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

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

Postby Wesmon » Sun Sep 28, 2003 6:07 am

As I said before, you need to hold the democrats responsible for their own failures. If they had not turned their backs on their traditional voter base they wouldnt be losing voters. And in the coming election, if the democrats are serious about winning back the green voters they need to reach out to these voters with some compromises.

Your attacks on Green voters for the failures of the Democratic party are nonsensical. The whole point of voting Green is to build up a new party that is more representative of the left. Why should anyone vote for a candidate and party they don't support? And the sour grapes coming from the Democrats just shows that the Greens are gaining momentum, enough to start causing the corporate-lite party real concerns.


In some ways I think Bush being in office can turn into a good thing. He has everyone so polarized in this country that the possibility for real change is about as high as it's been since the sixties. I wouldnt waste my vote on a Democrat like Clinton(Wesley Clark) who would bring us back in line with the slow, steady, and silent slide to the right which has been the norm for the past 30 years.



As for the differences between Bush and Gore, the topic is highly irrelevant. When corporate money is financing both of the 2 major parties, there might be some minor differences in candidates, but they will both serve the same master.

Harbinger
Forum Addict
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby Harbinger » Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:41 pm

Wesmon wrote:As I said before, you need to hold the democrats responsible for their own failures.


I agree. I'm not a Green, but the Dems don't get my vote automatically just cause I'm to the left of the GOP. That would make them my boss. You can't demand respect, and the Dems seem to be unable to deal with losing respect than to demand our allegiance in ways that make us respect them even less. Even if the alternative is more of the same, I won't apolagize for having higher standards than people who support death penalties, money wars, drug wars, banning gay marriage and cutting beneifts for poor parents. Although the Dems are not yet quite as conservative as the GOP, they certainly are much more conservative than where the GOP was just thirty years ago, and they're just slidding more and more to the right. Finally, this poll, while worded by someone who is so afraid of a fair poll that both answers have to serve his hatred for Greens, is a lie. The general message from Nader was not that Gore and Bush are exactly alike, much as you'd love to obsess about that without any context. What he said was they were almost alike. In other words, the Dems are too much alike to deserve dedicated support from poor people, so its time to find another party. "OSHA is now a consulting firm, not a regulatory agency. The auto safety agency is a disgrace. Look at the Firestone Tire/Ford Explorer tragedy which could have been averted. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture, Labor Department � one after the other they're about indifferent as to the people that control these. The corporate permanent government controls these departments and agencies. No. There is very little difference. That's why they're funding the same candidates." And so our wise Green-hating friend carries his grudge for years repeating his yell -- he said Gore and Bush were exactly alike, that's what he said, but there are some differences! He said it! He should apolagize to me, whaaah!!! What brilliant discourse. Much more thoughtful than, say, the foolishness of analyzing the frightening scope of corporate power in both of the major parties in this country.

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

Postby True Blue » Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:45 pm

Wesmon wrote:As for the differences between Bush and Gore, the topic is highly irrelevant.

It's irrelevant? Then why did Greens spend so much effort telling us that over and over in 2000? :roll:

As long as Greens are still handing out advice, it goes straight to their credibility. I just suggest people remember how badly wrong Greens were in the past.

Funny how not one of you has the guts to take the question head on. Instead, you accuse us of hating democracy for expecting a political party to account for their words. La-a-a-a-ame.

Black Hawk
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: wrong side of the tracks

Postby Black Hawk » Fri Oct 17, 2003 12:50 pm

One wonders if the Whigs spent so much time trying to marginalize and ridicule the "upstart" Republicans way back when...

And where are the Whigs now?

Mr. Pants
Senior Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Madison-East Side

Postby Mr. Pants » Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:32 pm

I lived in Connecticut during the last election, so I knew it wouldn't be a big deal if I voted for Nader. I fully supported him and I even marched the "Freedom Trail for Sale" as a "Billionaire for Bush or Gore" the day of the debates in Boston. It is all fine and dandy that Gore is out and about talking trash about Bush now, but prior to that debate he really wasn't saying much that set him apart. I think his biggest mistake was choosing Lieberman as his VP. Lieberman IS a Republican in Dem clothing.
Sept. 11 had not happened at that time and I don't really think it is fair to ask Greens "do you think we would be in the same mess now." Truth is, we do not know how Gore would have handled it. No one knows. It is really easy for him to run around the country now bad mouthing the President when he really doesn't have to worry about responsibility and pressure. Greens, at the time, felt they were making the right decision. No one could have ever imagined that anybody could have messed things up so bad.
That said, I would not vote for a Green Party candidate this time around. I feel the Democratic candidate, be it Kerry or Dean, needs as much of our support as possible. I am very concerned though that if the Greens to run Kucinich, as they are grumbling, it would definitely cost the "left" the election.

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

Postby True Blue » Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:50 pm

Mr. Pants wrote: I think his biggest mistake was choosing Lieberman as his VP. Lieberman IS a Republican in Dem clothing.

We agree that was a big mistake. There's a lot of competition for the biggest, though. Pehaps it was allowing himself to be pushed around by editorial boards and image makers. Or going easy on Bush in the debates. Or allowing lies about him (Love Story, internet) to persist. Or just not fighting enough. He went populist, then got yanked around by the DLC and backed off (and his poll numbers fell).

Mr. Pants wrote:No one could have ever imagined that anybody could have messed things up so bad.

Actually, that's exactly what many Democrats were saying in 2000! We did not buy his Compassionate Conservative bullshit while the right wing was so suspicously muted. We remembered Reagan's reign and did not want to repeat it (I pointed this out to many youngsters who were in diapers when Reagan was elected, but they wouldn't hear it).

Greens waved off all of that stuff and insisted "there's no difference between Bush and Gore." And, Bush demonstrated his extreme right wing radicalism well before 9/11.

Mr. Pants wrote:That said, I would not vote for a Green Party candidate this time around. I feel the Democratic candidate, be it Kerry or Dean, needs as much of our support as possible. I am very concerned though that if the Greens to run Kucinich, as they are grumbling, it would definitely cost the "left" the election.

Good to hear. We agree here.

NathanAllen
Forum Addict
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:11 pm
Contact:

Postby NathanAllen » Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:07 pm

Sometimes the best intentions can lead to the worst results.

I know it's a hard subject for people to wrap their heads around, but until we do we'll have to deal with several "third" parties who do nothing but drain critical votes in Presidential Elections.

How about before a party can put forward a presidential hopeful they must first have ten seats in either hours and at least one governor's seat?

I'm a loyal leftist democrat, and not afraid to admit it because until viable 3rd and 4th parties emerge our political system will remain a soup or salad system.

Mr. Pants
Senior Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Madison-East Side

Postby Mr. Pants » Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:59 pm

That or maybe we can get someone in the White House who supports changing the electoral system. Someone who possibly supports Instant Run-off Voting?
Whatever happened to Hillary saying after the 2000 election debacle that she was going to try to overhaul the electoral system?

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13805
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Postby Ned Flanders » Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:22 pm

Mr. Pants wrote:Whatever happened to Hillary saying after the 2000 election debacle that she was going to try to overhaul the electoral system?


It's happening. The Dems are "registering" dead voters for the '04 tilt as we speak :D

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Vote your conscience, whatever that means.

Postby Smartypants » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:21 pm

I used to debate with a friend of mine whether to vote Nader or Bore, I mean Gore, in 2000. I can't argue with anyone who decides that they want to vote for who they think is the best candidate. I think anyone who tells a Nader voter that they were wrong should stuff it because our vote is our vote. I think that there are some parallels between Nader and that poor schlubb Steve Bartman, yeah, the Cubs fan who tried to catch the foul ball. Nader didn't win the election for George Bush, Gore lost it. Just like the Cubs went on to CHOKE after that guy did that. But, did Nader have an impact on the election, yes. Did the Cubs fan have an impact on the series? Seems he did in some strange metaphysical way. My friend told me that the Dems deserved to lose and that maybe having Bush in the White House would wake people up to the true state of our nation. Maybe he was right.

Anyway, to me, voting my conscience wasn't about voting for the best guy it was voting to make sure that Bush didn't win, which meant voting for Al Gore and his lame-ass VP Lieberman, despite their awful campaign. Would I rather have a "Green" party that is a viable alternative? Yes, but at what cost?

So, why start getting pissy with each other now? Greens, build the party locally and take it nationally gradually. Seriously consider putting your energy and enthusiasm behind the sorry state of the Democratic party, even if holding your nose, and then make them accountable to you. The alternative is continued Republican dominance over our lives.

