Looks like Nader won't run but Camejo will

[messiah]

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:07:24 -0800
From: Jo Chamberlain <joc@p...>
To: GPCA-CC <gpca-cc@g...>
Subject: Peter Camejo Runs for President

All,

Just got off the phone with Peter Camejo.

Peter Camejo is asking the GPCA to place him on the March 04 primary
ballot for President. Peter requests this upon hearing that Ralph
Nader removed his name. As all of you know Peter believes that a
final run for President by Ralph Nader is need to fight against the
attacks on the Ralph Nader and the Green Party by the Democratic
Party, and to have an effective campaign against the politics and
platform of George Bush. Peter has repeatedly pointed out that the
Democrats have been supporting GB's actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont know if this is true or not but if it is :):):):).

[jenk]

1. screw the greens

yesterdays news, a party that peaked in 2000 with 2.7%

give it up already.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. 4 more years of Bush!

That really is great news!:eyes:

Just because the Republicans aren't stupid enough to throw away their vote on a third party candidate doesn't mean we can't be!

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Skwmom]

2. This primary process has convinced me that

we are in desperate need of a viable third party.

[KissMyAsscroft]

5. Well, ya know what

That thrid party is never going to happen with Repubs in power.

Step 1) Remove Repugs

Step 2) Install Dems

Step 3) Maybe you can think about a 3rd party that is left leaning.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. He may be a centrist, but he's a *metrosexual* centrist!

The same policies all dressed up to look fabulous!

[ShimokitaJer]

38. Then again, there's always plan B

1) Disband the Democratic party

2) Watch the Republican party split into rival factions

3) Watch the left leaning anti-corporatists that the Democratic leadership has actively suppressed gain more traction in a party including some former Republicans than they ever could while the Democratic party was in charge

The problem is only partially that we currently have the wrong party in charge. The bigger problem is that we ALWAYS have only one of two parties to choose from.

[durutti]

101. And It Will w/ Dems?

How's that? How is their stance any different in relation to the third party question?

Immediately after Bernie Sanders got elected (as an Independent), Democrats got him to meet with them. Essentially, they bullied him into not starting a national third party. They also got him to support the continuous war on Iraq.

He's now sits on the Democratic side of the aisle, and the Vermont party discourages Democrats from running against him.

[messiah]

12. I agree

[burr]

4. Do you have any idea how many states their candidate will be on ballot?

If so..will the Green ticket be on the same state ballots or more as in 2000?

[bluestateguy]

6. Camejo for Bush's running mate?

That's the equivalent of what he would be doing.

This is serious business in 2004. It's not 2000 anymore. There are life or death issues at stake here, and there is not the time for the luxury of ideologically "pure" zealots and self-promoters like this fool.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. Vote FOR the Iraq War, vote FOR the PATRIOT Act - vote Democratic!

Now I'm no Green, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green party. But let's be honest okay? If you support the war in Iraq, and you support the PATRIOT Act, you will be quite happy voting Democratic, since most Democrats support the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

[library_max]

59. That makes no sense at all.

Name me the candidates that support the war in Iraq. No, not votes on IWR, that was a different issue, about holding Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire to make him cooperate with the inspectors. Name me the Democratic candidates who now support the war in Iraq. Then name me the Democratic candidates who support the PATRIOT Act. Most of them? Not.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. As many as supported the bombing of Iraq under Clinton for years?

I see, you want "supported the war" but not "voted for the war"? When Democrats had the opportunity to vote against the war and against the PATRIOT act, by and large they didn't. Except for Kucinich of course.

[durutti]

102. Saying vs. Doing

What they say isn't necessarily what they really believe.

And as for your question, Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt all support the war. That's most of the candidates. The same goes for the PATRIOT Act.

[library_max]

107. Check their websites.

Kerry, at least, does not support the war.

[sexybomber]

73. Most Democrats were lied to and pressured into voting for that s*** (n/t)

[Don Claybrook]

29. Peter Camejo is nobody's fool

You could disabuse yourself of this notion by doing a little reading about the man.

[MessiahRp]

44. Actually he was...

the only candidate I liked from the California Recall, but the newscasters never wanted him to have a legit shot.

I like the guy, but after last time and considering what Bush has done to the country running for 5% of the vote that would hurt Bush is a bad idea this time around. That 5% effectively then hurts Dems because they are that much shorter in the race against the Corporate Liar.

Rp

[pnb]

90. You've got to love it...

...Anyone who is dissatisfied with the two major parties and sees an alternative that better represents their beliefs is an ideological zealot.

Jeez...

[eileen_d]

7. Yes, NOW is the time to fight the Democratic Party!

</sarcasm>

Whatever. The Greens have a right to run their candidate for president. I have a right to ignore their candidate, which I will.

[Bucky]

85. Ignore? never. Denounce? sorta

I don't think I'm oppressing the Greens or denying their right to run simply by pointing out the rather obvious fact that each vote for Nader/Camejo is effectively half a vote for Bush.

I do kinda wonder if Pat Buchanan could declare himself a Green, get all his nutty followers to do for the Greens do what they did for Perot's party.

(edited for coloration)

[Wickerman]

8. why not

he got a couple of points in the Cali recall where he is well known. He'll go blockbusters this late in the game nationwide. :eyes:

[kalazh]

9. You know what

I was a strong supporter of Greens but after what they did to our country by stealing votes from Gore and electing Bush I hate them and would never vote for them. Nader only focused on his personal agenda and never saw the bigger picture. We can't afford the split in democratic votes. I can't see Nader's ugly face after he pushed to be on ballots in 2000.

[murielm99]

17. Huh?

I think the Bushies stole the votes from Gore, not the Greens. The Supreme Court had a hand in it, too. The Greens did not really get that many votes. Gore still had more of the peoples' votes, and the Supremes ignored that.

[library_max]

60. 97,000 voted for Nader in Florida.

If five or ten percent of those had voted for Gore instead, Florida would have been unstealable.

[pnb]

92. Stealing?!?

Offering an alternative is akin to stealing?!? How dare someone run for president who is not your candidate, huh?

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Ah, sweet verdant vanity

There's nothing like a perfectionist in a barfight, except perhaps an epicurian quibbling during a famine...

[Don Claybrook]

31. This sounds like dilution of essence to me

Pragmatism has its place, and so does idealism.

[PurityOfEssence]

79. Maybe, but Green is the color you turn before you ralph all over the place

Not understanding when the stakes are so obviously high is ridiculous impracticality. Yes, we're defined by our extremes, and yes, the essential values of the Greens are more than just commendable.

I seriously question the motives of many Greens in the face of being spoilers to allow the final anschluss the country: their primary motivator is vanity.

[John_H]

11. Ralph not to run? Great news for America!

and, though most are probably too wacked to realize it, it's great news for the Greens too. Camejo may be a non-factor, but Drug Stock Ralph would have put them away for good.

[w4rma]

13. So, he'll help do for the nation what he helped do for California. (n/t)

[ErasureAcer]

14. I will be happy to vote for Camejo if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination!

We need strong leaders with a vision for the country...not Bush-lite.

[Hep]

19. HA!

So you're saying Bush is better than Bush lite. Whatever floats your boat!

[LeahMira]

47. Not laughing here...

So you're saying Bush is better than Bush lite. Whatever floats your boat!

Nope. YOU are saying that you don't think the Democratic candidate (who ever that may be) doesn't have what it takes to send Bush back to Texas.

If you don't think that the Democratic candidate can get better than 51% of the votes, then your concern about the Green vote is understandable. Has the word "landslide" entered into your vocabulary?

There's something about prophecies... they tend to be self-fulfilling.

This election shouldn't even be close. Shall we count the ways that the Bush administration has messed up the country? Why on earth should any Democrat imagine that their party's candidate can't appeal to the overwhelming majority of voters?

The only reason I can think of is that you really think of all the candidates as "Bush lites."

So, damn! If the Democrats can't give voters a real choice, whose fault would that be? The voters for voting Green... or the Democrats for putting up a "Bush lite" candidate?

[RichM]

49. Excellent point. I agree completely.

[library_max]

63. Yes.

It's not as if Bush has any supporters. It's not as if he has all the advantages in fundraising. It's not as if the media is on his side. It's not as if he's the incumbent or something.
<sarcasm off>

Wake up! 2004 is not going to be a cakewalk. It is not going to be a landslide. Just to begin with, the electorate is going to have a hell of a time admitting its mistake in supporting Bush at 80+ percent after 9/11, and admitting its mistake in supporting the invasion of Iraq. Admitting mistakes is never easy. Plus, Bush automatically has every moron in the country on his side, and that's not a small percentage of the voting population.

We're going to need every damn vote we can get in 2004. This is not the time for another indulgence in ideological purity.

[info being]

70. Me too

But most Dems on this board aren't rational, and will just whine instead.

[Hep]

50. sense of humor transplant, STAT

Nope. YOU are saying that you don't think the Democratic candidate (who ever that may be) doesn't have what it takes to send Bush back to Texas.

Doesn't matter if he has what it takes. He needs votes. Anyone entering the race claiming theres no difference between D and R will be my sworn enemy.

If you don't think that the Democratic candidate can get better than 51% of the votes, then your concern about the Green vote is understandable. Has the word "landslide" entered into your vocabulary?

51% of the votes? What are you talking about? Do you live in this country? When's the last time a winning candidate got 51% of the vote? It's about the electoral college. It's about endangering our advantage in liberal parts of the country.

But I'll say it again, just for you. If anyone runs a third party candidate that tries to draw votes from the left by claiming there's no difference between the D's and the R's, they will be on the same side as Bush himself in my eyes.

[Don Claybrook]

52. But what if it's not so black and white?

What if a third party candidate ran on the basis not that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but that there's too little difference between the two? Would that change anything for you?

[Hep]

55. OF course not

What if a third party candidate ran on the basis not that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but that there's too little difference between the two? Would that change anything for you?

Nope. It's still false.

Bottom line, if you take votes from those farther on the left, you force D's to move right to get votes. And then you'll bitch that the D has abandoned you.

[Iverson]

56. cause-effect problem

If you move to the right and then lose support as a consequence, it makes no sense to claim that the future loss of support caused the move to the right.

[Hep]

58. What?

The votes have to come from somewhere. If we're not going to get them from the left (remember 2000) then we're going to have to appeal to the center. The party never kicked people out of it. Those people left the party. And what do they have to show for it? The DLC as the primary D voice.

[Don Claybrook]

61. I have an idea

Democrats could work at harvesting votes from THE LEFT. Why do you suppose the Green Party exists in the first place?

[library_max]

64. Running left in a presidential election doesn't work.

It's been tried many times, and it NEVER works.

[Hep]

72. I know

And I know why. It's because a majority of the people in this party and in this country are not as far left as the greens. They want what they want and they're willing to risk four more years of Bush to get it. And what do they get? The satisfied feeling of having voted for their idealogical match. That's a lot more important than healthcare.

[aldian159]

88. Neither does running right

look at Goldwater in 64

Gotta win the middle, duh.

Edit for spelling.

[Hep]

69. What good will it do?

With assholes like Nader running around, what makes you think the D party CAN get votes from the left? At this point, they'd just look insincere if they tried. The D party will show you where they reside when the primaries roll around. Kucinich will lose, if not only because Greens can't vote in the D primary. Too bad...

The point is this. If you want a more liberal D party, JOIN THE FREAKING PARTY.

[Don Claybrook]

86. I'm not registered with the Freaking Party--never heard of it

But I am a registered Democrat. Are you surprised, Mr. Lockstep?

[Hep]

91. Good for you!

If' you're registered D, then you actually still have a say in the party. I'm so proud of you!

*pats head*

[Don Claybrook]

105. Condescension doesn't seem to be your strong suit

I think you have other skills that suit you better. And yeah, I was aware of what say I had in the Democratic Party long before you graciously gave me leave to think for myself.

Now that we've dispensed with that, would you mind giving me a hand? See, the cool thing about a big tent is that it's still a tent, and therefore portable to some extent. Would you mind grabbing that corner of the thing and helping me to move it over here toward the left some? Thanks.

[Iverson]

62. other way around

The DLC began its ascendancy in the mid '80s. Your cause-and-effect are still inverted.

Also, I never have argued that the Democratic Party formally kicked people out. That is silly. The real matter is that it shifted to the right. This, obviously, inspires in some lefties a belief that perhaps the party isn't representing the interests of the left so much.

The DLC's Blueprint magazine rather straightforwardly champions the approach that I just described to you, so it should not seem controversial.

[Hep]

74. You'r egoing to have to get used

to the fact that you are in a tiny minority on the left. You have to come to terms with the fact that byb far most people are not as liberal as you are, or I am for that matter. Whether we're talking about people in general or just people on the left, you're at the extreme. You might have dreams in your head of taking over the D party like the religious right did the R party, but the religious right didn't have their OWN party when it happened.

If all you are going to do is abandon the D party and shout at and insult the people you need to court, then expect right wing rule for the rest of our lives. If you want a more liberal D party, stop being lazy and get involved in the D party.

[Iverson]

75. non sequitur

I am well aware of where my opinions stand in relation to the average citizen. I do not need you to point that out to me.

Your speculation about dreams in my head and so on is unwarranted personal commentary.

Your comments about my abandoning the Democratic Party show an inattention to our immediate previous comments about cause-and-effect, which, speaking of abandoment, you suddenly have stopped addressing.

Your comment about my being lazy is an inappropriate personal attack. I predict that you will get away with it, however.

Have a bipartisan day.

[Hep]

77. hardly

I am well aware of where my opinions stand in relation to the average citizen. I do not need you to point that out to me.

So why this claim that the D party has moved to the right? They're already to the right of YOU. Are you claiming that at some point the D party was right where you are now?

Your comments about my abandoning the Democratic Party show an inattention to our immediate previous comments about cause-and-effect, which, speaking of abandoment, you suddenly have stopped addressing.

I've not stopped addressing it. Bottom line is that there is no absolute. Chicken v egg. You're convinced you're right and I'm convinced I'm right.

So tell me, are you a registered D? If no, were you ever? And if so, when did you switch?

Have a bipartisan day? NO thanks.

[Padraig18]

25. You'll get a strong leader

You'll get 4 more years of Bush. Happy? :eyes:

[The Sushi Bandit]

78. Im with you!!

nm

[Renew Deal]

118. Geroge Bush thanks you

:shrug:

[Blitz]

89. What do you think

Kucinich's chances of securing the Democratic nomination are? 50%? 30%? What? Just curious.

Oh, and if you are kind enough to answer that question, please answer this one:

What do you think Camejo's chances of being elected President as the Green party candidate are? Again, in percentage points, please.

[Cat Atomic]

15. Call the Greens anything you like, but you can't say they're

apathetic about politics. They're paying attention, and they see the importance of removing Bush from office as well as anyone else. What's more, Bush's presidency has made Nader's claim that "both parties are the same" seem pretty ridiculous.

Every Green I know is voting for the Democratic candidate in next year's presidential election.

I really doubt Camejo is going to make much of a splash.

[library_max]

65. Excellent! Thank You!

That's the spirit! :toast:

[Padraig18]

67. The few Greens I know...

... are ABB this time around. They realize that there is a clear, positive difference between our 'worst' candidate and *. If I were camejo, I wouldn't waste a dollar or a minute on IL-- the well is dry here.

[mot78]

16. The Greens are getting desperate

runner a state-level spoiler in a national election.:eyes: It least he won't even get 1%.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. He won't do as much damage as Ralph

but I think it's sad that the Greens can't wait until the shrub is gone before they run a candidate. 2004 is not the time to try and make a statement about the 2 party system. We can only hope that most of the Greens know what the shrub will do if re-elected. He is 100 times worse than any Dem would be, they have to know that, right? :mad:

[MadHound]

46. You know in_cog, its not about "making a statement". . .

Its about building a party. The Dems have made it perfectly clear over the past twenty years that all they care about is what their corporate masters tell them to care about. Honestly now, do you think ANY Democrat worth his mule would have voted for the IWR, the 87 billion to continue it, the Patriot Act, set about tearing apart the social safety net with so called welfare "reform", fought and won the battle to allow even more corporate media monopoly, and whole laundry list of such garbage back in the seventies and earlier? These so called Dems that we have today, with a FEW exceptions are nothing more than corporate whores dressed up in Democratic clothes.

The only difference between the Dems and the 'Pugs in modern politics is not whether we're going to go over the cliff edge, it is simply a difference of how fast we will get there.

The Greens are fighting to make a real difference in our political system, and if you don't like that too bad. Most of us are disgruntled Dems who tried for a long time to make changes from within the party, but got kicked to the curb by Clinton and his DLC buddies. So now we have a party that actually represents us, and judging by how the Dems are going, we have a chance of overtaking them within a few years. If the Dems don't wish to become dinosaurs on the political landscape then they had better stop listening to the siren song of corporate money. But with the judging by the greed of it's leadership, and the blind faith of it's follower, that's not going to happen soon.

Just don't be pissed at the Greens when you wake up one day and find out you're following the Republicrats. We tried to warn you, you just won't listen.

[library_max]

66. Right.

Because there was no difference worth mentioning between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[ShaneGR]

20. There go the Greens, doing the Devils work for GWB

What a pathetic leadership group the greens have. More bent on ego and personnel goals then the building of a national party.

[Iverson]

21. no

Pathetic leadership is more nearly accomplished by those who give Bush a blank check for preventive invasion, who stand "shoulder to shoulder" with him in the Rose Garden or in Congress, who sell out the Congressional Black Caucus, who enable him in policies such as bankruptcy "reform," who simply agree in policy such as economic globalization.

I cannot accept your estimation of Green activities or policies as an informed one. Your notes suggest someone who simply opposes reflexively and so will say anything that soothes that preconception.

Carry on.

[ShaneGR]

22. Whatever Iverson

If you want to re-elect Bush, go ahead.

[Iverson]

23. totally, dude

I want something different, actually. That's why I support different ideas, not just a different capital letter.

[Hep]

28. You want something different

So you're voting for the person LEAST likely to get elected.

Well, I suppose we all have to get used to disappointment.

[Don Claybrook]

37. Forgive them, Iverson, for they know not what they do

And to keep in the same biblical vein, keep on fighting the good fight, Iverson. I think there's an awful lot to be said for doing what you know to be right even when the odds seem insurmountable. Yes, I have my pragmatic side also, but sometimes it's the form that matters; you can't take the rest of it with you.

By the way, thanks for the Borges stuff and themodernword.com. I've waded through some of it, but I couldn't find The Garden of Forking Paths at my local bookstore.

Take care.

[Hep]

40. SEEM?

insurmountable? It's like saying the atlantic ocean SEEMS unswimmable.

[Don Claybrook]

48. All the more reason

Doing what's right when the odds are verifiably impossible is even more admirable than when those odds just seem impossible. I think maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say about the form, about the modality carrying just as much weight as the end result, in some systems of measurement. I think we're just referring to different systems of measurement.

That said, I do understand what reality is. But this in no way detracts from those who have the courage of their convictions and act on those convictions. These rare individuals are actually living truth, don't you think? Just ask a practitioner of Falun Gong.

[Hep]

51. This is not about vanity

or the satisfaction of knowing you voted your conscience. This is about not letting Bush hold office. And if you try to peel votes from the left, you FORCE the D party to move to the right even more than it would normally. YOu act against your best interests no matter how you look at it. Why some people think that's NOBLE is and forever will remain a mystery to me.

The G party, sacrificing ideals for idealogy since 2000. There's your new slogan!

[library_max]

68. Do you seriously believe that this is the time for empty gestures?

Does the direction this nation is taking not matter to you? Is this abstract idea of "truth" mean so much to you than the future of this nation, which in many ways carries the future of the world?

I just googled Falun Gong, and it appears to be a cross between faith healing and "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon." This is living truth?

The fundamental point behind DU is getting rid of Bush, the unelected, the Worst President Ever. How is a Camejo candidacy going to help with that?

[Don Claybrook]

106. I think we must have a difference in definitions

The term 'empty gestures' seems to be a point of contention, as does 'living truth'.

[library_max]

108. "Empty Gesture"

n An action taken to satisfy a personal desire which has no effect on reality, e.g. a vote for a political candidate in an election that candidate cannot possibly win.

[Iverson]

42. thanks & Borges

Simply, thank you.

"The Garden of Forking Paths" is moderately well anthologized, but you should probably find it in Borges' short story collection entitled Ficciones.

It is also in a collection called Labyrinths, but that arrangement was a publisher's, not Borges', so make that your second choice.

Happy reading.

:hi:

[Loonman]

26. Nader/Camejo, does it matter?

Both water carriers for the GOP.

[Ficus]

27. Do Green votes = Dem Votes?

I have yet to understand as a Democrat, why other Democrats believe we're entitled to Green votes? Has anyone ever heard of earning votes?

If we have to rely on the strategy of ABB for this election we will lose.

[Hep]

30. Entitled?

I don't feel like the D party is entitled to anything.

Here's what Dean SHOULD be saying:

"I want to appeal to the guy with a Nader/LaDuke sticker on his pickup truck, because Greens have been voting against their best interests for 8 years now, and what do they have to show for it?"

[Ficus]

32. LoL

That's great! That's a better argument than - "GREENS SUCK!"

Now I'd be nice if Howard actually did appeal to the guy with the Nader/LaDuke sticker on their VW.

[Hep]

35. Heh

Now I'd be nice if Howard actually did appeal to the guy with the Nader/LaDuke sticker on their VW.

Oddly, I know TWO VW owning Nader voters who are going to be working for Dean. Not that it makes a big difference in NC. Nader wasn't even on our ballot in 2000.

[MadHound]

54. Let see here Hep

By voting for a Dem in the last eight years you voted for:

1. Ripping apart our social safety net with wefare "reform"
2. Consolidating the media to near monopoly status with the Telecom Act
3. Selling well paying, union supporting jobs down the river with NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, and a whole host of other alphabet treaties whose only beneficiarys are corporations.
4. Putting our government up for sale with Clinton's soft money campaign contribution
5. Putting in place the Patriot Act.
6. Going to war in Iraq
7. Continuing to throw money down the well named Iraq to the tune of 87 billion, plus more to come
8. Ratcheting up the war on drugs under Clinton, thus further eroding your privacy rights and extending the circumstances under which your property can be unconstitutionally seized.
9. A continuance of the declining living standard
10. A widening of the gap between the rich and the rest of us to historically record proportions

And that's just the top ten list. Now answer me why any true progressive/liberal would vote for a party who has consistently gone against their interests in such a manner? Why should we believe you or any other Dem who says that the current crop of Ds will have our interests at heart, even though several have already demonstrated by their records that they don't? Blindly following along out of party loyalty is how we got into the mess that we're in now, blindly following the party won't get us out of it. It is time for people to wake up out of their stupor, look around and see that they've been screwed by the very party that was supposed to help them.

[Hep]

57. That's not so

The notion that because I voted D I voted for everything bad that has happened is FALSE. And silly.

It's just so funny that you claim I'm in a stupor! Your guy got 3%! My guy WON, no thanks to you. And where was nader during the vote counting controversy? Wallowing in his desire to have Bush as president. Like he said, he'd rather have the provocateur than the anesthetizer. Well, he got it.

You have no idea how much worse things would be had Bush I won and Quayle or Dole in 1996.

[MadHound]

80. Oh puhleeze Hep, at least be honest with yourself

If you voted for Clinton, if you voted for Democrats in the House and Senate, then the above list is what you voted for, for that is what these Democrats did! You can spin it anyway you like, but that is the truth of the matter. What, are you going to say that none of these things occured? Are you going to try to spin it as the 'Pugs fault? Are you going to go back to that old standby of your's, its all the Greens fault. Sheesh, at least own up to your own mistakes and the mistakes of your party. At least be honest with yourself.

And by the by, you're mistaken, my guy won(since I voted for Gore), he just pissed his victory away through ineptitude and incompetence. At least Nader fights, Gore had the victory, and a prime time voter scandal that he could have used to insure that NO Bush would EVER get into office again. But oh, no, at the behest of his DLC(read corporate) handlers Gore just let it all go without a fight. So much for his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, eh Hep.

You know what though, I saw the error of my ways, and I'm finished with these quisling Dems who are nothing but bought and paid for corporate whores. I'll take a party that's at three percent but still fighting rather than a party that no longer has any morals and no fight left. Because the party that is fighting, no matter how small, will win every time in the long run.

And I have a very good idea of what Bush I, or Dole, or Quayle would have done. Clinton filled their entire agenda for them.

[Hep]

81. Whata crock!

I voted for Clinton in 1992. And I vote for PARTICULAR senators and representatives.

But none of this is on point. The point is, vote D or vote R. That's it. If you vote reform you vote D. If you vote Green you vote R. That's it.

You're not changing politics. You're working to ensure republican rule for the rest of our lifetimes.

[MadHound]

83. Do you ever really listen to yourself?

"But none of this is on point. The point is, vote D or vote R. That's it."

How very fucking democratic of you there Hep, NOT! I will vote the way I see fit. You can't tell me otherwise, in fact nobody can tell me otherwise, including the government(at least not yet)!! And if I vote for the Greens, then that vote is counted FOR THE GREENS. What part of logic did you not learn in school?

"If you vote reform you vote D."

And what kind of reform is that Hep? Welfare "reform", like Clinton signed into law? Or campaign finance reform that Clinton and the DLC engineered, you know, soft money donations(the better to buy out the gov't my dear). Or would that be the employment reform that Clinton pushed through with NAFTA. You know, reforming those well paying, union supporting, manufacturing jobs into low paying, non union McJobs. Some reform there.

And yes, I am changing politics. I'm working to loosen the corporate stranglehold on our government, put there by both the 'Pugs and the Dems. Otherwise, no matter who is in office, it will be corporate rule for the rest of our lifetimes.

[Hep]

94. SL

How very fucking democratic of you there Hep, NOT! I will vote the way I see fit. You can't tell me otherwise, in fact nobody can tell me otherwise, including the government(at least not yet)!! And if I vote for the Greens, then that vote is counted FOR THE GREENS. What part of logic did you not learn in school?

It's called pragmatism. You may want to look into it. What did anyone's G vote do for them in 2000? OF course a vote for the green party is a vote for the green party, and of course you can vote any way you want to, but I'll bet you a beer that the G's won't get 5%. WHen the Nader's and the Canejo's of this country figure out they're wasting their time and money, the better off the left is.

And what kind of reform is that Hep? Welfare "reform", like Clinton signed into law? Or campaign finance reform that Clinton and the DLC engineered, you know, soft money donations(the better to buy out the gov't my dear). Or would that be the employment reform that Clinton pushed through with NAFTA. You know, reforming those well paying, union supporting, manufacturing jobs into low paying, non union McJobs. Some reform there.

It's a political party. Maybe if you could calm the hell down for a minute, you'd get that. Remember that little guy with the ears and visuals? ROSS PEROT? Jesus. You're frothing at the mouth and not even paying attention to what I'm writing. It's like you know what you are going to say before you even read my post.

And yes, I am changing politics. I'm working to loosen the corporate stranglehold on our government, put there by both the 'Pugs and the Dems. Otherwise, no matter who is in office, it will be corporate rule for the rest of our lifetimes.

Yeah, I've really seen the progress. Leaps and bounds, man. Leaps and bounds. Bush is going to raise 200 million dollars, but that corporate stranglehold has really loosened since 2000 hasn't it. Thanks so much.

[Forkboy]

95. More like a sad day for democracy

WHen the Nader's and the Canejo's of this country figure out they're wasting their time and money, the better off the left is.

I would expect nothing less though from D.A.D.

[Hep]

97. DAD?

Democrat against Democracy? Is that what it means? I'm guessing here.

[Forkboy]

114. That is what it means

if I had a prize I'd give it to you :)

[MadHound]

103. Leaps and bounds it is

So you think you are the oh so noble pragmatist, compromising our country away. Remind me sometime to bow in your direction. Damn, with many more people like you, we wouldn't need the 'Pugs around, the Dems would do their dirty work for them. Oh! That's right! That's how we got Clinton and his *wonderful* administration. Pragmatists like you, compromising our country away.

Speaking of Clinton, I've noticed that you don't(can't?) defend any of his legacy that I've mentioned. Should I just assume you find it as repugnant as I do? That it offends your sensabilities just as it does mine? Is it a sense of shame?


So it is the Reform Party you're talking about, hell, that's ancient news. If you would kindly stop posting in your own shorthand, perhaps spell it out a little better, use full sentences, I would understand your points better. This is a written chat room, I can't see your facial nuances, nor read your mind.

And yes, progress is being made. It is like the ice thaw in the spring, a trickle here, a trickle there, not much on it's own, but combined with the other trickles, soon you will have a roaring river. So you had better be prepared to be inundated.

[library_max]

96. Hey, why compromise at all?

Does your state have write-in voting? If so, why vote Green? There must be some small issues on which you disagree with Nader or Camejo. So, next time, just write in your own name. That way, you will have voted for a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue, and has the same chance of winning as Nader did or Camejo will. You can hold your head high knowing that you did your civic duty without compromising your principles.

Of course, you'll be leaving it up to the rest of us to save the country from Bush, but that's a small price to pay for your integrity.

[Hep]

99. Every year

I'm gonna vote for Jeb Bartlett!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[bushisanidiot]

33. Maybe Nader Can Run With AWOL As His VP.

you know he'd do it if asked. he hates the democratic party as much as the repukes do.

[mrgorth]

36. I read in The Nation

that the Greens are thinking of only running in non-battleground states. If they do this I'm OK with it.

[Hep]

41. THat's what they said last time

And we know how that worked out.

[Iverson]

43. not so

Editorialists may have speculated about this, but in the effort to get on the ballot in as many states as possible in 2000, the Green Party never planned, let alone advertised, not to run in certain states.

[Hep]

53. Not about running

ABout drawing votes. Nader said he wouldn't pursue certain swing states and then did. He pissed off a lot of Greens with that.

[realFedUp]

45. why doesn't he try running for Assembly first....

[eissa]

82. NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

This would be a disaster! What is wrong with the Greens?! Do they really want to see 4 more years of shrub?! By all accounts, it appears that the '04 election will be a repeat of 2000; we need every vote! Why are the Greens trying to take away progressive votes in a close election?! This is not the time!! I swear to God, I will consider any democrat who votes Green in '04 a traitor! Call me Ann Coulter if you like, I don't care!! I want shrub packing his bags for Crawford in '04!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. Buoyed by his accomplishment of getting even LESS votes than Bustamante

Camejo has decided to run for president.

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

87. Good for him

If I was out there he might just get my vote.

[ulysses]

93. and, as before,

the Democrats have it in their power to make a Green presidential campaign an irrelevancy in terms of the progressive voters they lost in 2000 to the third-party vote. If they only will.

Actually, they have it even more in their power to do so given that no one knows who Camejo is outside California, whereas Nader was already known.

[library_max]

98. "The Democrats have it in their power

to make a Green presidential candidacy an irrelevancy in terms of the progressive voters they lost in 2000 to the third party vote."

How?

Go ahead and say what you mean.

[ulysses]

100. fairly simple - by doing enough

to appeal to the progressive vote. Not "adopt the Green platform wholesale" as will probably be claimed, not tell party moderates to go jump in the lake, but do enough. No, I don't know exactly what that is, but they've been handed Bush's head on a silver platter enough times to have shown a little gumption. Some have, some haven't. Gumption is good. Fighting Bush instead of fellating him is good. That, as much as anything, is why I back Dean.

[library_max]

110. Great. Back Dean.

Just don't vote Camejo, okay?

[ulysses]

119. no promises

The likelihood of my voting Green (or other third party) in 2004 is quite small, but it's not an impossibility. Lieberman is the only candidate at this point who I can say would not receive my vote in the general election - he's going nowhere and, so far anyway, I can vote for any of the rest. I do expect the nominee to court the center (is expected disappointment still disappointment?) so we'll see how that pans out. A full return to the idiotic DLC strategy could lead to my not only voting Green in 2004 but leaving the Dems entirely.

Not that there's any particular reason to grieve over that - Georgia will be in the red column for the forseeable future.

[Terwilliger]

116. How? Well, acting like an opposition party would be a great start

then they can actually put money where their mouth is on their liberal plans and agendas...instead of just trotting them out and hoping everyone left-of-center (and quite a few more on the right) buy their line and vote for them anyway.

[Doomsayer13]

109. Wouldn't be the first time

Camejo ran as a socialist for Prez in the 70's I believe. I personally don't care much whether he runs or not, he's shown that he cannot pull more than 3% in California and has no name recognition otherwise. I guess he could do damage in Cali, but if Dems are close enough to lose California in 2004, then there's no way we could win in other states anyways.

[library_max]

111. Were you paying attention to the recall election?

California is going to be close. And no, that doesn't mean we have no chance in the other states.

[Doomsayer13]

112. The California Demographic

in 2004, if California has a contentious election for the Dems, we're toast. We've been able to rely on CA as a dependable state for the last 3 presidential elections, if it is close there the DNC will need to spend money that it doesn't have, thus making us weaker nationally. Plus, in a Democratic state like California, it doesn't fare well for Dems if the election is at all close, which would signify that independents and Democrats are breaking for the GOP.

I was paying attention to the Recall election. Camejo wasn't able to garner more than 3% of the vote, despite his airtime in the debates and the fact that none of the other candidates even bothered to attack him (making him look the rosiest out of the bunch, by defeault). His performance even dropped from the 2000 governor's race where he got 5% of the vote, 2% of that whom were Democrats defecting due to the extreme unpopularity of Gray Davis. California rank and file Dems, many of whom voted for Arnold (and No on recall) are still hostile to Bush. Just look at the campaign Arnold ran - it was a campaign against intersts, a populist campaign. And who symbolizes whoring out to special interests and corruption more than the Bush administration?

I don't like Camejo or the California Green Party (mainly becuase of their silent endorsment of the recall), but I don't think Dems should be up in arms about him running. I don't think he'll make that much of a difference.

[_NorCal_D_]

115. I agree

California may a lot closer this time around, particularly if there is a prominent green running. Here are the elections results for California in 2000:

Democrat 5,861,203 53.45%
Republican 4,567,429 41.65%
Green 418,707 3.82%


http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html
That 3.82% could make quite a difference in this election. :(

[Terwilliger]

117. were you paying attention?

Do you think AHH-nold won because it's a 50-50 state?

AHH-nold won because too many people hated (that's HATED) Davis.

[kyrasdad]

113. Party Politics

30% vote Democrat no matter what. 30% vote Republican no matter what. That leaves 40% up for grabs, which if you look at the way the country is running 15% go to Dems, 15% to Republicans. Leaving 10% to amke the decision. America is split down the middle.

So with about 10% of the vote up for grabs, there isn't much leeway for minor party votes.

Conservative and Right To Life vote for a Republican candidate because they will get a politician that more or less falls in step with their beliefs. If there are 3 candidates, one for each party, they still vote for the Republican because they have figured it out that the Conservative or Rihgt to Life will not get enough votes. This is how the Republicans got taken over by the right wing christian conservatives.

So, what the Greens need to ask themselves, and lets be serious here, there is no way a Green is going to get elected when only 10% are "really" undecided, is do they want a candidate and a party that follows more or less thier beliefs, or are they going to allow a party that is diametrically opposed to those beliefs remain in power.
It's your country my Green friends, hopefully you can figure out how to promote the Green Party's ideals through the Dems. At least you'd have a voice. Rest assured the Reps could care less.

I don't like Kerry, but be assured that if he gets the nod I'll vote for him because he is closer to what I think America should be than Bush. Am I compromising my values, maybe in a way, but I won't be tossing them out the window altogether.