An Open Letter to Progressives: Vote Kerry and Cobb

[welshTerrier2]

I share many of the views on voting strategies for progressives that are expressed in this letter ... the letter calls for Greens and other progressives to support Kerry in "swing" states and Cobb in "safe" states ...

i'm including the letter here to highlight one critical component of the voting strategy being advocated: In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out. this is not just a small, unimportant detail ... Greens and other progressives, whether they vote for Kerry or for Cobb, still must recognize the essential reality that bush has got to go and Kerry is the only candidate who can beat him ...

It is not an easy thing for third party leaders to call for such pragmatism ... we've seen all kinds of friction and resentment between the Dems and the Greens ... well, this is something positive ... I applaud this voting strategy and compliment those who had the vision to present it to progressive voters ... it may not be the degree of loyalty some democrats expect from the left; but it's a whole lot better than many of the available alternatives ...

Note to Mods: entire text provided because this is an "Open Letter"

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-09.htm


An Open Letter to Progressives: Vote Kerry and Cobb
by Medea Benjamin/Peter Coyote/John Eder/Daniel Ellsberg et al

There is no greater political imperative this year than to retire the Bush regime, one of the most dangerous and extremist in U.S. history. As people dedicated to peace, economic justice, equality, sustainability and constitutional freedoms, we are committed to defeating Bush.

The only candidate who can win instead of Bush in November is John Kerry. We want Kerry to replace Bush, because a Kerry administration would be less dangerous in many crucial areas, including militarism, civil liberties, civil rights, judicial appointments, reproductive rights and environmental protection.

But while helping Kerry-Edwards defeat Bush-Cheney, we don't want to endorse Kerry positions that are an insult to various causes we support, including movements for global justice and peace that have burgeoned in recent years. Indeed, we want to communicate to Kerry and the world that we oppose many of his policies, including some that are barely distinguishable from Bush policies.

Accordingly, we encourage progressives to organize and vote strategically this year.

In "swing states," where few percentage points separate Bush and Kerry, we encourage activists to mobilize voters behind Kerry. (A frequently updated list of swing states is posted at www.swing04.com.)

In "safe states" (and Washington, D.C.), so overwhelmingly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry that we can be confident of who will win in November, we encourage activists to mobilize voters behind Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

In all states, we encourage activists to engage in election-year vigilance to ensure that all votes count, especially those of racial minorities -- and to advocate for instant runoff voting and other reforms so that voters in future elections can support the candidate they most believe in without risk of electing the candidate they most oppose.

David Cobb has earned our endorsement in safe states by deftly steering the Green Party toward a nuanced strategy dedicated to ousting Bush, while seeking to grow a grassroots party that stands unapologetically for peace, racial and social justice, economic democracy, civil liberties and genuine ecology. The Green Party gives political voice to movements that challenge Bush's Iraq policy and resist trade arrangements that trample on workers' rights, human rights and the environment.

Despite a Democratic Party base that is increasingly progressive, anti-NAFTA/WTO and anti-war, John Kerry has lost the strong, brave voice he had as a young man who challenged the Vietnam War and now offers a faint echo of too many Bush policies -- from Iraq and military spending to the global trade regime and corporate coddling (e.g. Kerry's plan to reduce corporate taxes).

We are disappointed that, four years after the Florida disaster, Kerry and leading Democrats (with exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean) do not promote common-sense electoral reforms like instant runoff voting that would once and for all eliminate the "spoiler" risk that deforms U.S. elections.

With our electoral system yet to be fixed, we are left this year with the improvised solution of endorsing one candidate in some states and another candidate in other states. This dual-endorsement solution is preferable to endorsing either a candidate with important positions we oppose or a solidly progressive candidate whose votes in swing states could help Bush get four more years.

In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out -- as we build grassroots networks and coalitions to hold the Kerry administration accountable to the progressive values and policies shared by most Americans.

Medea Benjamin
Peter Coyote
John Eder
Daniel Ellsberg
Angela Gilliam
Kevin Gray
Tom Hayden
Elizabeth Horton Sheff
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Robert McChesney
Norman Solomon


(Signers endorse this statement as individuals, not as representatives of any groups.)

Medea Benjamin (Code Pink, Global Exchange); Peter Coyote (actor); John Eder (Maine state legislator/Green Party); Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers whistleblower); Angela Gilliam (professor/feminist scholar); Kevin Gray (Jackson '88/Sharpton '04); Tom Hayden (former California State Senator/activist); Elizabeth Horton Sheff (Hartford City Council/Green Party); Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun); Robert McChesney (communications professor/author); Norman Solomon (author/columnist)

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I like that list of signatories. :^)

[welshTerrier2]

2. powerful, isn't it?

unity is possible if we want it to happen ...

Greens must acknowledge that Kerry is big step in the right direction even if he disappoints on some important issues ... Greens need to accept the essential truth that bush has got to go and pragmatism therefore must be the order of the day ...

Democrats need to shut the hell up about Nader already ... build a bridge to the "enlightened ones" who are Greens not supporting Nader ... Nader can be easily marginalized if the Dems are willing to open themselves to exploring areas of common interest with Cobb-supporting Greens ...

We have got to have unity ... is it possible Greens could be attracted back into the big tent with the formation of the new Progressive Democrats of America progressive wing of the party? YES ... I believe it's possible ... let's put a bit of positive energy into building unity ...

The Greens call for a "dual voting strategy" is a great first step ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I liked 1 on common dreams about getting IRV in place in New Mexico before

November, but it was eschewed here as an attempt at exortion by yours truly.

I still think it's the best chance to margianalize Nader out there.

[aquart]

3. There is NO "safe" state.

I can't believe that anyone is pushing that myth AGAIN. Are we incapable of learning?

Our only chance is an OVERWHELMING VOTE.

Once again, so-called "progressives" fill me with disgust.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I'm more disgusted that we don't have ranked voting by now.

This vote-swap stuff shouldn't even be an issue any more.

[welshTerrier2]

6. well excuuuuuuuuuuse me ...

look mr. filled with disgust, i generally try to keep a positive tone with posts like yours ... but not anymore ...

you be filled with disgust ... i'm sick and tired of dim-bulb democrats who fail to understand that all you're doing is deepening the divide ... why do you give up trying to find common ground so easily ???

what do you hope to achieve with your venomous hatred ?? politics, or perhaps you disagree, is about attracting more voters ... trust me, your hostility will attract no one ... if I were a Republican, I'd applaud your post ... because they, like you, don't seem to want the Greens to bond with democrats in any way ...

we can disagree over what a "safe" state is ... the point is that you can't even appreciate that the Green party is telling many of its voters to vote for Kerry ... maybe you could publish an open letter to these same voters and convince them that they are so "disgusting" that you don't even want their votes ...

brilliant campaign strategy ...

[Old and In the Way]

7. Totally agree.

Want real change? Line up with Democrats and be a part of driving the largest possible mandate. Help elect Democrats to retake the majority in both Houses. It's conceivable that Bush will hasten a schism of the Republican Party. When that happens, the Greens could compete far more effectively as an influential party in national elections.

[welshTerrier2]

10. do you agree with this ?

In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out

regardless of what democrats call for, i'm afraid it would be pointless to expect Greens in "safe" states to vote for Kerry ... "largest possible mandate" may be a valid goal, but I doubt many Greens will vote for Kerry in safe states ...

The position in the "Open Letter" blends pragmatic politics (working tirelessly to defeat bush, voting for Kerry in battleground states) with the reality that many Greens are fed up, whether democrats like it or not, with the democratic party ... I think balancing the importance of the election with the importance of respecting the views of Greens and other progressives strikes the perfect balance ...

it is just not realistic to call on Greens to vote for Kerry in safe states ... it just isn't going to happen ...

[Old and In the Way]

55. Coalition Politics.

Call themselves Green Democrats, if they find the Democratic label so disgusting. Personally, I think Greens are particularly dumb this election cycle not to join the great debate and mandate that will happen under Kerry. Just how much divergence is there really between a Kerry agenda and the Green agenda? What is more important, the means to the end or the end, itself?

We need new energy policies....because energy policy is driving our national security today. Energy policy change will be needed and presents an opportunity to reinvent our economy and put Americans to work building an oil-less energy grid. I assume environmentalism/jobs/energy are important points of concern.....why would they possibly want to sit on the sidelines when they can have a driving influence within the Democratic Party to make this vision happen?

[Classical_Liberal]

60. Did you even bother to read the original article

It advocated strategic voting, so Kerry will still win. Strategic Voting is coalition politics.

Telling us to shut the hell up on the issues with which we disagree with the dlc mob, is hardly inviting a debate.

[Old and In the Way]

101. Please tell me where I told you to "shut the hell up on the issues"

That's a tactic I'd expect from a Bill O'Reilly or Bob Novak, certainly not from a classic liberal.

What I suggested,as my opinion...this is a message board comprised of people with opinions, correct?....is that strategic voting is not necessarilly a mandate for change. Getting Kerry elected is only 1/2 the battle. Getting a Democratic Congressional majority is another 25%. The remaining 25% is getting every American to vote Democratic so that we have a united mandate to repudiate the Republican vision that's turning into a nightmare for most of us.

[Classical_Liberal]

104. 1) Kerry will still be elected if we vote strategically

2)Kerry embraces many republican ideas, and so do many other dems today, so just getting them elected doesn't repudiate the republican agenda, or create the mandate I am looking for.

Getting him out of office is good, but other than that we don't have similar goals.

[Old and In the Way]

127. Yeah, right.

Please explain where the goals of Greens are incompatible with the goals of Democrats. I doubt that sincerely that the Greens have any original ideas that some faction of the Democratic Party does not support and represent.

No, what the Greens want is power. Failing that, they'd rather complain from the outside. So I guess that's one goal we don't share.

You'll never convince me that Kerry = Republicanism, but feel free to keep trying to sell that tired old meme on the board.

[Classical_Liberal]

135. Of coarse I want power

It's called having a voice. Otherwise you just get ignored and stomped on, like we are presently.

Kerry's position on the Iraq war, and on a Palestinian state aren't compatable with the progressives.

His position on National Health Insurance isn't compatable with the progressives.

His position on outsourcing and shafta isn't compatable with progressives.

His position taxing corporations isn't compatable with progressivism.


I will continue to vote for good dems, and will do it whether it is a safe state or not. Kerry isn't one of them, and there aren't that many left. Wellstone was cool and I personally ripped Ed McGaa supporters a new asshole for their stupid and selfdestructive run against him, but Kerry is no Wellstone, and doesn't deserve any such loyalty.

Strategic voting is hardly just complaining. It serves the purpose of kicking Bush out, without empowering conservative Dems like Kerry. What you don't get is that I have never voted for anything other than a dem in my life. It hasn't gotten me anywhere. I am treated like shit in the party I was born to. It is moving away from me and betrays me every day. It stifles my voice, and won't let me decide what is part of the platform. I am fucking sick of it. I don't want Bush elected, and he won't be, but I won't be loyal to someone who isn't loyal to me. I wish the greens would die, but only because the Dems move toward the greens. If dems don't go there they can die.

Kerry is not Bush, but he isn't a progressive either. In order to be Bush you have to be a Christofascist. I would like more choices other than moderate republicans vs christofascists.

[GreenPartyVoter]

136. Kerry is not bush, but he is not as far left as what a lot of Greens are

I know you'd like to see the Dem party as a big tent, but I just don't see that as working. I do not see how 2 parties could possibly be all things to all people, not with such a vast range of political beliefs. It's the same reason why there are so many different denominations of Christianity, some churches focus more closely on certain things than others. And congregants are drawn to the churches that they feel most in line with. If I can be free to do that in my religion, why can't I do that in my politics. If I want to be, say, Unitarian, why should I be forced to be Catholic instead?

A multi-party democracy could be a very good thing here. If the Dems don't want to tackle the same issues as further left parties like the Socialists and Greens want to take on, then people who need a representative on those issues still have a chance at being heard. (There is nothing wrong with moderates whatsoever, if that is what the Dem party is eveloving into, but I have noticed that a Legislature filled mainly with moderates and hard-right wingers can, at best, only give us moderately right-wing policies. When I go to a car dealer, I do not try to haggle over the car starting at just $10 below the sticker price. I strive to get the very best deal that I can, you know?)

[welshTerrier2]

79. why would they possibly want to sit on the sidelines ?

In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out

hmmmm, a call from Greens to "work tirelessly to vote bush out" is being perceived as "sitting on the sidelines" ... what more would you like to ask of Greens who, after all, are not democrats ??

suppose bush were ahead in the polls with 75% of the vote, god forbid ... could you imagine democrats writing an Open Letter to their voters calling for them to support Green candidates so they could get on the ballot more easily in future elections ?? the logic would be: we're going to lose anyway so we might as well do some good ... hard to imagine that ever happening ...

it is very hard for me to see my fellow democrats showing no appreciation for this very pragmatic letter from some truly remarkable progressives ...

[Old and In the Way]

94. I expect that they'll vote Bush out......

if, for no other reason than personal preservation.

But my point still stands...they want to have their own little vanity party, more power to them...because they won't have much influence at the table where progressive Democratic policy will be formulated, debated, and, hopefully enacted into law.

I'd think they'd want to be participants in reshaping the vision of America, particularly with some issues like Global warming and Peak Oil becoming reality....but maybe they'd rather maintain their role of uncompromising outsiders in the political process.

[welshTerrier2]

116. you did it again !!

you said: but maybe they'd rather maintain their role of uncompromising outsiders in the political process

hmmmmm, the Greens tell their voters to work tirelessly to vote Bush out and you continue to call them UNCOMPROMISING ... you continue to refer to the Greens as a "vanity" party ...

do you think it just might be possible that Greens see Democrats as the "arrogance" party ??? your terms like "vanity" and "uncompromising" are both inaccurate and counterproductive ... they could just as easily be applied to democrats ... or republicans for that matter ...

the part of all this you keep failing to acknowledge is that Greens do not feel like they have a voice in the democratic party ... i'm a democrat and would like to think that my voice is heard in the party ... i don't feel like it is ... i pleaded with Kerry to vote against that damned war ... view it any way you like but i hated what he did ... your statement that you would think Greens would want to be participants is right on the money ... we agree ... the problem is that those who have left the party, and many like myself who might (after the election), have left for exactly that reason ... i believe many have concluded they don't have a voice within the party ...

i can't speak for Greens but my perception is that they believe they can build a party and leverage their limited size by forming coalitions ... i think you would be wrong if you thought they didn't want to participate in reshaping the vision of America ... the disagreement comes in how that objective is best achieved ...

and my take is that both parties suffer without a more positive, open dialog ... mud slinging and name calling goes nowhere ... it's time to stop criticizing Greens, calling them vane or uncompromising, and start building some unity and looking for areas of common interest ...

[Old and In the Way]

130. OK.

I promise to never try to dialog with Green DUers here on the board again. I can't comment as a Democrat without it getting twisted into an accusation that I tried to shut people up or I'm (Democrats) being arrogant. I've yet to see any Green issue that isn't capable of being supported by a substantial, maybe majority, of Democrats, but that's just my opinion.

Momentai.

[Classical_Liberal]

137. Green issues aren't represented by the majority of elected dems

who gives a crap about potential. Until they are supported by the majority dems, dems don't deserve a mandate. Kerry is not gbing to move left if he thinks we are satisfied by his right wing positions.

[welshTerrier2]

138. are you pouting ??

look, i respect your opinions OAITW ... i actually liked the group OAITW but that's another story (i'm a big Peter Rowen fan) ...

i'm not sure how you arrived at "I promise to never try to dialog with Green DUers here on the board again" from anything i said ... again, fwiw, i'm not a Green, I'm a democrat ... i also made no statement that you were trying to "shut people up" ... and I also did not suggest that you were arrogant ... i think you missed the point I was trying to make ...

what I was trying to point out was that just as you have assigned negative labels to Greens (e.g. "vanity party", "uncompromising"), they could assign negative labels to Democrats (e.g. "the arrogant party") ... and this all accomplishes what? it accomplishes nothing ...

as to your last sentence, that's EXACTLY what I've been trying to say in this thread ... there are many common interests and values shared by Greens and Democrats ... it's too bad that we can't work out our differences in a reasonable manner ... we need to stop "blaming all those idiots" on the other side and start focussing on unity ... democrats don't have a right to expect anything of Greens other than an openness to meet and discuss areas of common interest ... and the same goes for the Greens ...

it's time to knock off the finger-pointing, the labels and name-calling, the hatred of Nader's 2000 blunders and all the rest ... it leads to fewer votes for democrats, not more votes ... and it weakens the left ... if you want to make a case for Greens coming back to the party, make it ... but don't do it by insulting Greens; do it by making your best arguments for unity ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

139. "if you want to make a case for Greens coming back to the party"

I can't come back to where I've never been. ;)

[welshTerrier2]

140. interesting point ...

do you have any idea what percentage of Greens became Greens after leaving the Democratic party?

being an old timer, i've always had the view that most Greens were previously alienated Democrats ...

i wonder what the stats are?

[GreenPartyVoter]

141. I might be able to find something on that, but I do know

that we have a real mix of folks: former socialists, Dems, repubs, libertarians, reform party members and Independents (like moi) :)

I would bet, though, that the majority are indeed ex-dems.

[Green Lantern]

153. I have never been a Democrat and likely never will be,

but the Greens are only a small part of the problem. The Democratic party has seen many millions of Reagan Democrats vote elsewhere. Your party is experiencing a tremendous loss of voters and you are quibbling over whether you think Greens are renegade Democrats who will return to the fold.
We all, liberal, progressive and mnoderate face a much larger task. We must restore democracy and the true rule of law to our country. We must look far beyond the November election and plan effective changes for all the people of this country. We must regain the respect of the other nations of the world. And we must fix all that is broken. Public finance of campaigns. Money out of politics. Tax fairness and equity. Restoring the voice of all citizens.
There are those Greens out there who would play hardball, demanding a quid pro quo from the Democrats for Green help in swing states. What do you think they might want? Their "place" back in the party? Many many Greens are not and never were Democrats, so you are 'offering' something not recognized as being of value.
I, like other Greens posting here, want the Gov. Bush administration where they belong. We are willing to help. But do not continue thinking we are your prodigals. It is not in any way helpful or effective.

[Green Lantern]

145. Green democrats?

If you cannot comprehend why Greens are not Democrats, read Green literature. If that does not suffice, review the positions of the DLC, and if all else fails, read your own post.

[welshTerrier2]

147. welcome to DU, Green Lantern ...

i was reading something the other day about a group calling itself "Green Democrats" ... don't know anything about them ... i'll post the link if i can locate it ...

[welshTerrier2]

149. here's a link ... sort of ...

there a link to www.greenDemocrats.net on the following page:

http://www.greendogs.org/links.htm

the link is valid but the page doesn't seem to be useful in any way ...

[Green Lantern]

154. GreenDemocrats

Thank you for the link-I have bookmarked it for closer examination.
BTW thank you for the welcome. It is good to hook up with other liberals and progressives, even with the disagreements.

[GreenPartyVoter]

148. Hi Dad! *wave* I was just about to head to bed. *editing to add*

Did you catch this post I put up earlier?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2052333&mesg_id=2053990&page=

[Green Lantern]

155. Kerry and "Hi"

Hi GPV! See you found me. Bookmarked your post, saw it and agree. Kerry has a reputation as a Liberal, and may well still be, but I feel he is being handcuffed by the DLC so he is "acceptable" to the money sources.

I liked Dennis K and Dean, but Wellstone was someone I could truly have gotten behind.

Living in a swing state makes all this interesting, doesn't it?
Da

[Classical_Liberal]

14. IT is a mandate for more war

no thanks.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Bullshit you're a conservative dem that wants to extort me into

voting for your republican light candidates forever, and I won't go along with it. It is like being threatened by the mafia.

Since Nader didn't persue a safe state strategy and campaigned in swing states it has in no way been repudiated.

[Kanary]

29. Extortion, there's the word I've been looking for.....

"Lack of political savvy on your part does not constitute a political emergency on my part".

New message for the conservative Dems...... :)

Kanary

[Kanary]

8. Very reasonable, rational letter

I think I remember seeing this before, but somehow I missed the list of signatories on it.

I wish I could hope for some modicum of rationality by the Dems on this issue, but I fear it will be only the minority who can understand the power of this proposal. It is, indeed, not easy for third party leaders to call for such pragmatism...... they deserve respect and support.

I must say one thing, and I say that with trepidation, given the proclivity for attach that exists here: It is not with "disappointment" that I face this decision -- it is with deep forboding. While I respect that many are making this decision with humanitarian concerns in mind, for me, this hits me PERSONALLY. I do not see a Kerry administration holding firm against cuts to the safety net any more than Clinton did, and the next cuts will do me in. I've been wrestling with that more than most can imagine. To say that I feel personally abandoned by the party is putting it mildly. And I am just one among thousands. Yet, it's not even an issue that was important enough to include in the campaign. Therefore, this campaign doesn't relate to me.

I take this letter seriously, and will begin to look at Cobb's stands.

Thank you for posting this..... I hope it leads to much thoughtful discussion.

Kanary

[pop goes the weasel]

33. I understand

and feel threatened by the same forces. Yesterday, on the way to the Planned Parenthood clinic 50 miles away that provides the only discounted women's health services around, I saw a disabled woman begging at the corner of highway access roads. There's welform reform in action (where is fucking Mickey Kaus? I'd like to make him stand on crippled feet by an interstate all day in a Texas summer. And the same goes for the rest of the "sensible liberals"). And I could be that woman very easily--I barely escaped her fate a few years ago.

I live in Texas, and there is not a chance that it will swing to Kerry unless we can convince all the Republicans that voting is done only by communists and homosexuals. For one thing, Kerry and Edwards would actually have to spend some time here, and that ain't going to happen. So, I'm thinking I will vote for Cobb unless the voting-is-gay meme really starts to catch on. I'm still voting Dem in the local races, but I am pretty convinced that the State Dem show of spine last year was in part due to the good showing of the Texas Greens in 2000 and 2002, and I want to keep the pressure up.

[Kanary]

38. THANK YOU! and, your gay-meme, too! ^_^

:hi:

Your response means a lot to me......... it's just not an issue to hardly any DEMs (of any stripe) anymore.

Yes, there are so many heart-breaking examples, and yet it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the hearts, let alone the minds, of those in power, on either side of the aisle. I'm glad that you missed out on being "one of them", and yet painfully aware of just how many "thems" there are.

I'm up-to-here with all the cutesy calls for "Take out the trash, then remodel the house" stuff.... I'm supposed to take out the trash for the DEMs, then quietly die, so they can remodel? I'm just uppity enough to say, "I don't think I will............"

Luckily, at least for now, I have a *wonderful* Dem candidate for Senate who I have absotively NO hesitance in working for. If it weren't for him, ......... I don't even want to think about that......

:toast: for Mike Miles!

Thanks for your post! :hi:

Kanary

[pop goes the weasel]

48. You're welcome!

The abandonment of the unfortunate is an issue that makes my blood boil. People don't stop to think that the opposite of unfortunate is fortunate, that is, "lucky." No, they don't even think in those terms anymore. If some people are poor or disabled or ill, it is a moral failing, because, of course, the prosperous have what they do by dint of superior ethics. And thus, that woman on the corner must have done something wrong that put her in that spot, you must have done something wrong to put you in your spot, I must have done something wrong to be in my spot. And what of the wrong that the prosperous do? Why, it isn't wrong at all! It's class warfare to even suggest it!

I'm glad you like the voting-is-gay meme. Couldn't you just see it! Oh, I have a better one--let's spread the word that voting is black!

[Kanary]

50. Even more of a punch..... "Voting is gay-black-commie"

I think that about covers it..... :hi:

"And thus, that woman on the corner must have done something wrong that put her in that spot, "

Didn't the story of Lot kinda put that thesis to rest? Why are we still battling this 2000 years later? So many people slow on the uptake, or just going out of their way to be dense?

DAMNITALL! You've made me realize what my problem is/was....... I just wasn't "visualizing" properly...

~~guffaw~~

Kanary, who can't properly "visualize", because one eye is definitely shot.........

[scarletwoman]

59. "Take out the trash, then remodel the house"

You said: "I'm supposed to take out the trash for the DEMs, then quietly die, so they can remodel?"

No, you're NOT supposed "take out the trash for the DEMS", it's a call for ALL of us progressives to take out the trash (the bush* crime syndicate) for the good of the whole country!

And the "remodeling" is the work that ALL of us progressives are doing in order to bring progressive values and issues to the forefront of the national agenda. If bush* stays in power how far do you think that effort will go?

This is the call to action: In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out -- as we build grassroots networks and coalitions to hold the Kerry administration accountable to the progressive values and policies shared by most Americans.

Building grassroots networks and coalitions -- THAT'S the "remodeling". What else is there to do? Nothing is going to magically turn things around in this country overnight, it's going to take the longterm dedication of progressives willing to unite and work together to keep up the fight.

Personally, I'd much rather be fighting the good progressive fight with a Kerry administration than with the neo-fascists of the bush* administration. I tend to believe that our chances of success are significantly better with some relatively SANE people in power, as opposed to the INsane malefactors of bushco.

Paul Wellstone fought hard for people just like you, and HE was a DEMOCRAT.

sw

[Kanary]

64. Your wanting me to wait my turn means, most likely,

I won't be around to cash in on the pot at the end of that rainbow.

I have yet to see this demand issued with any assurance of just WHAT is being offered in the way of fighting for simple survival issues.

But, you've assured me in the past that my survival is of little consequence to you, so you don't need to remind me of that. That very assurance was so depressing to me, that it led to me realizing just how little I'm part of this party anymore..... the party I was loyal to for so many years.

You have *every* right to "fight the good progressive fight" with whoever you choose...... it would just be nice to remember that not everyone is in your situation. And those of us in different situations necessarily see it in a different way.

So, no, I'm not concerned with taking out the trash for others anymore...... unless and until they have the same concern for me.

Kanary

[pop goes the weasel]

77. you go, girl! n/t

[scarletwoman]

85. So, you think you'll get more help if bush* stays in power?

You want help. I want to you get that help.

I've been working my tail off for 3 years now in the effort to build up a strong progressive base in my state Democratic party. I've signed on for a long term effort, building up the grassroots, educating people about progressive issues, and holding our elected Dems' feet to the fire every way I can.

I have spent ALOT of time and money working for the progressive cause -- and I'm no "latte liberal", I'm a single mom from a blue-collar family. I've lived below the poverty line most of my life and even now just barely make ends meet -- I don't even have running water because I don't make enough money to afford to get a well drilled.

"Wait your turn"? Who's asking to you wait? Join the battle! Those of us fighting hard for the progressive cause can't give you a timeline, we can only give you our commitment to keep fighting.

If bush* wins the election it will make the fight that much harder -- is that what you want? To make it HARDER for us to fight for YOU?

sw

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Bush won't win if the Greens vote strategically.

. We are joining you in the battle, and we are truely holding the Dems accountable as well.

[scarletwoman]

103. We are on the same side!

I'm in a swing state, I don't have the luxury of voting Green (or for Kucinich, who was my REAL choice). I'm a progressive, heart and soul -- I do NOT like Kerry, but I WILL vote for him and encourage ALL progressives in swing states to do likewise, because the number one priority is that bushco HAS to go!

I'm a boots on the ground, fighting progressive -- which is precisely why I advocate voting strategically. I'll keep fighting long and hard, all I ask is that people not make it even harder to move the progressive agenda forward by allowing bushco to stay in power.

sw

[Classical_Liberal]

106. Ok, then what is the argument about?

That is precisely what the orginal article was advocating.

[pop goes the weasel]

118. They aren't paying attention

and they don't care that the political reality is different from state to state.

[Classical_Liberal]

I think when these threads get real long, some well intentioned

Dems just get confused. The early deliberate misunderstanders set the stage for it. They greens that buy the terms of the debate contribute to the problem too.

[scarletwoman]

120. I was arguing FOR what the original article was advocating.

In fact, I posted the same article BEFORE welshTerrier2 did, but my own thread sank. (weird how that works...)

It was in my own thread about this article that I used the phrase "Take out the trash FIRST and THEN remodel the house". Kanary, in this thread, took exception to that concept (and quoted that phrase), so I replied to her post with a defense of that idea.

I've been arguing for strategic voting ever since the primaries, and I've gotten used to getting flak from BOTH sides. From Greens who can't bear the thought of compromising their principles by voting for Kerry, and from Dems who frown on my less than enthusiastic view of the anointed one.

Meanwhile, I just keep plugging away... misunderstood... under-appreciated... *sniff* (j/k ;-) )

Thanks for a friendly exchange!

sw
:hi:

[Classical_Liberal]

122. I've had arguments with such greens too

. It's tough to fight a two front war. In addition my post tend to get ignored as well. Don't know why. Welshterrier is a good small talker, and maybe chats with alot of people off line.

[GreenPartyVoter]

128. I know what you mean about being unappreciated for pragmatic efforts.

Half the time I post something...anything... someone replies with "Four more wars! Four more wars!", so I know they didn't even read what I had written.

[Kanary]

114. As I keep saying, when people use the bushwa talking points on me

that ends it for me.

As I'm sure it does for others.

As does your assumption that I'm not currently "joining the battle".

You *REALLY* think that's how Dennis talks to people, and has built coalitions?

Dennis LISTENS to people, and demonstrates he cares about them. You might want to take a look at that.....

Amazing.....

buhbye.....

Kanary, sick to death of all the bushwa demands.....

[scarletwoman]

123. Why do you twist everything? I'm on the same side as you.

And you call me a bushwa?!?!

Pray tell, just which parts of my "fight for progressive issues" statements are "bushwa demands"?

[Kanary]

125. You didn't like that?

Well, well.......imagine that.....

Exactly how I felt when you used that crap on me about how I was going for bushwa....... I can't look up your exact quote with this window open, but you can look it up.

That crap closes discussion, and polarizes. I'm SICK TO DEATH OF IT, and certainly don't expect it of a Kucitizen.

That is the LAST thing that Dennis does.

Read back your words, and think about how that affects others. If Dennis talked like that, he never would have made it too where he is.

It's verbal violence, and I won't take it anymore.

Of course, you didn't even address the fact that I called you on your assumptions about me.

Think peace.

It works better.

[scarletwoman]

126. I made no assumptions about you.

I already know you live in Colorado, which is a swing state -- see list at: http://www.swing04.com/

In this thread, you've indicated your disgust with Kerry, which I agree with. You have also indicated that you might vote for Cobb.

All I've been doing is reiterating the points made in the original letter that started this thread -- that if you're in a swing state the progressive cause is better served by voting for Kerry, as unpalatable as it may be.

And, as long as you're invoking Kucinich, just bear in mind that HE has asked his supporters to vote for Kerry (whom he's just formally endorsed) as well.

Good luck,
sw

[Kanary]

129. Actually, you DID

You told me to get busy and "join the fight". As I said to you, you have NO idea what I'm doing or not doing. That is the same exact crap that the dlcers have been saying to people.

In actuality, it was a slap in the face to me. In spite of some very real health problems, I've spent a lot of effort and time working on campaigns. Would you like to apologize for that one now? Hounding the party loyals gains nothing.

You know NOTHING about my personal situation, which is why you have no business lecturing me about how I should be taking out the trash, and caring nothing about the state of the house. You've been doing much more than "reiterating the points of the article" -- you've been lecturing me. You might want to notice that I was enjoying some good conversations with a coupe of people, who were actually demonstrating some understanding and COMPASSION. You found it necessary to insert yourself into that to correct me, rather than to make an effort to understand what I might be dealing with, and creating any sort of alliance. I do NOT just jump when somebody says jump anymore...... I'm finally beyond that stage of life.

You seem to think that this is all just one big debate, something to win, rather than a chance to understand the thoughts of others.

That, in itself, is very UNDennis.

You can verbally win over me, but that doesn't mean anything positive has been accomplished. I would think we've all learned that very clearly from the last 3 1/2 years.

Kanary

[scarletwoman]

131. I've got nothing to apologize for.

You're the one twisting and distorting my words. My mistake was ever hoping to have a reasonable conversation with you -- so for THAT, I do apologize. I will refrain from making that mistake again.

Good night,
sw

[Kanary]

134. BWahahaha!

Now *THAT* was a good twist....

But, a good ending. Nothing productive, of course, but a good ending.

:)

buhbye...

Kanary

[Classical_Liberal]

69. There are only about 4 people like Paul Wellstone left in the Dems

Furthermore strategic voting in safe states will not elect Bush. Very few people who are reacting negatively actually read the original article.

[pop goes the weasel]

72. "Building grassroots networks and coalitions"

That's what the Greens are offering--a chance to build a coalition. They are encouraging their membership to vote for Kerry wherever voting for Kerry will make a difference in the outcome of the election. But instead of being appreciative of the Greens' generosity and savvy, some of the Democrats around here are furious that the Greens even exist.


Like Kanary, I'm glad I have the option of voting for the Greens, and I live in a state where Kerry is simply not going to win or spend any time. And Cobb is a Texan--what better slap in W's face than a good showing for the Texas Greens in Texas?

[Kanary]

78. The DEM party should be sending bouquets of thanks

to the Greens.

This is INDEED a gracious and generous move.

:toast: To The GREENS!

Kanary, who wishes she knew how to turn letters green....... :)

[Eric J in MN]

9. I want everyone to vote for John Kerry. Even in Texas, show

your support for the Democratic nominee.

[welshTerrier2]

12. earning their votes

the way elections are won is to build unity even where there is disagreement ...

to hope everyone will vote for John Kerry is a perfectly fine goal to have ... but wanting it does not bring it about ...

building bridges to those with differing views is what politics is all about ... Greens have been seeking a greater voice in the political process (inclusion in debates, IRV, proportional representation, election law changes) ... democrats don't need to make concessions on these issues ... but they should be willing to sit down with Greens to openly discuss them ...

it takes more than wishing; it takes work ...

[Eric J in MN]

18. Dennis Kucinich supports those things, and I voted for Kucinich, but

Kucinich didn't win.

This week, Kucinich endorsed John Kerry.

I think that now is the time for everyone who doesn't like Bush to support John Kerry.

[Kanary]

21. It's a good thing this is still the US of A, and not a dictatorship.....

........yet..........

Because that means that regardless of what anyone else "thinks", we still get to vote as we deem best.

Isn't that cool?

Kanary

[Eric J in MN]

24. Of course. I'm just expressing my opinon. (nt)

nt

[welshTerrier2]

25. but but but ...

i also voted for Kucinich ... Kucinich is a democrat ... Greens are not democrats ..

"You" think it is the time for everyone to support Kerry ... that's nice ... most Greens don't agree ... we need to start doing more than wanting and hoping we can build unity across the political spectrum ...

it's not so hard to sit down to discuss the issues ... of course there will be many strong disagreements ... but we'll get nowhere without an open dialog ... hostility is not going to achieve anything ... hope for support but work for unity ...

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Why should they do it in Texas

The dems won't win it anyway, and Kerry deserves a crack in the head for his support for the war.

[Eric J in MN]

20. Help Kerry's popular vote percent for a bigger mandate (nt)

nt

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Since Kerry supports the war, he doesn't deserve a bigger mandate

It would be a mandate for policies I disagree with. Voting for Cobb in safe states would create a true antiwar mandate. Kerry creates a prowar mandate, or a mandate that antiwar voters don't matter and will surrender if we give them no voice. I'll give Kerry no such mandate.

[Eric J in MN]

36. John Kerry also supports expanded health care, more taxes on the rich,

the environment, etc.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. So does Cobb

unlike Kerry, he is also against the Iraq war, for Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, National Health Insurance, the repeal of Taft Hartley, and a true Palestinian State on the West Bank. Voting for Cobb in a safe state would be a mandate for all those things, while still kicking George Bush in the tail.

[Kanary]

43. CORPORATE health care, postponing TRUE reforms..

Lets be honest here, the guy is CORPORATE, and that means .....

Well, you know what that means.....

Or, maybe you have interest in the corporations........?

Kanary

[Eric J in MN]

54. Was that directed at me?

Are you saying I want people to vote for Kerry because I adore corporations?

[stavka]

11. Thanks for sharing - reasonable and rational

My only concern is knowing what are safe states - I would say if a state is sure to go red (like 20pts spread) vote your favorite, but if there is any doubt, play it safe.

[oasis]

15. Help Dems win and get help for your agenda later on. Screw us and

your agenda will never be realized.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Out of curiosity, how much later on?

[Kanary]

22. ^_^

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Well, I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. I mean, the Greens have only

been around in this country since the 80s.

[Kanary]

26. YEs, it would be good to have a concrete answer,

so we know what to expect, since this demand is issued so often.

I *love* the way it's issued with no concern for what will be lost while we "wait".

About that Cobb....... :)

Kanary, thinking this "wait" should be put into a binding contract....... :hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Ah,. but if we start looking for anything concrete, we're "extotionists".

Kinda like those danged founding fathers who were all uppity about wanting representation and all that.

[Kanary]

30. Uppity Extortionists, Arise!

You have nothing to lose by that bitter DLC taste in your mouth....

:toast:

Kanary, going off to paint her new sign now...... :hi:

[Classical_Liberal]

32. Actually the DLCers are the true extortionist

They hate us and beat the shit out of us all the time then want our votes. It's like being a prison bitch. If we don't suck Bill, we'll have to deal with Harry, and he doesn't bathe as often.

[Kanary]

35. What a .........colorful....... image...... ^_^

ROTFLOLASTC!

"NOOOOOO, *NOT* Harry!" "*ANYBODY* but Harry!"

"Please, I'll do *anything* you say, just NOT HARRY!"

Kanary, shaking in her boots..... :)

[sangha]

146. You want an answer, or do you want to make points

The answer, as soon as you start helping Dems, the Dems will start helping you in the next election cycle. That's how it works in politics. Just ask Ralph.

[welshTerrier2]

150. a step in the right direction ?

does this meet your high standards as a good starting point:

In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out

[Classical_Liberal]

152. This poster is a prime example of the "I hate you but vote for me

anyway attitude." Doesn't ever listen to what anyone has to say. Never understands what strategic voting is, and always brings up Ralph Nader even when nobody else does.

[Classical_Liberal]

151. The Greens nominated Cobb, not Nader.

I voted for Gore, and helped Gore, and I will vote Kerry because I live in a swing state. They have not helped me thus far. It is also true that if you settle for politicians you don't agree with those politicians will ignore you.

I think you didn't read the original article, and thus you are completely projecting when you claim Greens are more interested in points than talking.

[oasis]

46. "Out of curiosity, how much later on?" Answer:Sooner than you will with W.

Play ball with the Dems and at least you stay in the game.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. By voting for him in swing states we are playing ball with the DLC

We are just not allowing them to run the game, or define the rules. I am not going to call them Dems, because I think most of them were moderate repukes.

[Kanary]

52. Have you *REALLY* looked at what you're telling people with this?

If you were to listen to your own words, you might understand why so many aren't buying your demands.

"Play ball with the Dems and at least you stay in the game."

What a lovely, impersonal, uncaring *threat*.

How 'bout just spending some time pondering that.... bet you can come up with a bit of empathy, if you do....

Kanary

[oasis]

62. I have "empathy" for the millions of people that will be hurting worldwide

with a Bush win in 2004.

You guys had your shot in 2000.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. If we vote strategically he will not win in 2004

You're words are meaningless. Dems had their shot in 2004 too. You never read the original article, and aren't even talking to any of us.

[Kanary]

67. "You guys"?

Are you some class set apart?

[oasis]

76. Not a "class set apart": a mind set apart. A winning mindset.

[Kanary]

80. BWAHAHAHA!

A little ego there?

Y'know, you've just revealed a whole lot about what's going on with this party....... the Greens have set aside not just their ego, but, in some cases, their past efforts, just to build a stronger coalition to dig out this country.

And you show the immense ego of dismissing any but your own ideas.

Y'know....... Kinda like bushwa did to the rest of the world ..........

.....and you know how the rest of the world feels about him now......

Maybe you could put your beautiful mind to work on that one..?

Kanary

[oasis]

82. No not really. Just being realistic. We likely have the same goals but

have a different approach on how to get there. My way is faster. Trust me. :-)

[Classical_Liberal]

89. Kerry will still win

if Greens and progressives vote strategically.

[oasis]

99. If Greens are embraced and promoted in a "safe state" what's to

stop them from appealing to voters in another state?

[Classical_Liberal]

102. The Party punished Nader for his suicide bomb election strategy

by nominating Cobb.

[oasis]

112. Dean, Cobb, Comejo. I'm willing to listen.....after Nov 2.

[pop goes the weasel]

107. That is so funny!

Look, the Greens don't have a lot of money. What they do have, they are going to spend only in "safe" states that are firmly in the pockets of either Kerry or Uncurious George. What does that mean? They'll be getting out some flyers and a few brochures. Beware the brochure! Run, run from the horror of the desktop published flyer!

[oasis]

110. Correct, that's why I don't want them to graduate from the "flyers" stage

to getting a real foothold. :think:

[Classical_Liberal]

113. I want them to get a real foothold if I don't see a change in the dems

. They need to build a movement, then eventually they can make the dems feel guilty about playing spoiler. I am looking at a replacement strategy.

[pop goes the weasel]

124. The Democrats are in danger

of the same fate the Whigs met when their disgusted members left to join the upstart Republican party. The way to stop people from leaving is not to piss and moan and censor, but to actually engage the issues and stand for something. The more Party defenders whine and berate the Greens, the better the Greens look to a lot of people.

I know many people who I can not get to vote for Kerry even if he were to promise free kethcup for a lifetime, but I have a shot at getting them to vote Green. And I like the Greens, I like what they stand for. So you bet that, here in the safe state of Texas, I will urge those folks to vote Green rather than stay home or vote Republican. I am not above urging a vote for the Libertarians either. Do what you have to do in your state, and I'll do what I have to do in mine.

(edited because I was crabbing at the wrong person. Sorry, CL)

[Kanary]

109. My "Goal" is SURVIVAL

You have the luxury of playing around with head games.

Trust you? When you have expressed no concern for me?

I think not.

Thank you for playing.

Kanary

[welshTerrier2]

19. so your "Open Letter" says:

you screw with us and we'll squash you like the powerless little ants you are ...

do you believe your approach will result in more votes for Kerry than the approach taken in the letter from the Greens ???

[oasis]

44. Your either with us or not. It's just that simple. You are aware of the

gravity of this election?

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Yes, which is why we are advocating this in safe states only

. I don't believe the republicans will be more moderate in 2008 so the next election will not be less important. That doesn't mean we have to suck you off forever, or now for that matter.

[oasis]

58. Play ball with Dems in 2004 and you can stay in the game.

[GreenPartyVoter]

61. Not true. Are you aware that if enough Greens do not vote for their

own candidate some state parties will not make their % necessary to remain alive?

So, if you are going to let us "stay in the game", are you saying that Dems will help the Greens get the signatures they will need to get those state parties back among the living?

[oasis]

70. I predict a movement to the left after a Dem win in 2004. This will be

to the benefit of environmentalists and social progressives. The Green Party can only thrive under such conditions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

74. I certainly hope so! But I still feel we would be better off with multiple

in the long run. That way if one left-leaning party starts to run for the middle, there is a viable alternative to step into its shoes.

[oasis]

96. I think the Dean movement will help to keep Dems honest from now on.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. I would have predicted that after are terrible loss in 2002

running a bloodless dlc campaign, and it didn't happen, but I hope your right. IN fact the green party will die if the dems move left, but that would be alright with me under the circumstances.

[oasis]

84. We can work for change under less restrictions with a new administration.

And I'm ready and willing to do just that.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. You'll get a new admininstration if Greens vote strategically

You'll also have more of a motivation to change since a strong showing for greens in safe states will show dems, that Green issues are popular.

[Kanary]

71. I kinda doubt that

It doesn't appear that many of their "deals" are anything other than one-sided.......

You know....... kinda like working for a really demanding boss....

Kanary, who deeply respects the Greens for their committment

[Classical_Liberal]

63. WE are playing ball with the dems

They will still win if we vote for them in swing states. You don't get to decide how the game is played though. You don't deserve a mandate for an agenda that isn't really ours.

[oasis]

86. Let's crush the foe together.

:thumbsup:

[Classical_Liberal]

119. NO argument

but by voting strategically we are doing precisely that.

[Kanary]

56. I just *LOVE* have Dems throw that bushwa demand at me.....

:thumbsdown:

[oasis]

90. A bourgeois demand from a friend or a Bush demand from Ashcroft.

Take your pick. ;-)

[Classical_Liberal]

97. If you don't suck Bill you have to suck Harry

See what I mean about the dems treating progressives like their prison bitches.


I refuse such a choice. So I will give Kerry victory, but I won't give him a mandate.

He will know that he lost voters in safe states because he pandered to the right wing. He will know progressive issues are really popular.

[oasis]

105. The Dean movement has demonstrated that the "status quo gotta go"

Kerry would be silly not to have taken note of that. We'll see how it turns out.

I wish you good luck in your endeavor. :-)

[Classical_Liberal]

117. They will have to actually get candidates elected before they do

that. Kerry is already ignoring them.

[Kanary]

111. It's the same

And I have yet to see any "friendliness" from you..... just demands.

You have a really weird concept of politics.... it's all supposed to go your way.

I suggest you run for an office, actually delve into politics, and learn from the seat of your pants what politics means.

Clearly, the word "alliances" has no meaning for you.

You don't get far that way.

Kanary

[welshTerrier2]

57. how does hostility recognize the gravity of the election ...

the essential point is that the Greens calling for many of their supporters to vote for Kerry DOES recognize the gravity of the election ...

your alienating hostility in the face of this Green pragmatism fails to reflect an understanding of this election's gravity ...

we need every vote we can get ... the Open Letter goes a long way to getting many Greens to vote for Kerry in the most critical areas ... your approach, if broadly followed, would do nothing but deepen the divide between the parties ...

[oasis]

93. My concern is the dividing of votes. I'll deal with "the divide between

parties" when the election is done. If Bush wins then we will really have a "deepening" of the divide.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. Kerry will still get elected, but he will do it knowing that

many progressives are mad at him for moving right. You'll be more likely to deal with this issue if progressives vote for progressive in states where it doesn't harm Kerry. It will prove progressivism has a mainstream base.

[oasis]

100. Kerry had to "move right" to win. After 2004, different story. Look for

a turn left.

[Classical_Liberal]

108. I don't believe that

The war is not popular. It is even less popular with Independent voters than with Dems and republicans. Furthermore Dean pretty much proved that Dems who criticize Bush move the electorate left on this issue. The public has backed Bush because of politician timidity. People who like the war are not in anyway swing voters. They will vote for Bush. DLCers always make such claims and their candidates govern just as right as the run. He didn't have to run right, that is just where he is at politically.

[oasis]

115. Believe what you will. Kerry has a record that reads left. He's a savvy

politician and that's why he's in the driver's seat.

[Classical_Liberal]

121. He didn't lead left on the war, or on a Palestinian state

or on any other National Security Issue, atleast not since the BCCI scandal in the 80s. He won because he is the least offensive to the defense industry backed hawks, and to corporate America, and because our system is corrupted by money from both those groups.

[sandnsea]

31. END the split country bullshit

If you guys would all vote Kerry and give him a huge majority in the overall popular vote, huge majorities in blue states, clear majorities in swing states, and a good close race in red states; that would END the split country bullshit and start a push back to the left. THAT would do more for your agenda than any single thing you could possibly do on your own. IMHO.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. It will do nothing for our agenda, since Kerry isn't persuing our

agenda. It is important to get rid of Bush but Kerry isn't our friend and he doesn't want to be. He wants to shut us up. He wants to marginalize us and make sure our issues aren't on the mainstream agenda.

[Kanary]

41. And, he's succeeded, as evidenced by the platform........

I think we're *under* the planks somewhere.......

Kanary

[welshTerrier2]

39. well, about "MY" agenda

some great phrases you used there ...

first, you offered: if YOU GUYS would all vote Kerry ... later you had: THAT would do more for YOUR agenda ...

well, first of all, I'M A DEMOCRAT !! got that ?? i'm a democrat who has listened to many other democrats and their obnoxious, divisive attacks on Greens (not categorizing your post this way) ... I thought it might be useful to post what I thought was something positive ... let's read it again together, shall we? In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out ... nothing but more criticism was forthcoming ...

let's take a look at the democratic party and see if they made any statements whatsoever that might appeal to Greens ... personally, I don't recall any ... i hope i'm wrong ... so here we have Greens telling many people in their own party to vote for Kerry, but that's still not good enough ... you seem to want the Greens to tell all their voters to vote for Kerry ... but i doubt your argument will convince any Greens to do so ... the Open Letter balanced pragmatism with beliefs ... your goal of unity is right on the money; but your means to achieving it seems to lack a plan ...

[Classical_Liberal]

45. I think you are giving them too much credit in believing their claim

that they want unity. What they really want is to intimidate as many pragmatic progressives as possible into voting for them, and piss on them for eight years, thus marginalizing the progressive agenda. That is what they wanted to do to Deaniacs as well. They really don't want Greens or progressives or their ideas to have a voice in mainstream politics. They would love it if we would drop out and become apolitical like Hippies.

[welshTerrier2]

66. One of "THEM" is "ME"

I'm not suggesting that your point was that all democrats make false claims when they state the importance of unity on the left ...

but I do want to be clear that I'm a democrat and I've worked for Kerry and given a pile of money to Kerry ... there are many issues I don't agree with Kerry on ... I hated his vote for war regardless of how some here want to characterize that vote ... paint it any way you want, he certainly didn't stand up like Byrd and Kennedy did and say "no f**king way" ...

on the other hand, it would be madness to not do all you can to help Kerry beat bush ... madness ... i don't care what party you're in ... i don't care if you vote for Cobb in a safe state ... i don't care if you give money to Cobb and work for Cobb ... but this year is not an ordinary year ... bush has got to go ... and anyone who says "i'll vote for Kerry but I won't help him" is being irrational ... it's crazy ... you cannot let your lukewarm (or worse) feelings about Kerry limit your efforts to get rid of bush ...

i keep highlighting this line from the Open Letter ... i worry that it will get lost but it's critically important ... In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out ... Greens need to "do the right thing" not because Democrats have earned their respect or their trust ... they just plain need to do the right thing ...

[Classical_Liberal]

81. I'm a registered Democrat too

and I live in a swing state, and will probably involve myself in get out the vote campaigns for him, but I am hanging on by a thread. I had some hope with the Dean movement, and hope he does become the goldwater of the Dems, but if I don't see that happening in the next 3 yrs I will definately be looking at becoming a green.

By them, I meant the dlc dems.

[welshTerrier2]

88. that's about where I'm at ...

i voted for Kucinich ... was thinking of going Green AFTER November ... but the new organization being formed, Progressive Democrats of America, will get me to take a second look at sticking with the Democrats ...

I'm not sure I can attend but there's a meeting in Roxbury, MA (i live in Mass) of the PDA ... speakers: Dean, Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Conyers and lots of other "democratic wing of the democratic party" types ... the goal is to regain control of the party and move it to the left ...

yeah, dlc dems ... thanks for the clarification ...

[sandnsea]

156. Would you know?

Would you care? Anybody who says John Kerry has nothing to offer Greens doesn't know John Kerry or is more interested in their own spin against Dems than to learn the truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. A good plan for progressives.

Cobb has my vote.

[Kanary]

42. Cobb question......... how can one find out

in which states he is running?

I looked at the website, but could find no info.......

If this is an "improper question", feel free to PM me.

TIA!

Kanary

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Maybe you should email their campaign.

.

[welshTerrier2]

53. and the rest of the plan ?

well, i'll ask you the same question ...

part of the plan says: In this crucial election year, we encourage progressives to work tirelessly to vote Bush out

so, are you following the whole plan or just the voting for Cobb part?

coalitions are about compromise and building alliances ... I commend the Open Letter for the sense of balance it offers ... I hope the democrats respond in kind ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Well, I'm a Democrat voting for a Green.

For prez. Voting Democrat for my anti-war senator and congressman. Sounds "balanced" to me.

[mitchtv]

132. Spell that B U S H

.

[Classical_Liberal]

142. meaningless slogan

How does strategic voting spell Bush?

[mike_c]

73. a Californian for Cobb here....

I'd have voted for Kucinich in a skinny minute, but never for Kerry.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. I'd say, Just make sure your "safe" state is pretty damn safe.

Look what happened last time.

[welshTerrier2]

91. works for me !!

absolutely ... this voting strategy is only reasonable where there is virtually no chance of a last minute change ...

fwiw, the "look what happened last time" really doesn't apply ... Florida was not a "safe" state for either Gore or bush ... and unlike the "enlightened Greens" who signed the Open Letter, Nader did not understand that he should not have been on the ballot in competitive states ...

the situation now is much better at least as far as the Greens go ... Cobb will not compete in "swing" states ... I wish Nader had the same class and vision ...

[Classical_Liberal]

92. There was no safe state strategy last time

Nader campaigned in known swing states like Wisconsin, Florida, and New Hampshire, and the greens didn't advocate one either. Nader won't run a safe state strategy this time either, but the greens, thank god, have ditched him. He is just another branch of the Mafia, who says we have "no alternative" but to vote for him. There is alternative to him too. His name is David Cobb. He is a green, but he advocates strategic voting. He represents the greens becoming a serious political movement.

[neverborn]

133. Why not Badnarik ;)

[Classical_Liberal]

143. He is a libertarian right winger, and I wouldn't vote for him but

I would contribute money to him in order to split the republican vote. Look if the republicans are funding nader with that reasoning, Lefties and Dems can certainly do the same thing to the republicans.

[neverborn]

144. I like Badnarik.

[rasputin1952]

157. Cobb, Nader, et al, ad nauseum have no chance to do anything...

except enable bush.

This entire diatribe is absurd, and people should, in all honesty realize that Kerry/Edwards is the team to beat bush. All of this "conscience" vote is fine, if you feel that way...what you will get, is 4 more years of a lame duck bush presidency that will make the last 3 1/2 years look like the Garden of Eden.

You have NO IDEA what you will get with 3rd party candidates, that cannot work w/Congress...you know you will get 4 years of complete horror if bush is returned to office...at least w/Kerry there is hope that things can START to get changed back to a better America. To look at this any other way is self delusionary........OK rant over. Feel free to flame me is you are so inclined....:)

[DaveSZ]

158. I'm a Texas progressive who is not a Dem or Green

Bush will take this state without a doubt.

I have not decided If I am voting for Kerry or Cobb, but since Kerry picked Edwards I am leaning towards Kerry/Edwards.

Edwards talked about poverty and those kinds of issues in the primaries, and he has lived it also. At the very least we may be able to get a good Dem in there after Kerry.

Kerry does have some Repub positions like shafta (good name!), support for Sharon, and "stay the course" on Iraq.

He does on the other hand have the best environmental record in the Senate, and that's important to me too.

I won't vote Nader since he is taking GOP money and help from anti-gay groups.

If I lived in a swing state, there's no doubt I would vote for Kerry/Edwards, but since I don't, I have the luxury of voting for whom I think will be best.

[reprehensor]

159. bump for the original article

Get Bush out, then work like the Devil to either:

a) Transform the Democratic party from the grassroots up with progressive candidates.

or

b) Join the Green party after the November elections and encourage others to do so, and show the DLC who's boss in the mid-terms.

That's the way I see it. I'm not crazy about Kerry, but a continued reign of Bush would pretty much destroy the American Middle Class, transform this country into a nation of WAL-MARTs and the oligarchy will be set in stone. Then there will be no chance for peaceful transformation of the American polity.

[DaveSZ]

160. Ok, I've decided

Kerry's environmental initiatives are truly amazing, so he will get my vote!

Read his forests plan here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/environment/

Bush wants to log all of our national forests, so we can't let him do that.

We'll still have to rally Kerry to bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq soon of course.

[Moderator]

161. Locking......

From the rules:

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#election

The goal of this website is to see George W Bush removed
from the White House. This post appears to advocate
voting for a 3rd party in "safe states." If you want
further guidance regarding DU rules re the 2004 election,
please ask them in the Ask The Administrators Forum.


Thank you.


DU Moderator