IMO - It's time to vote green for *every* election except for..

[phrenzy]

The Senate and Presidency. Those areas are way too all or nothing to mess around with.

I really believe the Nader run was reckless and idiotic. But I am excited that Matt Gonzalez may end up being Mayor of my home city.

The thought of that fucking Plastic Ken Doll and his swimsuit model wife (she IS hot) representing SF makes me sick.

If SF can't have a truly liberal mayor what city can?

[pruner]

1. IMO, you should be posting in a Green forum if that's how you feel

this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground… where getting Democrats elected is the main objective.

[Terwilliger]

3. funny, that isn't written in the site rules

[phrenzy]

6. I understand

I understand what you are saying - and I don't consider myself a Green at all. But I think the Dems really need a wake up call. We have lost our identity. The fear of Bush has really made the dems a NON-Opposition party.

That is not acceptable. I don't know what else to do.

I am unhappy with BOTH of my Senators from California - and I was unhappy with Gray Davis as I am unhappy w/ Shwarzenegger. This doesn't mean I am NOT a Dem - it means I am not happy with the current state of the party and am looking for ways to force a change.

[pruner]

7. then you oughta focus on getting Dems elected who share your views

electing Greens to Congress in place of Dems will ensure that we'll never regain control of the House.

[jpgray]

8. If Greens were elected to Congress in any numbers, Dems WOULD take notice

But this is unlikely, to say the least. Giving the Republicans a wide majority would lead to a period of very frightening legislation, I have no doubt.

[pruner]

13. I agree it would make the Dems take notice…

but I think the real issue is whether we're looking to make a statement or make gains.

[Deja Q]

12. Many of us would in a split second

Kucinich. All the way. No argument from me.

Of course, liberal progressive Dems would have to take a big sweep of ALL parties before anything hopeful could even begin to be made.

As plenty of the public still thinks the media is too liberal :eyes: :x :grr: :mad: I think the progressive cause is dead.

But I'll fight on regardless and support people whose ideals are closest to mine.

[jpgray]

2. I would rather say, vote for the person who best represents your views

Success teaches politicians better than failure--the reason so many Democrats lean right is because Republicans are getting elected.

[Terwilliger]

4. they lean right because they're intimidated

and they have no leadership skills

[jpgray]

5. No--politicians follow success, and who has the lion's share of that?

You give them too much credit.

edit: success should be understood, in this context, to be acquiring and maintaining power.

[Terwilliger]

9. OK...fine

then Democrats suck at separating themselves from their opponents and building consensus

[Deja Q]

10. A bold statement

Given how Greens are badly treated around here:

:yourock:

Greens are merely Democrats who got tired of the Dem's turn toward so-called "bipartisanship" (yo, Dems, the repukes are supposed to comprimise as well. Bipartisanship is where both sides co-operate...) and other "centrist" behavior; or in plainer language the capitulation of the Dems to support more repuke ideals. That's how it looks...

Though if certain Dems were to be nominated I wouldn't ever consider the concept of voting Green again, nor would most who'd consider voting Green.

[ulysses]

11. vote for the best representation of your beliefs

Unless you're engaged solely in party-building, I don't see the sense in voting Green unquestioningly any more than I see the sense in voting Dem unquestioningly. Just put the time into it before you get to the polls.

[Terwilliger]

14. There's something to be said for roundly denying Dems

nothing will get them out of their statist partisan funk like a mass rejection at the polls

OnEdit: Did you have a good turkey day?

[ulysses]

15. maybe

I don't see even mass rejection at the polls being enough to make the party bigwigs pull their heads out, though. Meantime, I want McKinney back - if she runs as a Green then fine, but I doubt she will.

We did have a good day, yeah. How about you? Assaulted by any insufficiently hygenic street folk/Greens out there? ;-)

[Squeech]

17. Didn't we already try that in 2002?

Worked great, didn't it?

What they should have learned from that debacle is that they have to stand and fight if they want to win. As they did in Louisiana, but precious few other places. Dean knows this, Clark knows it, Kucinich knows it-- anybody else?

Hey, I'm from allegedly liberal Massachusetts, groaning under the fourth "pro-business" corrupt thug of a Repuke governor in a row. The legislature is overwhelmingly (D), so some things he can't get away with-- but the Repukes set the tone for a whole lot of bad stuff, like never investigating why the Big Dig kept generating humongous cost over-runs for Bechtel (hmm, where else have we heard *that* name?) until the project's cost ballooned to three and a half times the original budget.

And one reason the Dems keep losing is because too many of them want the job, and beat each other up (rather than the corrupt thug) in the primaries. And where else might we see *that* scenario?

[Terwilliger]

18. who are you referring to?

2002? I don't think there was a mass movement to reject Dems.,..they lost on their own.

[Gman]

16. A Green disruptor has appeared

Greens are the enemy of all working people of this country. They work to defeat the Democratic Party for their own selfish ends.

Go away, disruptor.

[Lorien]

19. The only way to make a third party

viable is to start with small offices and work your way up. Look at the troubles Ventura has had, having no one within his party to back him up in the statehouse. The problem is, we really need FOUR viable parties if we liberals aren't going to lose every election. Too bad the reform party imploded.

[TahitiNut]

20. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator