Greens offer advice, but old false claims linger

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Do you think Greens should admit they were wrong to say Gore and Bush were no different?

Yes, after all, they claim to set a higher standard and trot out new claims for us to believe.
25
76%
No, being Green means never having to say you're sorry.
8
24%
 
Total votes: 33

True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Greens offer advice, but old false claims linger

Postby True Blue » Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:14 pm

Ben Manski had one of his rants published in the Saturday Cap Times. He goes on and on about how great the Greens are. he says it must be "lonely" to be a liberal in the Dem Party. (He seems to think there are more Greens than liberals in the Dem Party. Talk about delusions of grandeur! They have drugs for that, don't they?)

Hey, Ben, before we listen to you, why not come straight with the the people?

Do you still believe "there is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush?" Because you told us that again and again and rather vociferously in 2000. The pile of evidence (and bodies) disputing your favortie slogan is just huge. (And, please, stick to the subject.)

Are Greens really newer and better politicians? Or are they just like the rest that turn off the public - they lie to us election after election and never own up to their previous statements? Watching Greens dodge their sorry record leads one to think they are as deceptive as the worst of any other party.
Last edited by True Blue on Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cattyr
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: DPF dumdum!

Postby cattyr » Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:19 pm

Ooh, this is giving ME delusions of grandeur. Right now I am 100% of the electorate!

Shifty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:50 pm
Contact:

Postby Shifty » Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:41 pm

Damn, I thought the poll was on the original question. One less "YES" vote, one more "NO reason to apologize" vote if you please.

And it wasn't even a butterfly ballot!

I wish the Dems would get off their own sanctimony kick and start formulating some believable policies on the environment, labor, and trade beyond "better than Bush." I guess it's easier to Green-bash. Talk about a smoke-screen.

And I say that as someone looking for excuses to vote Democratic, who actually is reading the position papers and listening, and who has sent money to one of the Dem candidates.

True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Postby True Blue » Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:51 pm

Shifty wrote:Damn, I thought the poll was on the original question. One less "YES" vote, one more "NO reason to apologize" vote if you please.

So, you actually think that, had Al Gore won, we'd be in the same position that we are today? You really do think there is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush?

BTW, I didn't ask for an apology. Just that we address that previous claim. It's a test of intellectual honesty.

Shifty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:50 pm
Contact:

Postby Shifty » Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:05 pm

Blue, I get the occasoinal jibe that I must be on drugs, but today I really do feel like I've been hitting the blow pipe. I actually thought the question was something different...did you edit it?

But, I'd still vote NO, because the question presupposes that Greens weren't aware of differences between Gore and Bush. Despite the oversimplified rhetoric on both sides, most Greens voted Green because the party offered better positions on the issues. On some issues, particularly on trade (the most important environmental and labor policy), the differences between the presidential candidates was quite inconsequential in 2000. Side agreements my ass.

Obviously, the Green surge in 2000 affected Dem rhetoric, if not necessarily policy, in 2004. Are you ready to thank them for that change?

In terms of tactics, the strategy of villifying the Greens has earned the Dems all the voters they are likely to get. I think the resurgence of the tactic in recent weeks has as much to do with the administration's changed approach to the war as it has to do with the Green challenge to the Dem constiuency. When the Dems start to falter on message, they start to hit the Greens. Notice the attacks are rarely policy based, but rather on the very moral right of Greens to run. How dare they!

Diversionary bullshit. Give me substance, folks. Offer a coalition if you can't deliver substance. But the anti-democratic stuff is a big turn-off for those of us who actually give a damn.

Michael Patrick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4062
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Around here somewhere
Contact:

Postby Michael Patrick » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:07 pm

Was Nader on the Bush payroll? If not, maybe he can hit them up for some retro pay.

Wesmon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:45 am
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Contact:

Postby Wesmon » Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:02 am

If the Democrats want to win the next presidental election, its time to make concessions to the Greens. This is how european democracy works so why not here? What is the democratic party willing to offer to the greens to get them to not run a presidental candidate?

Lets face it, if the democrats arent willing to try to build a coalition, the best thing the greens can do is continue to do what they have been doing. Sooner or later, the democrats will have to open their minds if they want their party to stay in existance.

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Are sweeping generalizations about any party worth discussin

Postby ShaneDog » Tue Sep 23, 2003 9:04 am

Let's not rehash the Greens/Nader cost Gore/Democrats the election argument for the Nth time. It's time to drop it and agree to disagree. There are way more important things to be talking about now such as:

a) Why does the media continue to call Howard Dean a "liberal" Democrat. From his voting record he seems pretty moderate to me. The primary is way too far away for me to have picked a candidate but I have serious reservations about voting for Howard Dean even though I suppose I could live with him if he ends up winning the primary.

b) Why is everyone freaking out about Wesley Clark? Am I the only person who feels extremely uncomfortable about supporting a candidate without a voting record? Sure he can say anything he wants about where he stands but where is my assurance that he's not just saying what people want to hear. At least with the other candidates we can see if they are consistent in their positions. And then there's the line about him being the candidate who can beat Bush. Bush seems pretty weak and vulnerable now and there are at least 3 or 4 candidates on the Democratic side who I believe can beat Bush. Let's not get too obsessed with the "gotta get rid of Bush" thing and realize that there is a good chance that Bush is going to be defeated no matter who is on the Democratic ticket. This election presents a great opportunity and we need to pick the best overall candidate who can beat Bush.

True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Talk about diversionary!

Postby True Blue » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:23 pm

Shifty wrote:Diversionary bullshit. Give me substance, folks. Offer a coalition if you can't deliver substance. But the anti-democratic stuff is a big turn-off for those of us who actually give a damn.

Talk about diversionary!

Please answer this question:
"What is 'anti-democratic' about asking a political party to defend their public statements? Aren't you being "anti-democratic " by saying Green leaders must not be questioned? Manski can put and article in the paper, but no-one should comment on it unless they agree with him? That's democratic?


The Left. Weird.
Shifty wrote:I actually thought the question was something different...did you edit it?

No, that's how I posted it the first time. I'm just askin.... if the Greens are running for President again as Manski says, then it seems like we can talkabout them. First question, what about that previous claim? Do Greens still think there is no difference between Bush and Gore? More broadly, between Democrats and Republicans? the Greens aren't going away (for a few elections) and these questions won't either.

Shifty wrote:But, I'd still vote NO, because the question presupposes that Greens weren't aware of differences between Gore and Bush.
This is difficult to comprehend. You say there was no difference between Gore and Bush? Or that Green knew there were differences, but still went about teling the American people "there's no difference between Bush and Gore." If so, wasn't that, um, dishonest?

Based on what we know now, have we learned anything? Do the Greens still say there was no difference between Gore and Bush? I never get a straight answer to this question.
Shifty wrote:Obviously, the Green surge in 2000 affected Dem rhetoric, if not necessarily policy, in 2004. Are you ready to thank them for that change?

Well after wimpy Dem behavior in 2002 I'm really not convinced of this for a second. An environmental group with the same level of mobilization but maybe through a Dem primary challenge or as an issues group would affect rhetoric as much. But, rhetoric is fleeting. Not sure I'd brag about that, you know?

(Surge? Under 3% is a surge? Got some bad news for you...)
Shifty wrote:In terms of tactics, the strategy of villifying the Greens has earned the Dems all the voters they are likely to get. I think the resurgence of the tactic in recent weeks has as much to do with the administration's changed approach to the war as it has to do with the Green challenge to the Dem constiuency.

WTF? I'm responding to a pro-Green article by Manski in last Saturday's Capital Times. I'm not "vilifying" anyone. I don't work for the DNC. ha-ha! (?)

Marge
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Corporate Hellscape

Re: Talk about diversionary!

Postby Marge » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:31 pm

True Blue wrote:Ben Manski had one of his rants published in the Saturday Cap Times.

True Blue wrote:
Shifty wrote:Diversionary bullshit. Give me substance, folks. Offer a coalition if you can't deliver substance. But the anti-democratic stuff is a big turn-off for those of us who actually give a damn.

Talk about diversionary!

Please answer this question:
"What is 'anti-democratic' about asking a political party to defend their public statements? Aren't you being "anti-democratic " by saying Green leaders must not be questioned? Manski can put and article in the paper, but no-one should comment on it unless they agree with him? That's democratic?


Talk about rants!

True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Postby True Blue » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:32 pm

Wesmon wrote:If the Democrats want to win the next presidental election, its time to make concessions to the Greens. This is how european democracy works so why not here?

Have you got a world globe handy? Please spin that thing to North America. Look east. See that blue part. That's an ocean. Really, come on. European democracies tend to use parlimentary systems. We don't. That changes our reality. One can wish we were more European all day long. End of the day, we're not.

Wesmon wrote:What is the democratic party willing to offer to the greens to get them to not run a presidental candidate?

Hey, you're answering a question with a different (unrelated) question! No fair! :)

What about the "there's no difference between Gore and Bush" argument? Do you think Greens knew it was false when they made it? Do you think that it should matter that they got this basic question so stupendously, historically, fantastically wrong? And if they got that one wrong, why should we think they've got the next one right ?

Shifty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:50 pm
Contact:

Postby Shifty » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:50 pm

True Blue wrote:No, being Green means never having to say you're sorry.


I answered, NO reason to apologize.


True Blue then wrote:BTW, I didn't ask for an apology.


At least now I see where I got mixed up. In Demspeak, saying you're sorry is somehow different than an apology. Clintonesque.


And then True Blue with chutzpah wrote:It's a test of intellectual honesty.


OK, Mr. True.

8)

Shifty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:50 pm
Contact:

Postby Shifty » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:08 pm

True Blue then shouted:

Please answer this question:
"What is 'anti-democratic' about asking a political party to defend their public statements? Aren't you being "anti-democratic " by saying Green leaders must not be questioned? Manski can put and article in the paper, but no-one should comment on it unless they agree with him? That's democratic?


There's nothing anti-democratic about arguing against Green policies or their choice of leadership. I made that clear. Arguing that they didn't have a right to run a candidate, or that the Democrats own the votes of another party, and trying to shout them or their sympathizers down is certainly anti-democratic.

Here's some questions for you: were the Democrats correct to support the Patriot Act?

Were Clinton/Gore right on NAFTA and the WTO?

Were a majority of Dem senators and over 40% of total Dems in Congress--including several Dem prez candidates--right to authorize the war in Iraq?

Wanna talk issues? Let's talk issues!

And if you trash talk ME this way, I can only imagine how you treat a real Green. No wonder you lost their votes.

True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Postby True Blue » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:28 pm

Shifty wrote:True Blue then shouted:
There's nothing anti-democratic about arguing against Green policies or their choice of leadership. I made that clear. Arguing that they didn't have a right to run a candidate, or that the Democrats own the votes of another party, and trying to shout them or their sympathizers down is certainly anti-democratic.

Treating you what way?? What are you talking about? I didn't shout anything. I used larger font, not caps. caps is shouting. Larger font is highlightnig something. Relax.

Of course Greens have a right to run candidates. And I have a right to criticize the Greens or hold them accountable for their statements. Criticizing them is not taking away their rights. What's so hard to get about that?

This is just plain wierd.

Dodge
Forum Addict
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:15 pm
Contact:

Outting the local Green electeds

Postby Dodge » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:47 pm

Current Green Party elected officials (which is to say party members, endorsed by the party, and publically identifying with the party - all three) in Madison include:

Ald. Konkel, Benford, King
Sup. Matano, Vedder, Hendrick, Richmond
Sch. Bd. Vang

Past include: Sentmanat, Vedder, Jarrell, Powell, Zipperer (yup), and Szwaja.

. . . Think they're better than the average pol? If so, vote "Yes!"


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests