election to stay loyal to the communist candidate rather than forming a coalition with supporters of Hindenburg against Hitler.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Steve Gilliard gets it.

Stalin suggested that to the German communists. The few survivors in Dachau in 1945 saw that wasn't the way to handle things.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-green-silliness.html

[EFerrari]

20. I have never been dirty.

:rofl:

[The Magistrate]

8. As Matters Stand Now, Sir

The Green Party is, viewed objectively, nothing more than the left auxiliary of the Republicans, working to increase Republican chances for victory at the polls, and assist their continued domination of the national government. This is uncomfortable for many adherents of the Greens to admit and accept, and in most cases far from their intent, but it is what that party does, and a fair summation of its effect on races in which its candidates participate. Further, the leadership and candidates of that party show no scruple over accepting funds from Republicans, and personnel they provide, that are given for the express purpose of using their party to damage Democratic Party prospects. The Republicans are quite aware who their friends are in this situation.

"Don't watch the mouth: watch the hands."

[meganmonkey]

33. That isn't a very democratic way of looking at it,

Sir.

It seems to me that in any country, there should most certainly be more than 2 options from which voters can choose.

It is not the fault of Green (or any other minor party/independent) voters that our electoral process functions as a 2-party system and effectively disenfranchises those who don't agree with the agenda of those two parties.

To blame this relatively small group of people for the grave ills in our electoral process is unfair.

The two parties themselves do whatever they can to perpetuate this system, through campaign/ballot rules, exclusive debates, etc. This is understandable because the system benefits those two parties and they wish to protect the status quo. However, if anyone is at fault it is those 2 parties themselves.

Those voters who do not align with the Dems or the Repubs do not owe those parties anything, and it is not only absurd, but completely undemocratic to expect people to vote for a party which does not, in their view, represent the US's best interests.

[DancingBear]

59. Well, stone the crows

Somebody gets it.

1) Rig the system so that it makes it impossible for third party candidates to get in (it took 67,000 signatures for a third party to get on the ballot in PA, yet only 2000 for a (D) or an (R)

2) Shut them out of debates

3) Stuff your gullet with corporate contributions, vote to destroy the Constitution, rubber stamp the Bush agenda, and when somebody (ANYBODY) has the nerve to get up and say that there should be a more honest way of electing officials that actually stand for something.... (drum roll)

Accuse them of wanting the other side to win!!!

Or (my personal fav) tell them that the just don't know "how to play the game."

Never understanding, of course, that perhaps they don't want to, at least in its present corrupt format.

Classic.

Just classic.

"Say, why do you keep hitting yourself on the head with that hammer?"

"Because it feels so good when I stop."

It is not the fault of a third party.

Never has been. Never will be.

Show me a real Democratic Party again and I'll move as many mountains as you ask for.

But please don't tell me Bob Casey and Harold Ford are the cover boys, and that just by playing along with the program all those sow ears will suddenly become silk purses.

Then I'll KNOW you're lying.

[The Magistrate]

72. What Do You Have Against Crows, Mr. Bear?

They are delightful creatures, and the sight of one in my path makes my day. They are making a recovery in my neighborhood, after an epidemic illness among them recently.

The "game" of politics is concerned necessarily with obtaining office, and with it the power to execute a program as government policy. People concerned with something else are not engaged in politics, whatever they may believe themselves to be engaged in. They may be engaged in striking moral postures, they may be engaged in expressing their difference from the herd in some field dear to them, but they are not engaged in the serious business of participating in the government of their country.

The actual policy of the Green party is a wrecker's policy: it conciously aims at damaging the Democratic Party, in the hope that, with Republicans in office and the Democratic Party in decline, people will be radicalized by hard times and turn to the Greens as their saviours. From certain angles that can be a respectable enough policy, but to pretend it is anything else than a wrecker's policy cannot command respect. In the present conditions, and those likely to obtain in the near future, it is a policy that cannot result in anything but the continued dominance of the national government by the worst elements of reaction in our polity, grouped under the standard of the Republican Party.

[DancingBear]

79. A quaint notion, but absurd on its face

And rather patronizing, don't you think?

The "game" of politics is concerned necessarily with obtaining office, and with it the power to execute a program as government policy. People concerned with something else are not engaged in politics, whatever they may believe themselves to be engaged in. They may be engaged in striking moral postures, they may be engaged in expressing their difference from the herd in some field dear to them, but they are not engaged in the serious business of participating in the government of their country.

What a laughable notion, yet perfectly "understandable" if one buys a ticket to a play that always ends the same. Honestly, now, how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that folks like Joe Biden and Ben Nelson hold some kind of moral high ground over third party candidates predicated on some absurd notion that they, and not anyone else, are "serious?" Surely you can do better than that. This "game" that you speak of is rigged, and we all know it. The idea of BOTH parties is to marginalize third party candidates and make it impossible to them to be viewed by the voting public as serious candidates - no money, no air time, no debates = not serious. Nice little Catch-22, ain't it? The mother of all self-fulfilling prophecies.

The actual policy of the Green party is a wrecker's policy: it consciously aims at damaging the Democratic Party, in the hope that, with Republicans in office and the Democratic Party in decline, people will be radicalized by hard times and turn to the Greens as their saviours. From certain angles that can be a respectable enough policy, but to pretend it is anything else than a wrecker's policy cannot command respect.

Now THERE is a comment that cannot command respect. Does this wrecking ball metaphor apply to all third party candidates, or is this just directed at the Green Party folks. I am assuming, of course, that you have talked with Green Party candidates at great length, and only after this exhaustive research have you come to the conclusion that the whole thing is nothing but a clever ruse to drive the country down the primrose path of (choose one) socialism, communism, Marxism, vegetarianism? So many -isms, so little time.

I am quite relieved to learn their true ulterior motives - now I can spend my time marveling at the tower of strength that is Harry Reid, confident in the fact that the pesky interlopers have been put in their place and we can get on with the "serious" business of selling the country to the highest bidder. I wonder what the new Dem lobbying project will be called, now that "K Street" is kind of tarnished? I'm sure they'll think of something, and when they do I'm sure all the good true-believers will suck it up and rationalize it away. For the good of "the game", you know.

A savior with white hair - who'd a thunk it.

Now where's my checkbook...

P.S. I find it amazing that someone like myself (who has NEVER voted third party in his voting lifetime) is forced to explain, on a supposedly progressive political board, the rights of a political party to try and offer a viable third option to those who find the current Democratic Party (and the torture gang of 46) light years away from anything FDR imagined.

Perhaps if said party acted on its ideals the third party option would go away, but that would take all the fun out of bashing, and then what would happen to all the plum lobbying gigs, and those nifty beltway parties???

[The Magistrate]

87. 'Moral High Ground', Sir?

Where on earth do you find reference in my comments to that debator's equivalent of "here be dragons" on a medieval map? Seriousness and morality are very seperate concepts: serious people are seldom particularly moral, and moral people are almost never serious.

Third parties in our system generally aim at one of two things, either to supplant an existing party or to be incorporated into an existing party, as near the top of it as can be contrived. Where a third party has more or less calved off an existing party, like the old Progressives or the modern Greens, the second option is pretty well ruled out.

But your comments, Mr. Bear, rather miss the point of the present circumstance. While my description of the intent behind the Green Party is accurate, the fact is that it has no chance of achieving the whole of that goal. It has some chance of weakening the Democratic Party, but none at all of supplanting it. Should the Democratic Party go the way of the Whigs, it will not be the activists of the Green party who replace it, nor will they even be an appreciable factor in whatever does rise upon its ruins. They represent and reflect a strain and style of politics that has been roundly rejected by the people of the country for many decades, and that rejection will continue untroubled by the fate of the Democratic Party. If any great number of people could be moved to vote for the positions they espouse, professional politicians would be trumpting them as campaign planks, and those who espouse them would be movers and shakers at the center of the political process, rather than protesting splinterists on its fringes.

[The Magistrate]

68. It Is Certainly, Ms. Megan, A Democratic Way To Look At It

It is not a splinterist's or a utopian's way to look at it, but it is certainly a Democrat's way to look at it.

Your basic line here has long since crossed over into "if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon" territory. What it might be nice if the electoral system and process in this country were has no bearing whatever on what it actually is, and guiding how one deals with what actually is by the lights of what one wishes things were is a course that invariably, in whatever field it is followed, brings failure, often of disasterous character. In the conditions that actually obtain today in our country's elections, the Green party is exactly what it is stated to be above: the left auxilliary of the Republican Party, operating to increase the prospects for success of Republican candidates in sizeable races where it operates. Since most persons who identify with the Green party fancy themselves pure and committed leftists, this is an uncomfortable truth for them to face, but that discomfort does not concern me, nor should it concern any person attempting a clear-eyed analysis of the political situation of this country, and the left as a political force in it, today. The fact is that left votes cast for a Green candidate benefit only the Republican candidate in the race, by the only standard that matters, namely, which of the contenders will be sworn into office in the Capitol. To rest easy with this fact, one must either have no concern for the consequences of one's actions, or be easy with the idea that Republicans and Democrats are interchangeable, and that there is no reason to prefer the former to the latter, from the point of view of the well-being of the country and its people. The Republicans are certainly clear-eyed in their analysis of the situation, as their support of the Green party, and Green party candidates, with money and personnel, abundantly demonstrate.

[meganmonkey]

73. I'm sure you know the difference between

Democratic and democratic.

I was referring in my post, of course, not to the party, but to the political system in general.

You successfully avoided addressing my point completely. Congratulations.

[The Magistrate]

78. You Have No Grounds For Complaint, Ma'am, On That Score

You have made no attempt at all to address the criticism you set yourself up as rebutter of, namely that, as a matter of practical fact, the Green party serves as the left auxiliary of the Republicans, and bends its efforts to materially assist Republican prospects at the polls. That is indeed what it does under our electoral system, and the pious wish there was a dfferent electoral system does not address at all what actually occurs in present and readily foreseeable conditions. Abstractions and hypotheses hold no charm for me, Ma'am, and do not engage my interest for an instant: what actually is is what engages me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Sir, I know many Greens personally, and

not one of them is rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of a Republican win. That is an unfair characterization of a group of people who are deeply disturbed at the direction that this country has taken, who are urging action on issues that the two mainstream parties have forgotten in their respective drives to put out the best and fluffiest PR, and who tend to walk their talk, especially when it comes to environmental issues.

May I remind you that most Greens worked for Kerry in 2004? And a fine way he repaid them, too, by conceding before all the votes were counted! The Greens I know, most of whom are, as Mad Hound said, disillusioned Democrats, are now doubly disillusioned.

I will admit that the Greens may not vet their candidates too carefully, allowing Republican moles to slip in, but casting all Greens as cynical Republican spoilers is simply slanderous (or libelous, since this is a written exchange.)

I will be voting Democratic this November despite the fact that the Greens are closer to my personal politics, and despite the fact that the Senate candidate has a set of positions that just scream "DLC!" Still, it disturbs me that so many Establishment-type Democrats are so jaded about the political process that they are thinking in terms of team colors rather than principles and allowing egregious enablers of the Bush regime to stay in the party and receive party financial support.

I wish the Greens well in their drive to work their way up the government ladder by winning local offices. That's what the serious ones, as opposed to the grandstanders, are doing.

I hope only that the establishment Democrats can grow up a bit, stop whining about Nader, who would have been irrelevant without the Republican chicanery in Florida, and start realizing that unless they get their act together and do something substantive with their anticipated control of the House and/or Senate, they will fade into irrelevance as even more voters drop out of the political process entirely.

[The Magistrate]

86. We Would Seem, Ma'am, To Be In Substantial Agreement

It is frequently the case that a particular Democratic candidate is far from my own first choice for the office. But it remains the case the people and the country are better off when Democrats hold majorities, and the Executive, than they are when Republicans do. In circumstances where it is not possible for my first choice to obtain power, it remains still necessary to prevent my last choice from obtaining power, or to evict it from power, and in no instance today is a Democrat running for office not better than his or her Republican opponent by at least some margin.

It is certainly my view that the great bulk of those who evince some attachment to the Green party are sincere and well-meaning. My comments are mostly addressed to the actual effects of that body's efforts, which are, as is often the case in human affairs, quite divorced from and opposite to the intentions of those who make them. But there is certainly a hard core within the leadership of that body, and some among its ranks, who are quite explicit about the wrecker's policy, and intend precisely the result they have on some occassions achieved, namely, the victory of a Repuiblican, as a means of weakening the Democratic Party, in hopes of ultimately supplanting it. It is a very old strategem of left idealists, and the fact that it has generally brought about destruction of left power when actually attempted does not seem to dissuade new coherts from succumbing to its charms.

"Politics is not the art of the possible: it consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[meganmonkey]

84. I addressed that criticism precisely

You are putting the weight of responsibility of the vast contraditions of our electoral system on the newest, smallest, and least powerful groups involved, rather than those who have perpetuated these non-democratic injustices on Americans for decades.

"Practical fact" is that the system, as it is, doesn't work as a democracy and these smaller parties are not responsible for that problem. They are the symptoms of the problem. Blaming them is like blaming your neighbor for passing along a deadly virus rather than the person who poisoned the water supply, sir.

edit for spelling

[The Magistrate]

85. You Did Not, Ma'am, Address The Point

And still have not. The point is that in the conditions presently obtaining in our political process, the Green party functions as the left auxiliary of the Republican party. This is something the Republicans, at least, recognize clearly, as evidenced by their providing it monies and personnel. They understand that no Green has a hope in Hell of winning a major race, but might manage to subtract some votes from a Democratic candidate, and so assist in a Republican victory. It is a shame the Democrats do not have sufficient funds to play similar games with bodies like the Libertarians or the Constitution party: they could be quite useful, in the Western states particularly.

The only thing those plumping for the Green party are being asked to shoulder responsibility for is the consequences of their actions in the present circumstances.

[meganmonkey]

90. Okay, I will try one more time

You say: "the Green party functions as the left auxiliary of the Republican party" and that the Green Party "might manage to subtract some votes from a Democratic candidate, and so assist in a Republican victory".

This seems to be the crux of your argument. I will address the second statement first.

There seems to be this alternate universe where people who are not Democrats would vote for Democrats if there were no other options.

This assumption is both erroneous and dangerous if your goal is to help Democrats win. You know what they say about assuming...

Can you show me some real evidence that indicates that the people who vote for Greens would vote for a Democrat if there were no other options? It makes no sense, and this perspective exists only in the mind of some Democratic activists. It does not exist in the real world.

The Democrats have a platform and a voting record that is significantly different from the platform of the Green Party. It could be argued that it is 'closer' to the Green's platform than the Republican platform, but they are certainly not the same. From the perspective of Greens or most other minor party supporters, the Dems and Repubs have 'closer' platforms. That mentality isn't going to change.

You talk about shouldering responsibility. The Democrats would be much better off taking responsibility for their own losses rather than blaming this tiny group of people who have nothing to do with the Democratic party. This is classic scapegoating, and scapegoating does not solve problems. Fortunately, outside of DU, I seldom see Democrats blaming the Greens for their failures. In fact, outside of DU, most Democrats I know think it is absurd to blame the Greens - they know that Gore got the most votes in Florida in 2000 regardless of Nader, and they know that it is likely that the votes aren't counted accurately in many places. They also know that the Dem party isn't presenting its message well in the media - that may be as much or more the media's fault as it is the Dems', but either way the results are the same. The national party darn well better address these issues if it is ever going to win.

Which brings us back around to the first statement of yours that I quoted above. I did address this point in my previous posts, and I will do so again. There is a bizarre irony in the way you hold the Greens responsible for effects of the malfunctioning system that both Dems and Repubs have enabled. Both of the major parties have tried to take advantage of the so-called 'spoiler effect' that these smaller parties can potentially have. As I said before, this isn't the case with the Greens as much as some Dems like to assume, but even if it were, it isn't as though Dems haven't used this concept to their own benefit too (in fact, in your post you even advocate that the Dems, if they could afford it, should do so).
If the Dems want to minimize the 'spoiler effect', then why aren't they even talking about reforming the electoral system, supporting IRV, or exploring other alternatives or coalitions with other groups? That's what happens in almost every other democracy in the world. Protecting the status quo benefits the Dems, and the Repubs, but it does NOT benefit the people as a whole.

So what advantage is there in putting the responsibility on one of the smallest and least powerful groups in politics, sir? They obviously aren't going to go away, and they obviously have no power to amend the system.

That's the bottom line, that is the practical reality. You can't make them go away. You can't make them fix it (they couldn't even if they tried). So move on and seek real solutions, or keep losing.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

91. What You Are Trying To Do, Ma'am, Is Evade The Point, Not Address It

We do not in this country have a multi-party Parliamentary system, on European lines, in which governing coalitions are assembled after the election, and in which the representation of smaller blocs can be secured in the process of assembling a government around a larger bloc that secures no more than a plurality. We have a system in which one of two blocs necessarily will secure a majority in the Legislature, and sole possession of the Executive, as a result of the election. Each of these blocs is, of course, a sort of coallition, but its coallition must be assembled prior to the election. That must be contested as a unified bloc. Loosely speaking, one of these blocs, the Democratic Party, represents the leftward portions of the political spectrum, and one, the Republicans, represents the right. A left faction that does not align with the Democratic Party will not gain any representation in government, and may well, by essentially absenting itself from the field, cause the failure of the entire leftward portion of our polity to secure any power in the national government. Whether either of us likes this system, or approves of it, is quite beside the point that it exists, is firmly in place, and is not going away any time soon. The choice is between acting in accordance with what actually exists, in the attempt to secure the best outcome possible from it, or acting in accordance with wishful thinking, ignoring or denying what the actual state of affairs is, and disregarding the consequences of doing so.

The question is not whether anything is "owed" or "owned", but whether not joining with the larger left of center bloc is or is not a sensible course of action in present circumstances for persons who view themselves as well to the left of that bloc's internal center. My view is that it is not a sensible line for persons in that position to refrain from joining with the left of center bloc, because doing so can only be of practical, immediate benefit to the right of center bloc, by subtracting from the effective strength over-all of the left of center bloc. You may be correct that a "mentality" which does not recognize this will not in many instances suffer itself to change, but it is also true that persons in the grip of it cannot be viewed as serious, and are not seriously interested in advancing left and progressive positions as items of national policy, nor seriously interested in effectively opposing the hold of the most reactionary elements of the right on our national government. That conclusion, uncomfortable as it may be to the self-image and sense of self-worth of those to whom it applies, is however amply warranted by the results of the line they have chosen to press.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[beyurslf]

19. "Why not let the R win and someone can beat him in 2012?"

Yeah that worked real well with W. And what about the dozens of judges he gets to confirm in the meantime.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Who cares about wholly owned subsidiaries of the GOP?

[LoZoccolo]

30. This is a good find and I recommended it.

:thumbsup:

I think it's telling that the sort of tactics being used by this verifiable covert Green spammer are the same as some people who remain.

[LoZoccolo]

31. And bookmarked it too! n/t

[HardRocker05]

49. like the dems - do nothing until bushco destroys america, then people will

finally vote for democrats! yeah, that sounds like a plan. and does anybody seriously believe that this crop of dems has anything near what it is going to tak to turn this country around when they do get in power?

[LiviaOlivia]

57. More Green silliness

Also read Steve Gilliard's piece.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-green-silliness.html

[calico1]

65. I honestly think that some Greens enjoy

being the perpetual underdog all the time. Always fighting the cause but never in a position to really do anything. So I guess it makes sense that they would want to help Republicans stay in power.

[DireStrike]

67. The green threat is only to be expected

Considering the rightward drift of the Dem party in general, what are leftists to do? There is no indication that Dems, if elected, would try to bring the party back where it belongs.

The leanings of the parties in the system are perhaps more important in the long run than a handful of elections. I would say that the current climate is the absolute worst-case scenario for the Greens, because keeping Repugs in power could cause tremendous damage that would take decades to fix. In the long view though it's still a close call... depending on just how batshit crazy the R's are willing to be.

[LoZoccolo]

74. "what are leftists to do?"

Shouldn't be hard to figure that out, and it does not involve voting for anyone but the Democrats.

Think. Hard if you have to.

I'll give you a hint: it starts with taking responsibility.

[insane_cratic_gal]

71. What's the fear over the 3 party system?

I'll be honest if I feel a Green is better Candidate then a dem, I'll vote for them. I'm a democrat, I've never voted anything but democrat, yet I feel these I am not married to the party, I'm married to the who ever is going to clean up this mess.

You have to admit with DLC candidates in office, say if it's a choice between Lieberman like candidate or a Landrieu Candidate, and the green is offering everything the dem is and is focused on the environment. He or she is gonna get my vote. I'm sure if that makes me a traitor or someone who is concerned with what a Candidate has to offer.

I also feel some dems have lost their way, become career politicians and neglected the people who voted for them, Until democrats can divorce their Corporate shackles, I'm going to pick the candidate that is the least corrupted.

Maybe that makes me an asshole, but they don't listen to anything else but votes. They have been better behaved since Lieberman got bitched slapped haven't they? Lamont may not beat him but it sure shock the dinos up.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[insane_cratic_gal]

77. Umm did you reply

to the wrong person?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Gabi Hayes]

83. dunno what you posted, but it certainly seems that constantly voting

for the lesser of two evils has finally gotten us the greatest of ALL evils, yes?

now, where's my sturdy spacecraft?

[bread_and_roses]

88. It's the PARTY'S JOB to get enough votes to win. Period

If the Dems can't win because the Greens draw off votes, it is purely and simply the Dems responsibility for not either getting out enough of their own supporters or not offering something to make more Gs vote D.

[LoZoccolo]

89. Or taking the Greens to task for drowning and killing people.

Bringing shame on people is part of what holds civilization together.