Why Do Greens Mostly Attack Democrats?

[QC]

That's an honest question, not flame bait, and it's inspired by a guest editorial in my local newspaper yesterday, written by someone from the local Green party. (The editorial isn't online, unfortunately.)

The title reads, "Democrats aren't the way forward" and the article--an entire half-page--makes no direct criticisms of Republicans but blames Democrats for pretty much every disaster in history except for dinosaur extinction and the Black Death. It even blames us for some things the Republicans actually did: "The removal of Democratically elected governments in Chile, Guatemala, and Iran occurred under Democratic administrations." (For the history challenged, those events happened, respectively, under the administrations of Nixon, Eisenhower, and again, Eisenhower, neither of whom were Democrats, at least the last time I checked.)

There are many other, um, interesting pieces of information in this article, which even digs up numbers from the 1996 presidential election to argue that Americans have no use for Democrats (since Clinton won with a plurality).

It even repeats the familiar slander that "there's no genuine difference between the Democrats and Republicans." (As though Al Gore wanted to invade Iraq so bad he couldn't stand it and then load up the federal courts with fascists.)

I understand that politics is a rough game, and I have no problem with people getting nasty, as I've been known to do more than a few times, but frankly this approach strikes me as harmful to the very causes that the Greens claim to advocate. One can certainly make an intelligent argument that there's not enough difference between the parties and that Democrats are too corporate, but attacking Democrats while letting Republicans off scott free only strengthens the Republicans while doing little or nothing for the Greens and their favored causes.

I can well understand why our staunchly Republican newspaper would want to publish this piece, but I can't begin to see what the local Greens, who number not over 30 or 40, hope to gain with this approach.

Can anyone explain the strategy here, or am I correct in thinking that these people are nothing more than what Lenin described as "useful idiots"?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Turf aggression

Some of them want the Green Party to be "The" left-wing party so badly, that they believe they have to destroy the Democratic Party. The Republicans aren't their competitors -- it's the Democrats.

Most of this takes place entirely in their heads, but it makes for exciting news.

Other Greens, of course, are more coalition-minded, and want to extend there political power into issues that would cripple the Democrats, giving widespread political power to the left in any form. There's really no monoliths in American politics. But given the choice between covering coalition-builders or destroyers, who do you think will get the lens time?

--p!

[madfloridian]

2. They could have their own party without hurting the Democrats.

That would be the best way.

[EFerrari]

3. There are whackamoles in every party. I'm no one's useful

idiot and most of my Green friends make local political actions, not the Democratic Party, the center of their universe. lol

[mrcheerful]

4. Because Greens hope to get democratic voters away from the democratic

party. They usually do well with mod democratic supporters and some of those tired of both parties, but unlike the repuke base, they hope they can bleed off more of those that think the corruption is bi partisan. The repukes play them very well, the Greens are like unpaid swift boaters. I've yet to understand how people think that just because every now and then a Democratic person gets caught it compares to the vast history of repuke corruption. Maybe its the repuke lie machine thats been spreading lies and slander since FDR was first elected, but its working. More and more people out there think the democrats are just as corrupt as the repukes. Now that the DLC has gotten a foot hold inside the democratic party the democrats are seen as more like the repukes, you can blame Liberman type DLC's for that. Hopefully I made sense as it is 3:17 am and my brain stops working after 12 am.

[QC]

6. "unpaid swift boaters"

That's a good one!

I often wonder if it has something to do with disillusionment. You know, like the people who grow up in whatever religion and then rebel extravagantly when they figure out that not everyone in it adheres 100% to all its ideals.

[DaveJ]

5. Maybe it's that they think Democrats will listen?? n/t

[Marr]

7. Why does the DLC mostly attack Dems?

Because they want to drag the party to the right. Greens attack Dems because they want to drag the party to the left. You may determine for yourself which is the more noble intention.

[QC]

8. Good question, but irrelevant. n/t

[Marr]

9. No, it's not.

I edited my post a bit for clarity.

[QC]

10. OK, I see your point after the edit.

I'm not so sure they are trying to drag Democrats anywhere, though.

Given how this particular writer was babbling on and on about "viable third parties" without ever addressing the issue of winner-take-all elections, I think he's suffering from some delusion that the Greens can actually get a majority of votes somewhere.

[EFerrari]

11. Gavin Newsom only won by a hair here in San Francisco..

And they found a coupla ballot boxes floating in the bay. lol

[omega minimo]

17. But it's very GOOD hair

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

21. It is! I've met that hair. It's good in person, too.

:)

[radio4progressives]

18. that's right he did, and there was a evidence of shannigans, lost ballots

who knows what the real results were, i happen to think it was Gonzalez's election - but the big guns and all their operatives came to town to make sure no Green Party was going to take the Mayoral office.

[EFerrari]

22. They sent in the Clenis! n/t

[radio4progressives]

24. and gore too and jesse jackson and good gaawwd, Matt 's progressive creds

was just too threatening.. a genuine progressive representing a very progressive city.. can't have none of that now, can we? it might make the dems (read DiFi) look like the right wingers some of them are.

jeeze.

[QC]

20. The Florida Panhandle is not San Francisco.

Sometimes, in my darker moments, I think this place makes Utah look like Berkeley.

But let's say that the Greens manage to take the SF mayoralty. What implications does that have for the rest of the country?

[EFerrari]

23. I have no idea. Far as I can tell, the Republicans will

always try to exploit the factionalism on the left.

Speaking of Florida, though, did you see Dr. Phool is going to run in the primary against Nelson?

[QC]

25. Yes, I plan to vote for him. n/t

[radio4progressives]

26. well, everybody likes to beat up on San Francisco for being "too liberal"

that is what San Francisco is, and gosh has been for decades. now what implications has that had on the rest of the country?

and by the way, Matt Gonzalez, a Green, was ELECTED as president for the City Supes before he ran for the Mayoral position, which is an election held by the entire board of supes.

So Matt Gonzalez served as a City Supervisor and was very very popular by the S.F. ciitzens. (still is popular)

Additionally, there are other Green Supes holding office. I forget how many right now. (I don't live in the city)

Turns out that Gavin is a lot more progressive than DiFi was counting on.

I mean, who among us progressivs would have ever dreamed that Gavin would have granted marriage licenses to Gay and Lesbian couples who wanted to marry! That was a big surprise. DiFi nearly lost her lunch on that one.

Came trottin to town, holding full court press admonishing Gavin for jumping the gun, doing something the "country wasn't ready for".

sheesh!

[QC]

34. San Francisco is my favorite city,

and I would live there if I weren't too poor to afford it, so I hope you're not trying to paint me as one of those Limbots who consider SF too liberal to be "real America."

My point was simply that it is much more progressive than anywhere else in the country, which makes it hard to draw parallels between San Francisco and anywhere else.

[radio4progressives]

27. self delete duplicate

[radio4progressives]

28. self delete triplicate

[radio4progressives]

29. self delete another duplicate

[radio4progressives]

30. self delete yet another duplicate - computer had a stroke apparently <g>

[EFerrari]

31. Gavin surprised everyone and in the best possible way.

He has the support of a lot of people who worked very hard against him during the election. That he pissed of the war profiteer is indeed icing. :)

[radio4progressives]

32. he was surprising in many ways for a rich white guy

:hi:

[EFerrari]

64. Words outta my mouth

:rofl:

[Marr]

15. Yeah, I suppose some do.

I don't know how mainstream they are among Greens, though.

Honestly, most of the talk I've heard from Green leaders has been expressing a desire to organize a more liberal constituency for the Democratic Party to court. Something like the organized religious right. They've become a voting block that cannot be ignored by Republicans. Obviously, people who reach that point are feeling pretty frustrated with their former party, and feel that they're being unjustly ignored.

[zonmoy]

74. I think the ultimate goal of the dlc is to make the democrats

into a clone of the republicans. if the democrats don't destroy and expunge the dlc they shouldn't blame anybody but themselves for the consequences of people going to other parties.

[AtomicKitten]

79. there is a difference.

DLC ARE Democrats.
Greens are not.

On edit: Regarding the OP, madfloridian posted some comprehensive information about the Green Party
here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x332019

Definitely worth a read.

[JHB]

12. Republicans will never disappoint them

While I would agree some are "useful idiots", I think it mostly stems from the fact that the Republicans will never frustrate or disappoint them because they have no expectations of anything better from the Republicans. Meanwhile Democrats "betray" them again and again.

Thus, more anger at those who (as they see it) turn their heads than at those who are blind outright.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Because we know Republicans are evil.

Most people don't realize why the Democrats suck so bad. It's because of the faction that controls it.

[KT2000]

14. good question

I can see where they may think that with the Democratic party is out of the way - all would be theirs.
The left attacks itself from all quarters though because there is a presumption of free discussion and competition for the "message."

The alternative is demonstrated in the right wing where all thought is discouraged and mindless following is all that is allowed. Democrats will never go for that.

[omega minimo]

16. Maybe it's Repug bullshit painted green

[Imagevision]

19. Probably the Dems are coming across as too damn weak...!

[radio4progressives]

33. Bingo!

:toast:

[mrcheerful]

35. How come do you think that?

Its not a matter of dems being weak or strong, its a matter of being honest compared to spinning lies. Every time a dem comes out the repukes say he is wrong or they do a swift boat number on them. If they reply to the attack, they take the eye off the ball and are said to ignore the real issues. If they ignore the attack, then they are weak and are guilty of whatever repuke lie. Its a lose lose situation. We seen this played out over and over during the last 40 years. When dems do win is when they are like Clinton, very charismatic and his charisma over came the attacks. Problem is theres not that many Clinton types out there, most that run are just wishy washy, look at shrub and the last 2 dems that ran against him. None of them had Clinton's charisma so the tactics like the swift boat lier's were able to make attacks and we got stuck with no win. When we run elections as a beauty pageant, BS will win over honesty and truthful every time. Lets face facts, before he opens his mouth shrub is not as homely as Kerry or Gore. Thats what got shrub elected, well with some help it appears from bro Jeb and Diebold.

[DanCa]

36. I don't know why we need two partys on the left to begin with.

I mean can't we just sweep out the bad politicians (Dinos, Dlc Whatever you call 'em) and unite as a whole for once? I don't like the division games being played on us. I dont' like it when the right plays 'em and I detest it when the left tries to do divide it own numbers. We should be better and smarter than that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Are you sure the guy who wrote it is a Green?

I don't doubt that Greens criticize Democrats, but the examples you cited sound way off. Greens are a bit more logical than that.

[mmonk]

38. Because the dems are the only political power

that can slow the repub train down and they are not doing much.

[desi]

39. Because they want to "shame" us

..into "submission" by labeling us as weak, spineless, "dino's," dlc'ers etc, etc, etc.?? :shrug: Quite frankly it gets tiring/boring and it might even be counter productive in that in some cases it (the namecalling) may actually alienate "centrists."

[NeoGreen]

40. Because at least Democrats will engage Greens in a meaningful debate…

Greens might as well punch a brick wall as try and have a meaningful discussion with Repukes:

“because the Bible say so…” is no basis for rational thought or discussion.


(edited for spelling)

[rman]

41. Do you keep track of Greens attacks on the RW?

I'm not so sure Greens do "mostly" attack Democrats.

[JNelson6563]

42. It is an age old tactic. Let's look at religion for instance

The first thing any new religion does is to point out all that is wrong with the "old" religion so as to justify their existence. Well, there is no difference here. The Greens must demonize the Dems so that they might be able to steal away members. Not likely to recruit many R's so, Dems it is! Dems Suck! Join us! Catholicism sucks! Join us Protestants! Mainstream religion sucks! Join {insert name of new sect here}!!

Some things never change my friend.

Julie

[bahrbearian]

43. The question should be why does the DLC push the Dems to the

Right. I have no problem with President Gore.

[Armstead]

44. I'm not a Green -- But the real problem as lack of Democratic opposition

Greens and otehr progressives also criticize Republicans and the corporate CONservatives.

But the GOP and conservatives are not the real problem today. They're just doing their job, and filling the role of the nright-wing in the political spectrum.

The real problem is the lack of opposition to their policies and agenda within the partisan political system. The only reason the CONservatives have been able to amass so much power and get away with so much is because they do not even have the token opposition of Democrats on the core issues of wealth and power.....Centrist Democrats skate on the surface, and choose "micro-issues" instead of core issues to pretend to be an opposition.

At the same toime the Democratic Establishment is so afraid of being seen as "left wing" that they have left a huge void in the political spectrum. Today we have extreme right and center right as the only choices given to people within the mainstream political system.