I've gone on far too long but the Republican party, like it or not, is kicking ass by staying together and marginally working toward their platform. The splintered Dem. party just can't seem to get it right and clearly, the Greens have zero chance in 2004 of putting a candidate in office. Karl Rove and his evil minions are rooting for another Green candidate.

If the Green party folks believe in preserving the environment, well, you aren't going to get it by putting Bush and his cronies back in the White House for another four years. In the end you gotta vote your conscience. :twisted:

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21436
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:21 pm

Wisconsin's own Fightin' Bob got a million votes way back when as a third party candidate, but the Progressive Party faded into oblivion. Will the past portend the future?

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

Postby True Blue » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:45 am

Ned Flanders wrote:
Mr. Pants wrote:Whatever happened to Hillary saying after the 2000 election debacle that she was going to try to overhaul the electoral system?


It's happening. The Dems are "registering" dead voters for the '04 tilt as we speak :D

Got any proof of that, Ted?

The GOP manufactures claims of voter fraud. Their charges seldom hold up under scrutiny. See
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... raud_x.htm

The Republican Party has compiled a national database of 3,273 names of people who it says apparently voted more than once in the 2000 elections. It is turning the list over to local authorities for investigation and possible prosecution.

But early looks at the data by state officials have found little evidence of multiple voting.


And, A vast voter fraud conspiracy?
In South Dakota, a controversy over allegedly fraudulent voter registrations and absentee ballot applications in and around Indian reservations has been raging for almost two weeks. Tagged initially with the phrase "massive voter fraud" in a local TV news report and a Rapid City Journal headline, the story spread rapidly through the national conservative media before the facts were established. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin parroted the "massive" charge, while Rush Limbaugh went even further, suggesting with his usual subtlety that Democrats are trying to steal the election.

The facts are less sensational. One man who was working for the United Sioux Tribes faces forgery charges for submitting phony voter registration cards, and a contractor working for the Democratic coordinated campaign is also under investigation for alleged discrepancies in voting documents she submitted. Approximately 400 questionable voting documents have been identified, but most appear to be linked to the two people in question.
later...
Mark Barnett, a Republican who is the Attorney General of South Dakota and source of the original stories in the local press, told the Argus Leader, "I'm still only aware of two cases where criminal law may have been violated, and you've heard about those." He added, "I just don't want the suggestion out there that there is widespread fraud when we don't have any evidence of that."


Republicans are playing Chicken Little with voter fraud charges. Why would anyone believe them with their record of deceit?

Mr. Pants
Senior Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Madison-East Side

Re: Vote your conscience, whatever that means.

Postby Mr. Pants » Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:47 am

Smartypants wrote:My friend told me that the Dems deserved to lose and that maybe having Bush in the White House would wake people up to the true state of our nation.


I think this is a very good point. I think it did make SOME Dems wake up, although maybe not the DNC. A lot of people are also saying that Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun should drop out as they only clutter the debate stage and can't possibly win the nomination.

First of all, it's the United States, anyone who wants to debate as a Presidential candidate should be able to debate.

But more importantly, they are forcing the other candidates to talk about issues that would have just been cushioned otherwise. Can you imagine what the debates would be like if it was Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards.

(At one point I would have lumped Kerry in there to, but I think Kerry has been doing some decent campaigning as of late.)
By the way, nice pants, smartypants.

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

Re: Vote your conscience, whatever that means.

Postby True Blue » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:11 pm

Mr. Pants wrote:I think this is a very good point. I think it did make SOME Dems wake up, although maybe not the DNC.

Riiiiiiight. All Democrats are lost in the wilderness waiting for the beacon of Green brilliance to show them the way out. :roll: Whatever.

Your political viewer seems stuck on black & white. You need to upgrade to 8, 16, 256 or more colors. You're missing a lot of detail.

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

Postby Dodge » Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:56 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Wisconsin's own Fightin' Bob got a million votes way back when as a third party candidate, but the Progressive Party faded into oblivion. Will the past portend the future?


First of all, Fighting Bob got a lot more than a million votes.

Secondly, The party DID NOT fade into oblivion. Ten years later it ran the legislature and controlled the Governor's office and Wisconsin's congressional delegation.

The party faded into oblivion when it folded into the Democratic Party in the course of World War II.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests