Memo to the Greens: You are irrelevant.

[LiviaOlivia]

Settling family business: the Greens
Memo to the Greens: You are irrelevant.
Steve Gilliard
11-10-06
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/settling-family-business-greens.html

That asshole Kevin Zesse spent more time lying about Sen. Elect Ben Cardin than challenging Michael Steele. Other Green assholes were living up to the motto "Getting Republicans Elected Every November".

Basically, we can't afford you no more.

We have a health care crisis, a brutal war in Iraq, declining wages, and your contribution to the conversation is ......IRV. It isn't about whether Instant Runoff Voting is a good idea or not, but a relevant idea. When one car accident can cost you your home, ranking your votes is not exactly the most important idea around.

These are serious times and you are not serious people.

One duty of a political movement is to be effective, not to just spout nonsense and then expect people to follow you. In the epic battle to save this country, where were you? On the sidelines, or incredibly running a single issue campaign. This woman in Virginia was running on a platform of light rail. Was she on crack? There are more serious issues than taking light rail. She could have cost Webb the election.

Politics is not a personal temper tantrum. I can't imagine that a serious progressive would have thought a campaign on light rail was a valuable use of time in such a critical election. How could you run against the Dems after six years of Bush? My God, how incredibly shortsighted, selfish.

People are dying every day behind Bush and this is the time you come to the progressive community to make your points. And then whine when we laugh at IRV? This isn't a class, we need real solutions to real problems.

One of the rules of coalition building is that you have to want to be in a coalition. Not to make demands and then be told to piss off. If you can't get votes, what do you bring to the table? How can you be trusted when you make deals with the Republicans and refuse to see the harm that does.

To you, politics is fashion and time has passed you by. Serious times demand serious people and not dilettantes.


(Greens taking Republican money undermines their every argument.)

[MADem]

1. Greens taking Republican money undermines their every argument

Serious times demand serious people and not dilettantes.

SPOT on!!!

Hear friken HEAR!!!!

[acmavm]

2. When I went to see Joan Baez last Saturday there was a guy

handing our flyers for the Greens. I just looked at him and laughed when he went to hand me one. I took it and threw it away. One less flyer for them to give someone who may not be on to them yet.

[Red Zelda]

3. Greens are nothing

without a Parliamentary system.

[IndianaGreen]

4. If Democrats fail to hold Bush accountable or fail to bring the troops home

it will be the Democrats that will become irrelevant.

As we were celebrating Democratic victories on Tuesday night, we were all aware that there would be hell to pay if nothing changed in Washington.

Let's not blow it!

[mtnsnake]

15. Now that I can fully agree with!

Hell hath frozen over!

[LoZoccolo]

18. "that there would be hell to pay"

Sure, and a spectre has been haunting Europe for 150 years.

[Conker]

72. Yeah, your right.

I keep trying to be optimistic, but I keep thinking the Democrats will blow this huge opportunity.

77. Now there's a flaming hot thread...

more details... somebody tag me some links to this!

[ncrainbowgrrl]

80. Welcome to DU, reliberalation!

:hi:

[mainegreen]

5. And you seriously don't understand people and what motivates them. Also, you lack realism.

So all greens are irrelevant? Some of us vote green no matter what. Some of us vote to move our agenda be it via votes for democrats or votes for greens. Some of us defect from the party during elections, some of us don't. Some state green don't run candidates if its too close between the Republicans and Democrats and some of us do.

But guess what? Democrats do to! Based on those exit polls, in some states where it really mattered 10% of the democrats were voting for republicans! That totals more than any green vote. What are you going to do about that? Call that 10% irrelevant? Yell at them and call them names? That would be profoundly self destructive and ignorant.

You're right. Politics is not a political temper tantrum, but a very complex game based on numbers and psychology. It's time people like you learned that.

[clichemoth]

9. But the Greens don't have the numbers...

At least not enough to play in the big-time realm of national and state-wide races. There are only a few states (yours being one) where they're even close to being anything other than a spoiler. Running at the local level makes far more sense because there is a chance of winning. Or running for seats where the DNC couldn't find a Dem to run or where there's an exceptionally weak/corrupt candidate and an alternative left candidate might be able to win with decent funding. Not key tight races like Allen/Webb '06 or Bush/Gore '00.

We don't have a parliamentary system (although, IMO, we should), so any third-party members would have to caucus with a major party in the Senate or House. Presumably they'd caucus with Dems like Bernie Sanders has, but considering that the national Greens are in the right wing's pocket, we can't even count on that.

Any Dem who voted for a Repuke in this Congressional election should turn in their party membership card and get on the GOP's mailing list, IMO. 2006 was too important for spoilers and protest votes. We weren't just voting for Dem Congresscritter X, we were voting for Pelosi, Conyers, Kerry, and Waxman and what they would do if they assumed leadership roles. That's why a vote for even a total DINO like Ford or Webb was the right thing to do. The wingnuts weren't voting for Repuke Congresscritter Y, they were voting to keep the Bushco plan in effect. You guys were voting for Green Congresscritter Z and also voting to keep the Bushco plan in effect.

And I say this as someone who completely agrees with most of the Greens' stated ideals and actually voted for Ralph Nader in 2000(from a very blue state that Gore carried easily) because I couldn't accept the idea of Holy Joe as a potential President because he's a bigger neocon than Bush.

[w4rma]

56. I'm going to shoot one argument down right now that has been bugging me for a while.

"Or running for seats where the DNC couldn't find a Dem to run"

If the Greens can find a candidte when the Dems couldn't then that "Green" could have just run as a Democrat and had a *much* better chance of winning the election with the support of straight ticket Democratic supporters.

[mcg]

27. "no matter what"

That's the problem, voting green no matter what, even in a close race between a Democratic who is for protecting our environment against a rabidly anti-environment republican, like Al Gore vs George W Bush. It's very misguided.

"10% of the democrats were voting for republicans"

So? What does that have to do with how a green votes? In a close race, pragmatism is needed.

The psychological dynamics need to be handled in a more refined manner so we can have some actual results. The actual results are what matters. I think a group like the League of Conservation Voters has a better approach.

I wish the real choice was usually between a Green candidate and a Democratic candidate, but in the vast majority of races that's simply not the case, and a protest vote does no good at all. It really doesn't.

The Green Party should stop painting the Democratic Party as being anti-environment, we are not, e.g. Gillibrand wants to push for a 60 mph standard for cars. I consider myself a green, I own a Prius, contribute to environmental groups etc., and I vote Democratic because the Democrats are far better on environmental issues. I agree that as a whole the Democratic Party should put more effort into protecting the environment, but so should the Green Party! The republicans are our common enemy, let's work together!

[elocs]

34. It's too bad that there were not more pragmatic Greens in Florida in 2000.

Yes, a political party which will bite off its nose to spite its face. I will never, never vote for a Green thanks to their actions in making sure that Republicans are elected. I am sure there are millions of other Democrats who feel the same. The Greens have alienated a large group of voters who may very well have supported their candidates under the right circumstances and they seem proud of it.

[katsy]

44. Would it be possible...

to extend an olive branch to the Greens... to adapt some of their platform, to bring them into the party?

That's a silly question, I know.

[Gman]

61. Democrats don't take Republican money

they use their own money which brings into question whether or not the Greens are even a real party or an extension now of the GOP.

[RestoreGore]

67. Joe Lieberman does

And so does the DLC... the same corporate money that funds the Republican's empire grab.

[skipos]

6. Greens worked to defeat Lamont in CT

I don't know if "irrelevant" is the word I would use to describe them. "Ridiculous" maybe.

[LoZoccolo]

16. That is also proof that they aren't out to be satisfied, so why try.

They are instead out to make themselves feel superior to 97% of the voters who vote for the other two parties. Which is ridiculous because we just think that's stupid.

[IndianaGreen]

32. AIPAC also worked to defeat Lamont in CT

Their battle cry, issued right after Israel's bombing of Beirut, was that Judas Joe was the best friend Israel had in the Senate and that he must be returned to the Senate just for that.

Michael Bloomberg gave millions to Judas Joe, and now he is talking about running for President as an independent. What do you think Judas Joe will do to repay Bloomberg's generosity?

[Luminous Animal]

7. Greens are not Democrats.

Gilliard makes the same mistake that most Democrats make by thinking that Greens are really Democrats and assume that they would vote Democratic if there were no Green party. But he is wrong.

[BeyondGeography]

8. There is a vain quality to many of the Greens

Oh, the purity of my vote and the importance of ME. Unfortunately, our present system does not provide any opportunity for 3rd parties to represent anything more than a protest vote. The Greens lost me permanently in 2000 with their, "no difference between Bush and Gore" meme. Right; and Bush would have produced a documentary of seminal importance on global warming if he lost. You're the Green Party and you helped torpedo one of the great environmentalists in American public life. Helping to foist George W. Bush on us remains the Greens' primary achievement, which means that fewer and fewer voters are falling for their crap.

But voters have short memories. It wouldn't surprise me to hear the same crowd chanting, "no difference between Obama and Giuliani" in two years, because, you see, it's all about THEM.

[TWiley]

63. Exactly

It is intellectual pride. Nobody but a third party can express the grandeur of me. I am so far out of the mainstrem.

Nader was about nader. His effort did not help any cause, or ideal.

Al Gore can be considered a "Green" Democrat. Oh but wait. He is not 100% me so I cannot agree.

There are ways to work withing an electable party and system to effect positive change.

[JNelson6563]

81. Indeed & this can apply to some Dems too

Greens and Dem purists are the GOP's best friends. Uncompromising, closed minded fools. Let fascist extremists take over, there is a point or two I disagree with the Dem candidate on. So what if letting the GOP take all results in endless misery for most of the world, including our own country. At least the purists can die clinging to their unspotted and uncompromised principles. :puke:

Julie

[Amused Musings]

10. One can look at Greens this way

Voting for the Green party is the natural reaction to the Democratic Party not fully embracing the entire liberal smorgasboard (sp?). Of course this is because we work within a two party system so the left must concede to some conservative elements and vice versa (look at Webb for instance). So while I understand the amount of vitriol democrats send in the direction of the Greens, I cannot blame people looking to the Greens when Democrats, and I will use the next term very loosely, "fail" them. Essentially, we have to be more persuasive in convincing the most cranky and cynical of the left that we are still much better than the alternative.

[codjh9]

11. I don't think it's that simple

Greens have been elected to local offices (such as city council in Santa Fe and other places) and have done a good job. In countries such as Germany, where they have proportional representation (what an idea, eh?), they contribute to the overall process in a pretty big way. I have voted Green, but only in cases where the Dem had no chance of winning. I agree that they don't have much of a place in big races or on the national scene, but at the same time, I don't think they should be dissed as much as this.

[primative1]

17. Ditto ...

In my case I only vote green when the dem has no chance of losing but the point is greens I trust ... They are what dems claim they are and once used to be. They dont need to earn my trust. Thses new dems do. Time to put up.

[Mark E. Smith]

12. The So-Called Green Party almost cost us Virginia

[mainegreen]

13. Wrong. The greens fielded no candidate in Virginia.

The conservative independent green party did which is of no relation to the green party of virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Green_Party_of_Virginia

[LoZoccolo]

14. You just know the same spoilers voted for the Independant Green, though. n/t

[mainegreen]

19. You have no proof of that. However just so you know exit polls indicate 7% of Dems voted other.

Care to explain that?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Sure, but everyone else knows it anyways so I don't have to prove it.

The Dems who did that are spoilers too, who would have voted for the real Green Party.

[mainegreen]

21. Everyone knows it so I don't have to prove it? Isn't that the republican mantra?

Plus, it's more likely most of the 7% went republican, especially considering it's Virginia we're talking about, not Vermont or Maine or even California! There is a serious problem with significant percentages of the democratic party down south voting Republican, and that is not strong green party territory.

[LoZoccolo]

22. You said "other", not "Republican".

Wouldn't "other" mean "other" and not "Republican"?

The Republicans actually stole that saying from me, by the way, not the other way around.

[mainegreen]

23. Sorry, wasn't clear. "Other" meant non-democrat in this case.

The Republicans will steal anything that isn't nailed down or defended by an army of lawyers.

BTW, just so you don't think I'm a total crazy green (I'm not, really) I vote straight dem federally, It's just that where I live (Portland Maine) is about 3% Republican, so I get to do fun uber-liberal voting here.

I just hate these anti-green threads because there are more votes to be gained by trying to pull in the democratic party members who for some reason or other don't vote for democrats that to try and attack greens who are about as easy to herd, organize, or figure out as cats.

[Solon]

26. I know being factually incorrect is no deterrent for your errant belief system...

But, there are folks who will vote independent, regardless of the affiliation of said party, and they are usually not members of that party either. Then again, other third parties help us more than hurt, like the Libertarian party, and possibly this party in question. I would imagine that any Green party voter that voted in this election KNOWS that the Independent Greens don't represent them, so didn't vote for them. I know you can't tell the difference, but that doesn't mean others can't tell the difference.

[zulchzulu]

24. A nauseating pity party article from a Green running for Governor in WI

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/zaleski/index.php?ntid=106911

Nelson Eisman, a fairly unexperienced politician, ran as a Green in the Wisconsin governor's race. It was Jim Doyle (who won) against Mark Green, a freakazoid Repig who was against stem cell research, gay marriage, anti-choice blah blah blah...and Eisman made the race a little closer than it should have been.

Although Doyle is no angel, Eisman would have been a disaster. Mark Green as governor of Wisconsin would have been a COMPLETE disaster...

Still, the article link shows a self-important stooge who wants everybody to feel sorry for him. Pure nauseating gibberish...

[Odin2005]

25. The Green Party can go fuck itself.

They take Puke money because destroying the Democratic Party has become thier obsession, they don't care about the rest of thier party platform and grass-roots activism anymore.

[1932]

28. Memo to people who write "Memo to..." in their subject lines:

It's tired. Come up with something new.

[LWolf]

29. ROFL

If the Greens are so irrelevant, why bother to blog about them, and why waste time, space, and bandwidth at DU? You are either preaching to a choir, or you need to convince people. Which is it?

I don't like the 2-party system, and I don't blame the Greens or any other 3rd party for the flaws inherent in the 2-party system.

While I'm a democrat, I actually like the Green platform better than that of the Democratic Party. I appreciate the Green Party, and other 3rd parties. They give those left behind by the two mammoth corporate parties an alternative.

I really think that if the Democratic Party is doing its job, it has nothing to fear from 3rd parties. Of course, modern american culture is all about displaced blame. Like the child caught in a transgression, it's always someone else's fault. The respectable thing for the Democratic Party, and for Democrats, in this Democrat's opinion, would be to take responsibility for losing votes to 3rd parties in the move to embrace DLC Democratic conservatives hiding behind the "moderate" mask. I don't mind a big tent, and it's fair play for the DLC to try to take over the party and make it more corporately motivated. Still, it's also honesty and fair play to admit that a party choosing to move this direction has chosen to leave the votes and support of some behind, and to take the responsibility for that choice.

You aren't going to get it both ways.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Clarification: the Greens are irrelevant with regard to their own goals.

There, I said "Simon says".

[architect359]

31. Not always the case though

I know what you're saying but it seems that your argument doesn't hold much meaning in this specific political battle. Yeah, sure, "if the Democratic Party is doing its job, it has nothing to fear from 3rd parties." But they dropped the ball 12 (maybe more) years ago and allowed this strain of conservatism to almost change all that we believe in for many years to come. I don't know myself - do what you think is right, support whom you think you believe in - it is everyone's right. But when faced with what the republicans fielded during the past 12+ years (shrug), I'll hold my nose if I have to in order to provide a bit more strength to the party that will best contest this neo-con ideology.

[LWolf]

33. I've done so, and do so, myself.

That's why I'm a registered Democrat. I just won't judge others for doing what they think is right, and supporting who they believe in, if they've lost hope or interest in the Democratic Party. I understand, even if I don't join them at this point in time.

[struggle4progress]

35. Always magnanimous in victory, eh?

I've never voted for a Green candidate. It's not prejudice: they hardly ever run anybody at the local level here, and since I won't throw away a vote as a protest, I wouldn't touch them in a Federal contest.

But politics is bean-counting, and our majority may be fragile. We can always sling crap at the Greens if necessary when the next electoral cycle starts. But until then, what's the point? They lost.

[eridani]

36. Laughing at IRV is seriously stupid

The results of IRV in San Francisco are that a much higher percentage of minorities participate in elections. Now tell me which party generally benefits when more minorities turn out.

[Greatwildbeast]

37. IRV is working there

You can't corral the Greens. Whereas Republicans are like cattle: easily led by dogs. Dems tend to think independantly.

And the Greens even more so.

If Greens are to be effective they will need to become more pragmatic. They need to divide their resources in areas where they won't hurt their cause.

As in: OK to vote Green on a local issue. Your mayor or maybe an assemblman in a safe district. NOT OK if it makes your Congress turn to big OIL.

However that kind of pragmatism can happen only with solid LEADERSHIP.

[Cafe Americano]

38. don't worry

Don't worry about the Greens, at least here in Texas. I tried to get involved but it's a disorganized mess of a party. That's probably true of more than just Texas.

[Codeblue]

39. God damn two party bullshit

I hate the two party system more and more. Every year, I start to believe more and more that nothing will ever get changed the way it needs to be with this system. We need to work outside the system to really change things. Every problem that this country has ever faced politically has been because of this bullshit system the Founding Fathers thrust upon us. Fuck it.

[Vidar]

40. Best post in this miserable thread.

[alittlelark]

42. The founding Fathers did not create a 2 party system.

The old $$$$ / corporate interests did.

[Codeblue]

43. Well

It was a two party system from the very beginning. You had the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans at the beginning. Then it faded away to be the Whigs and the Democrats, until finally becoming what we have today. Always was a two party system. The corporate interests were pretty much represented by the Founders. Most of them were just as beholden to corporate interests then as now.

You think the Revolution was instigated by the common people? Fuck no, they didn't care. It was all those rich bastard slave holders. They were the only ones who were really in a position to care about the British policies.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

58. divide and conquer

[TWiley]

64. How will this be accomplished?

I mean, in practical terms.

I was an Idealist, but age has brought a little more practicality. Sometimes it is better to understand the world the way it is, instead of daydreaming about how it would be most comfortable and worshipful to ME.

I think one must use the system to change the system. Gore is a "Green" former vice president, and honestly viable presidential candidate, oh but wait, probably not "Green" enough? Not "special" enough?

Is there really any "success" in consistantly getting only 1% or 2% of the vote?

It is easier to change yourself than it is to change "everyone else"

[Codeblue]

74. I do understand

the world the way it is. And I understand that it is not only uncomfortable to me, but also to several billion other people on the planet.

I like Gore, and he's really the only Democrat I really trust at this point. I wish he would run again because I think he could whip the competition. He's certainly "Green" enough. I resent your "tone." Just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.

I haven't been claiming success in getting 1 or 2% of the vote year and year out. If the system was different, the Green party would get many more votes than under the current system. I don't think one must use the system to change the system. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about the American constitution being the oldest current constitution in the world.

Unless of course you believe armed rebellion to be working "within the system?"

[martymar64]

73. Here Here!!!

It can really suck when the choice in an election is reduced to voting for either evil (Bush/Cheney) or mediocrity (Gore/Lieberman, Kerry).

[alittlelark]

41. They are NOT irrelevant.

If we get run-off voting they will be QUITE relevant - as will the Libertarians.


No political party is irrelevant.

[immerlinks]

45. They are not irrelevant

They are dangerous. They are trapping voters who logically should be voting for Democrats. Every vote for a Green is a vote for a republican. This is a big tent and they should realize they are welcome, but they have to understand that they will not get everything they want immediately but eventually. This is not Germany. They have proportional representation, which means that each party gets a number of seats in the Bundestag based on the percentage of votes they get. Greens need to get with the program and stop helping the repubs. Don't get me started on Libertarians - I'm of the mind that they are simply confused and should probably be medicated for their own protection, and ours.

[alittlelark]

46. Welcome to DU!

I'm from Alb. too. I'll be back there on the 24th on Nov for 3 days... I need my chile fix - and to see the family.

[immerlinks]

47. Red or Green?

[alittlelark]

48. Christmas - of course!!

[immerlinks]

49. I should probably explain Red or Green

It has nothing to do with politics. For those of you not familiar with New Mexico, we have the best chile in the world and when you order something around here that has (or can have - and what can't?) chile, you are almost always asked: Red or green? It means do you want red or green chile. I'm partial to the green myself - it has a more subtle flavor that is never overwhelmingly spicy hot.

[alittlelark]

53. Are you Red, Green, or Christmas?

[immerlinks]

65. Green

Although, I've enjoyed all at times.

[fujiyama]

51. Love the comment about libertarians

or as I've otherwise heard them referred to as - "republicans that like to smoke pot".

They are usually greedy pricks that can justify voting republicans because they don't want to "tax them to death".

Welcome to DU. Anyone voting green really doesn't get it. I don't even know why I'm wasting time on a thread like this.

But it is amusing how much some people have already started bitching - and Democrats haven't even technically taken power yet!

[fujiyama]

50. The Green party wants to build

an elitest party made of trust fund college students that doesn't understand anything about politics.

Oh, and it's overwhelmingly white. It has no support from labor or minorities. It takes money from republicans, and spins it as legitimate. It challenges even the most liberal senators and congresspeople we have.

A party that deserves to go nowhere.

[upi402]

52. I think we should start a "True Conservative" party to have the same effect

The Republicans are ripe enough to split about the loons controlling their party.

[noamnety]

54. I wish the greens would run candidates

in local races where the republicans are unopposed.

We had some local races where we had to pick two people from a list of two (!), and only one was endorsed by the dems.

[greeneggs708]

55. Flush The Greens

They are evildoers.

Went to a screening of Iraq for Sale and afterwards we had a discussion. Now these are very anti-war folk. They are on the corner protesting every weekend.

And their big idea. We need a third party.

I went ballistic. You Moron's. We are two weeks from an election that could throw these war mongers out of office. In the movie, Dorgan and I believe Rockafeller, don't quote me, actually had a bill that would get the contracter death squads out of Iraq. And it was voted down. They didn't have the votes.

Now we can. It is like their heads are so filled with gas they didn't even see it.

I said, you gave us George Bush, Green Dopes. Now tell me. How does that help the planet?

They just sat there looking like Bush on tuesday.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

57. memo to the democrats

you are turning into republicans..

[Le Taz Hot]

59. Ah, these guys are from the

"shut up and vote" faction of the Democratic Party. Ignore them.

[Q]

60. This sounds...

...an awuful like Brownshirt tactics...and those who wrote or agree with it should be ashamed. These intimidation tactics against those who don't agree 100 percent is immature and belies the 'big tent' theory of the Democratic party.

Certain elements of the Democratic party are becoming more and more like the Right every day...'my way or the hiway'.

[immerlinks]

66. You are quite obviously misguided

It's certainly not "my way or the hiway (SIC)" at all. But precisely the opposite. We need them in the tent. The Greens need to set aside their unworkable demands to work for the greater good. For them to not accept and work toward Democratic party rule is selfish. Now, don't think I'm about banning their party or stifling their opinions (even repubs have that right although they try to deny it for everyone else) but educating them about the damage they have done and the obligation they have to the country.

[TWiley]

62. This was a Pragmatic Election

It was important to win.

The democratic party is flexible enough to be environmentally pro-active. Sometimes I feel we lost previous elections due to our intellectual pride.

A Pragmatist may say that it is not a "protest vote" to support an unelectable candidate, it would simply be foolish waste of time.

There are ways to work within an electable party and system to effect positive change.

Nader was about Nader. His effort was not the least bit beneficial to his cause, or to any ideal.

[jazzjunkysue]

68. Almost deadly in some states. The 3rd party kills the dem chances.

They need to be stopped. Really. The third party spoilers must be brought into the dem candidacy in order to stop the loss of votes.

[Telly Savalas]

69. Declaring them irrelevant is probably not a good way of doing this.

[Selatius]

82. Verbally eviscerating them won't make them become Dems sooner.

One of the reasons they left and became Greens in the first place is because the Dem Party left them when the New Deal coalition finally disintegrated by the 1980s, and by 1994, the Dems had lost their way and were swept out of power.

[izzybeans]

70. I'd prefer a different route: If we need their votes so badly we better start

working with them. The work they have done on the environment and economics (organized monopoly capitalism) is insightful and in line with democratic traditions.

I can not comprehend the need to take money from Republicans. But, if "politics is war by other means", then I see this as no different then DLC coalitions with Republicans. it's nothing but politics as usual. Both piss me off, but hey we obviously desire their votes. Anyone who says otherwise and then turns around and talks about Greens stealing votes away is misleading themselves.

I know greens. I love some of them, for they are family. They voted for democrats, even some too conservative for their tastes, but when it comes to the war, the economy and the enviornment, they like the promises being made by democratic leadership. If we break that trust again, as we did throughout the 90s by shifting the party to the right, some even becoming members of the faith based economics cult (trickle-down, privitization, etc.), we will lose their votes forever.

Question is, do we want their votes or not? Yes. So how do get them? By calling them irrelevant. That's what republicans did to democrats after 2004 and look what's happened to them.

We need a strong majority. Swing voters will become less important if we increase the size of our tent.

[Lefty48197]

71. Greens gave the Michigan Senate to the GOP

bye voting for the Green candidate in one very close election, they thereby handed the state Senate to the Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. The Greens are a rival political party and I am a Democrat

Therefore I will criticize them like I would criticize any other rival poliltical party. I think the mistake that people make is that they assume that people like Ralph Nader should be our natural allies. We should attack people like Ralph Nader just like we attack Republicans. Ralph Nader is an arrogant ass, IMO, and even if he were electable he'd make a shitty President.

[citizen snips]

76. The Greens have always been irrelevant its nothing new.

[inthebrain]

78. Folks on this board are working hard to make them relevant again

Unless those calling for middle class entitlements over making the poor a priority are not denounced. These folks believe in trickle down economics in the sense that if the middle class recieve more money, it will trickle down to the poor.

Not one has ever explained how that works. Folks these days do nothing but spend money and it hasn't created one job. The rationale amongst the business community is to take in more money and decrease labor expenses. We now have people doing the same ammount of work it took three people to do twenty years ago.

I wouldn't chest thump that the Greens are irrelevant. Reading the opinions of some as far as their middle class pride goes, they are pushing poor folk to the fringes again. The Green Party is the start of the poor peoples movement in this country. Unless folks get their act together those lower on the ladder, that are not middle class, will leave this party in droves.

[omega minimo]

79. Wow what an arrogant, ignorant statement

"Memo to the Greens: You are irrelevant."
********************************************

"Politics is not a personal temper tantrum."

"Serious times demand serious people and not dilettantes."

People who froth at the mouth at the mention of Greens need to learn "Politics is not a personal temper tantrum." The viciousness of the attitude (and ignorance toward any relevant common ground or real "coalition building") make Greenhaters look like "dilettantes."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Unfortunately, the greens have nothing to offer a coalition

which they couldn't better offer by ceasing to run except at local levels.

The point of a coalition is that two groups pool their resources to better achieve their shared aims.

The resource relevant in this case is "elected officials". The Greens don't have any of those at national level, so there's no point building a coalition with them.

The best way for the Greens to achieve their own ends would be to stop running candidates in competition with the Democrats and endorse them.

The reason I dislike the American Green party is that they would rather *be* right than *do* good, or even than refrain from doing harm. Self-righteousness is not a luxury American politics can afford.

[omega minimo]

84. "Self-righteousness is not a luxury American politics can afford."

Pigheaded attitudes that erupt at the mere mention of Greens prevent discussion about issues and any common ground that could possibly lead to coalition-building (which the OP mentioned, which is why I mentioned it).


Thank you for the remarkably reasonable reply, DIR.