If the Democrats were a real clearly liberal and progressive populist party, that would take a lot of wind out of then sails of the Greens, and would generate a lot more enthusiasm and support from otehr liberals and progressives.

[NNN0LHI]

45. Probably just a coincidence n/t

[rucky]

46. All you HEAR are the attacks on the Democrats.

That's not all they DO.

[EFerrari]

60. That's right. When we marched in the 2001 counter inaugural

(I was a 1 week old Green) we marched with the Dems and with all kinds of people. It didn't matter. We were all there for the same reason.

That assembly alone was a health hazard for Ken Mehlman.

:rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Because they're not trying to sway unswayable Repug voters.

Unlike the Dems who constantly pursue the mythical "middle" (aka Repubs) by moving right, the Greens go after the progressives in the Democratic Party.

Also, their reference to "no difference" is all too true. We have, in reality, one national party with two wings both in thrall to the same masters.

While it's all very well to blame the Republican administrations for the CIA depradations in Guatamala, Iran, and Chile, it is well to remember that in each instance there were Democratic controlled congresses who acquiesced to them.

BTW I've been a registered Democrat since 1965.

[jonnyblitz]

48. because DEMS are the party that betrayed them when they

moved to the right. The Green Party platform SHOULD be the DEM party platform. nt

[Occulus]

49. I'm fairly certain at this point that

the entire green party (sic) has been infiltrated by Republicans. It's the only logical explanation I have- and the only reason I need to dismiss them entirely.

While they have some good views, they're damaging this country just as much as the "real" Republicans. And, for the record, I very firmly believe that if Nader hadn't run, Bush wouldn't be in office today.

And that's a fact, Jack. :)

[sandnsea]

50. They keep thinking Dems are Greens

And they aren't. They're Greens for a reason, if they could just figure it out. It's because they're to the left of Dems, doh. I wish to the core of my being that they would just advocate their own positions so that the population at large would see they have more choices.

[TahitiNut]

51. Well, at least they're aiming their political guns to the right!

That's more than I can say for the DLCers and Quisling Dems. :shrug:

If people who claim to be 'left' get so close to the enemies of labor, human rights, and civil liberties that they're in the line of fire, that's too fucking bad. When they're both too close and begin aiming their political guns toward the left, I say "fuck 'em!" Just what's the difference? When they're occupying ideological turf close to the fascists and fire their guns to the left they can damned well stop their whining.

Has anyone EVER noticed the fascists attempting to marginalize THEIR "extremists"??? When I see EVERY 'gun' on the right aimed at the left, it's not rocket science to know where they stand.

[LWolf]

52. Not being a Green Party member, I can only surmise

from the outside:

They expect rw bullshit from republicans. There is no ambiguity there.

Then there are the democrats. Perhaps some greens expected to find common cause with the "opposition" party; perhaps they expected the democratic party to be more progressive than it is. Perhaps they resent giving their votes to some democrats at election time, only to see too many progressive issues left behind in the party rush to the center. I know a bunch of greens that campaigned for democrats in '04, and were really pissed with the results at the '04 convention. Perhaps there is a sense of betrayal from the supposedly "liberal" party that they don't feel from the openly rw party.

Perhaps, too, there is a reservoir of anger toward dems that use the green party as scapegoats for their losses instead of looking inward at their own shortcomings to see why they lose some votes to 3rd parties.

Those who see little difference between the parties are looking at the corporate influence, and the protection of the elite power structure. If the democratic party wants to provide contrast, they might put more progressive and/or populist candidates forward. Does the democratic party really care what the greens think of them?

Just my ponderings; have you asked any Green Party members outside of DU? I don't know how many greens will actually step forward to honestly discuss an honest question in DU's strictly partisan setting. :shrug:

[deutsey]

53. The Greens want to position themselves as a third party alternative

When I hear Greens say "there's no difference" between the Dems and GOP, I always interpret it as the Dems are beholden to the same corporate interests as the GOP; therefore, they don't represent the interests of average working people.

The Greens, whether you love them or hate them, are sincerely trying to build a distinct party from the grassroots on up (their number key value is "grassroots democracy"). I have doubts as to whether such a party can work in America, but I like that they're at least trying.

In my humble opinion, the Democratic establishement should stop being so frightened of grassroots movements (i.e., anti-war and, back in the late '50s/early '60s, civil rights) and try cultivating them instead. I was part of the Dean campaign (the grassroots activism is what attracted me most) and, from my POV, the establishment Dems were very uneasy about the nature of grassroots activism the campaign tried to ignite. They really love that we'll drop a check to them or come down to the office and stuff envelopes and show up at the polls, but they don't seem to be that open to empowering us to take part in transforming politics as usual in America.

[paulk]

54. a local Green party activist told me, back in 2003

that she hoped Bush would win in '04 because then things would get so bad that people would turn to the Green Party, and that this was justification for attacking Kerry. I don't know if her attitude was held by the party or just herself - I do know that after the 2000 election the only people sticking with the Greens were their more fringe elements. And that attitude is pretty much on the fringe.

One reason that I've heard repeatedly, both in the real world and online, is the idea that attacking the Democrats, and voting against them, will somehow drive them to the left. I think, myself, that this is misguided, and shows a real naivete about politics and politicians. Why would a politician move in your direction if you don't vote for him/her and/or hurt his/her chances by campaigning against him/her? That politician would be much more likely to look for votes somewhere else.

It would seem to me that this strategy would actually push the party to the right.

[EFerrari]

56. As a matter of fact, the last time I looked

which might have been in October, the Greens were getting more new registrations than anyone else in CA. But I couldn't tell you how that stat was arrived at - whether it is was straight numbers or what. And, I don't keep track of that kind of thing so I'd have to see what the numbers are some months later.

The Greens have a list of values posted to their web sites. None of them includes gratuitous attacks on Democrats. I suspect that most of the animosity between these two parties is like the fights you pick with your favorite sib because you think they should somehow "know" better. As opposed to the fights we both pick with the Thuggery.

But, at bottom, political parties are about power and in this country, about wealth. So, I'm not too surprised at what people are willing to do to get either.

My experience with the L.A. Greens is really different. They're always promoting actions for social justice no matter where those actions originate. Maybe that's why that particular group has been so successful.

[paulk]

58. I think the Green Party in CA, especially in SF

is still getting people to join - reasonable people, not fringe types - because they are a viable party there,
with a real chance to win some elections. Like SF mayor, for instance.

I know seven people from my circle of friends who voted Green in 2000 - only one voted that way in 2004. A couple of these people were involved in the Party in a major way.

The Green Party generated a lot of animosity here in Colorado when they ran a candidate in the new 7th district in 2002 - the Green candidate got over 2000 votes, and the Republican candidate ended up winning by only 131 votes. That seat is considered up for grabs again this year, as the Republican, Bob Beauprez, is running for governor. It will be interesting to see if the Greens will get as many votes this time around (the same guy is running again). That will be an interesting qauge of how far they've come and who their membership is.

[EFerrari]

59. Wow. 131 votes. That's a heartbreaker.

Beauprez is that guy who wore the uniform when he never served, is that right?

I know very little about the Greens nationally because I only changed my reg in Jan 2001 and because party politics aren't a huge priority for me. I tend to work on what some might call "deep frame" issues so the season to season stuff goes right over my head.

In SF, I don't know if Gavin went lefter because of the outpouring for Gonzalez. But, I'm really glad he did because when I got to shake his hand, it was heartfelt.

People like me must drive the DLC nuts. lol

[msgadget]

55. Because the democratic party is supposed to be the liberal party

and it isn't living up to that ideal. It has become the reactionary party, reacting to and fighting the republicans more than fighting for the populace that supports them. They cautiously wait for the media to be strong on an issue before taking it on. Medicare drug bill? K Street Project? NSA spying?

The Greens have a platform and strong agenda they advance. The democrats are playing catch-up (to the republican party) and shying away from the 'extreme left'. Maybe they need this kind of competition to be as bold as the republicans.

We very much need for third parties to be at debates. There are rightwing third parties that could challenge the other side so we shouldn't discourage or disparage third parties out of misguided loyalty to a 'party'. We have to look out for OUR INTERESTS because that's what the parties are doing and by squashing the voices of third parties we don't get to hear alternatives to the same ol' same ol'.

[gunsaximbo]

57. I think ....

because we share so many of the same ideals that they think it would be easiest to change our point of view.

[mzmolly]

61. Because Ralph Nader did, and many are of the mistaken belief it's the

only way they can garner attention. They feel that if they can piss of liberals and divide the democratic party they will scoop up our discouraged. Additionally, belonging to an idealistic party with no chance to be discouraged by their own elected officials is a "safe" position. And, In order to justify NOT voting for the only party on earth with a chance to defeat the BFEE and company, one must vilify the democrats. They further reconcile their agenda with the idea that people have to "suffer" before good can prevail. :eyes: It's a strikingly similar notion to the right wing apocalypse theory.

The comments I made above do NOT apply to all greens, but they do apply to the counter progressive "GINO's" like the one you note above. ;)

[EFerrari]

63. Notice, Mr. Nader was not invited to run as a Green in 2004. n/t

[undeterred]

62. Dems are the people most likely to turn Green, but by attacking Dems

they alienate us. Saying that there is no difference between Gore and Bush has to be one of the stupidest, most unfounded remarks of all time, and it repelled me from the Green party.

[zonmoy]

75. but they tried to act and sound exactly the same.

[izzybeans]

65. Kind of like when kids go off to college and

get mad at their parents for being so "out of touch"-my prof. says that...but...but...but...but...

It's a loving family dispute.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Who knows

It's so weird. Maybe they're just venting some anger.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. Want to steal our votes

[Disturbed]

69. One person writes an article and...

now most Greens do nothing but attack Dems? I don't think so. Most Greens compromised on J. Kerry in states where he could win. I believe that real Dem Progressives should vote Green locally. If more Progressives joined the Green Party it would expand the Green Party base but there is the Catch 22.

[meisje]

68. Why do DU'er attack each other

[MadisonProgressive]

70. Guilt expressed as anger

They know that * wouldn't be president without them?

[seg4527]

71. uh, green party people i actually know don't

Typically the ones running for office will, because they're only going to win over people who realize the democrats aren't doing their job, not conservatives.

But whenever we have an anti-war demo here on campus, it's the greens and socialists and anarchists busting our asses putting the thing together and being anti-bush, and the democrats afterwards bitching about how it was a good rally, but they wish those pesky radicals wouldn't have been behind it.

Long story short, normal green party people that I personally know, not the ones you just hear about on tv and du, are very vocally anti-bush.

[Katherine Brengle]

72. Because the Dems are closer to their own beliefs...

and are therefore a threat, whereas the Rethugs will never take away any potential Green voters.

Not to mention the Green Party stands for the things Dems are supposed to stand for and are therefore more of an opposition from within the ranks than a true third party, in principle.

[madfloridian]

77. If that is true, then they should not be organizing against the Dems..

and they are doing that. Many of us check out forums related to this, and there is a concerted effort to come here and urge others to not support the party.

If Greens want a party, fine. They don't need to try to hurt this one.

[LittleClarkie]

73. You only hurt the one you love?

Seriously, I've heard it said, that if they thought the Dems were two far gone, they wouldn't even bother criticizing them. (Actually, the person who said that to me was referring to radio station formats, but it's the same basic principle.

The problem I see started with the last campaign. Who can operate with everyone shouting criticism at you, and conflicting criticism at that. "No! You must talk about the war!" "No! You must talk about the economy!" "No! You must talk about national security!" "NO! You must talk about ... whatever!"

We're not together as a party. We can't even agree on a direction. And when someone picks a direction, we have a thousand criticisms of that direction, dispite all our calls for bold action. Bold action will only be nitpicked near to death. We're just so fucking neurotic. Comes with not having won much in the last 30 years or so, I guess. And any call to try and unify is met with "What do you think we are? A bunch of sheeple?! I'm not marching in lockstep!"

Not that you should, mind you. Buit we are quite good at shooting ourselves in the foot.

The left, hence the Greens, are just an extension of that, albeit a farther left extension. If our own liberals/progressives aren't happy, of course the Greens won't be.

But then I've met LIbertarians who thought Bush was 80% wrong from their point of view, so I guess both sides have that sort of contingent. It depends on whether not that contingent is going to get on the bus, I suppose.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[cyclezealot]

78. Sell Out Democrats often deserve a little bashing,but

the Greens should be at least equal opportunity bashers, if not 60-40. I think a little Demo bashing by the greens is good for the Demo's to keep them straight.But, I agree they seem too one-sided with the Democrats.