Greens Showing a Little Common Sense

I have not read it letter by letter, but I have scanned it and spend a lot of time listening to Nader and other Greens on radio. I know they want to stop the corporations from sucking all the economy upward, away from the public, and if you call that taking away their money, then I am guilty as charged.

perhaps you misremember your conversation with moi?

Or perhaps I simply forgot it?

Hanlon's Razor: "Do not attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity."

MEA CULPA: It seems I have met exactly ONE.

Why do I disagree with those who'd like to beat up on Nader? Well, for starters, I have trouble holding two conflicting beliefs: One that Gore really won (and I mean electoral vote, too) and the other that it was Nader's fault that he lost. I believe the former is most likely.

Then there's another problem -- for a Democrat who no longer promises to vote Dem -- and that's my respect for those who vote their hard-won, well thought out beliefs. There's no question but that Bush is about the worst president we've ever had, far worse (who woulda imagined!) than many even imagined. But he is (in my view) the tip of a great dirty old iceberg, an iceberg which remains dominant in the Great Ocean of Washington D.C. whether Clinton is there, Bush is there, Gore is there, or even Nader is there. The candidate I'm looking for is the candidate who not only acknowledges the existence of that monster but has plans to do something about it. He/she will not only recognize the problem but have the leadership AND A STRONG FOLLOWING who will support him, when elected, to shift that iceberg, melting it down a bit, sending it down the Potomac. I think I see that candidate now. I hope I do. Fingers crossed....

These do not have to be conflicting beliefs. Even if Gore really won -- electoral vote too -- it was, undoubtedly, close. If everyone who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, it would not have been so close, and the post-election silliness would not have happened. It would have been decisive and uncontestable.

I don't think it was that close, or I'd agree that Nader was (albeit inadvertently) a spoiler.

Greens
Hello Every one!

Here are the Green Values, as written in June 2000:
http://gpus.org/tenkey.html
My county has added a GLBT-value, but otherwise, it's
not much changed.
I reluctantly voted for Gore in 2000,
but voted for Greens, all the way, in the next election.
Today, I voted Democrat, all the way.
I supported Ted Glick[Green], as U.S. Senator from NJ.
The other candidates just "don't get it", if you know what that means.
Greens are really different.
Bush=Gore, plus or minus a little.
WTC would still be a fact of life,having elected Bush or Gore.
They are really no different.
They stand for globalization and war(under who's leadership, the U.S. bombed Somalia, AF,the ME, Eastern Europe,etc.?).
Bill Clinton's!

Common sense would be for the Green party not to throw its resources into the presidential election. I think the party got starry-eyed when Nader came on board and abandoned the grassroots idealism I assume that it once had.

Wouldn't it be more effective, in the long run, to build a political base from the bottom up -- to focus, say, on certain congressional districts where a Green candidate would have a legitimate chance of being elected? It's not as sexy as the presidency, but not many presidential candidates jump from consumer advocacy to the White House?

Now, if the Green party put a tenth of the resources it gave to Nader's campaign to backing a Green candidate for U.S. Congress in my district, I think that person would have a good chance of winning the seat. Ditto San Francisco, Madison -- plenty of places with an active political base that the Green Party could organize behind the right candidate. Regardless of its effect on the "real" presidential election in 2000, I don't think that the Green Party did itself a service by focusing on the highest office in the land.

(forgive me if someone's already put this up here.)

The Greens advocate among other things breaking up the largest corporations and allowing unionism in on a massive scale. I advocate the same thing. But, a platform is a stated ideal of party functionaries and no platforms are ever followed as stated. The situation on the ground always determines an administration's course of action at least as much, and probably more than, the platform. The Greens' actions, once in office would morph into something very different than what was written at a meeting before the election was held. Nader would reign in the Bush excesses, but would have to fight and negotiate every step of the way with congress, no matter how popular he might be with the public. In short, I don't have to endorse the whole of the platform to in good conscience vote for Nader. In fact, Nader himself does not have to endores it all. It says so early in the presentation.

Greens attempt to field local candidates where feasible.

Field, yes, but there's no real campaigning. I know that the practice of TV advertising is odious, but it's also the way the game is played. My district didn't even have a Republican candidate, and yet -- except for the ubiqitous signs and bumper stickers for Nader, they were virtually invisible. Haven't they heard of "pockets of resistance"? They tried to take the entire kingdom in one swoop when they could have been rallying receptive serfs here and there, advocating the overthrow of this or that feudal lord, creating an anarcho-syndicalist commune (thanks, Monty Python) here and there, building a power base.

The presidency is the seat of the big dick, and it's nice to have a big dick, but sometimes the best you can do is a bunch of little pricks.

(I'll be back with more terrible metaphors in a bit...)

Greens
N.J. had a Green winner, though I didn't know him at the time.
Here's the result of last election http://gpus.org/2002results.html

Unfortunately, many Greens campaign like Democrats.

"Common sense would be for the Green party not to throw its resources into the presidential election. I think the party got starry-eyed when Nader came on board and abandoned the grassroots idealism I assume that it once had."

Well said!! Agree, Patio Dog.

"Now, if the Green party put a tenth of the resources it gave to Nader's campaign to backing a Green candidate for U.S. Congress in my district, I think that person would have a good chance of winning the seat."

I think that even in my Republican district this could well be true.

Will cogitate on this after I haul my dogs off the cool limestone on the patio and tell 'em it's time to go beddybye.

edgar - It took some digging, but I found it:


That is, I think, exactly what I said they advocated. You seem to think that perfectly acceptable, which tells me you are putting your vote where it belongs.

Glad we are on the same page, scrat. As I mentioned earlier, a party's platform rarely gets more than lip service. That break up won't happen in the forseeable future regardless of who gets elected.

Upon reading this entire thread just now, I have realized that it makes sense to vote your best interests. My best interests are compassion and decency in this world; therefore, I hereby rescind my somewhat timid earlier support of the Greens and wholeheartedly paraphrase what Bobby Kennedy quoted some 35 years ago, "Some men see things as they are and ask "why?"; I see them as they could be and ask "why not?" F*ck appeasement: Vote Green!

I am not ashamed to say that I voted for Nader.

I voted Green becuase Al Gore failed miserably to impress me as a candidate. Gore could have earned my vote and won the election. He lost both of his own accord. Don't blame Nader for exercising his right to run, and don't blame me for exercising my right to vote for him.

As much as I dislike Bush, there are at least a couple of current Democratic candidates that I couldn't see myself ever voting for. If one of these wins the nomination I will vote third party again.

If the Dems put up a decent candidate with a character, temperment and platform that I can stomach, they will earn my vote.

But don't take my vote for granted. You must earn it. I will not vote for a mediocre candidate with a weak character and questionable politics, period!

Yes, Ebrown -- I'm with you. At present I'm working for Dean, but (ah! new maturity!!) am prepared to back off if he steps over the line. Above all, something in me curdles when I hear fellow Dems putting groupie pressure on -- I don't think a vote for a low quality Dem is necessarily better than what we've got, but rather is an Emperor's New Bandaid.

For whatever it is worth :wink: : I'm impressed to see that people seem to be making these choices with their eyes open. What bothered me most about people voting Green in 2000 wasn't the notion that so many were in favor of such drastic (and in my opinion, wrong-headed and disastrous) policies, but that so many who likely were not, voted for them out of ignorance.

If you vote Green because you agree with their vision and their platform, then I respect that choice.

I'd love to debate the merits of their platform, but will defer to the person who created this discussion as to whether this is the place to do so, or whether a new discussion would be more appropriate for charging off along that tangent.