What are Democrats doing to contain Green Party spoiler candidates this time around?

[astro]

In the eyes of some people, Green Party Candidate Raph Nader cost Al Gore the Presidential election. Can they do anything to prevent this from happening this time around? Should they do anything?

[ElvisL1ves]

Don't need to. Who's going to vote for Nader again, knowing what the effect was last time?

[NurseCarmen]

Firmly grasp the skull of a Nader voter and point it at a photo of GWB. Repeat as needed.

[elucidator]

If this fails, toss the skull onto the pile with the others.

[2sense]

As a Green I resent the implication that we are to blame for the Bush nightmare. He's Republican. Point the finger at them. If the Dems nominate an acceptable leftist like Braun or Kucinich we will support them. If instead the Democratic Party picks a moderate or conservative candidate to appeal to those voters then fuck 'em. If they don't care enough to seek our support then they can win without us. Perhaps another four years of Bush's idiocy is just the thing America needs to wake up to the dangers of conservatism. Maybe by '08 both the voters and the Dems will have learned their lesson.

[Menocchio]

I voted Green last time around (albeit in MA, where Gore was guranteed a win). Never again.

A Green won't win any time soon, they'll just siphon votes from teh moderate and near-left candidates the Dems field.

And I'll take a moderate over Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays. If the last few years have taught me anything, it's that the contention that both parties are essentially the same is a crock. Gore would not have gone to war with Iraq, to name only the most obvious example.

If the Greens want to be anything other than a joke, then they'll field candidates for Congress and local offices, while endorsing the hell out of the leftmost Democratic candidates, and later the nominee.

[XT]

From 2sense

Maybe by '08 both the voters and the Dems will have learned their lesson.

I have no dog in this fight, but this is simply too funny to pass up. Does the words 'dream world' mean anything to you? If you don't appeal to the moderate unaligned voters, you are dead. If the Dems tried to put forth one of your dream candidates they would die a dogs death at the poles and we'd get yet another 'Pub in the White House...simple as that. Much as it pains me to admit it, the 'Pubs have played it smart...they have marginalized the more radical element of their own party (causing the Buchanan faction to bolt for greener pastures).

Personally, I think you are right...if the greens appeal to you, you should vote as you like and damn the consequences. After all, while Nader might have cost Gore the election, Perot (who I voted for...lol) certainly gave the election to Clinton over GW's daddy. C'est la vie...its how it is.

Reguards,
XT

[2sense]

As a lifelong Democrat before I jumped to the Greens I never had any trouble telling the parties apart. The Republicans are totally evil; the Democrats are only half evil. Yes, a lot of people are dead now that wouldn't be if Gore had been president. I'm sorry for that but its not the fault of the Green Party. Yes, the country is headed swiftly down the tubes now that Bush is president. That doesn't mean the Gore would have made a good president. He wouldn't have made things as bad as our Chickenhawk-in-Chief but that doesn't mean he would have made things better. I want someone to lead us to a better America not just the officeholder that will do the least damage.

Why should leftists line up behind the Democratic nominee no matter how far to the right he is? If we do that then they can take us for granted. No, a better tactic is to hold out until we get acceptable candidates or we might never get them. All my life I have held my nose and voted for Democratic presidential candidates. Never again. If they want my vote they have to earn it.

So far it looks like the Dems are going with Dean and the closer he gets to the Democratic nomination the less acceptable he looks to me. At first I was excited by his campaign. No longer. We already have a president with a secrecy fetish. We don't need another. Dean should release the "public" papers from his governorship. He should state forthrightly that he won't cut Medicare. I want fiscal sanity but I'm not voting for someone that will balance the budget by wringing blood from seniors.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by 2sense
If the Dems nominate an acceptable leftist like Braun or Kucinich we will support them.

Yes, please do vote for Carol Mostly-Fraud. How helpful of you! The phrase "useful idiots" rings a bell.

[2sense]

Originally posted by xtisme
I have no dog in this fight, but this is simply too funny to pass up. Does the words 'dream world' mean anything to you? If you don't appeal to the moderate unaligned voters, you are dead. If the Dems tried to put forth one of your dream candidates they would die a dogs death at the poles and we'd get yet another 'Pub in the White House...simple as that.

Do the words "Read twice then post" mean anything to you? Take them to heart and you might avoid sticking your foot in your mouth. I never suggested that the Democratic Party not seek to appeal to moderates or conservatives. Of course they should. I objected to the Dems appealing to them by picking a moderate or conservative candidate. Bush isn't moderate and yet he is in the White House. Same for his dad and Reagan and Nixon and so on. You are right, the Repubs aren't stupid. They pick conservatives that make moderate noises. A leftist Democrat could do the same. Also I think that after 4 more years of Republican misrule one of my dream candidates would win handily against whoever the Repubs send out to be slaughtered.

[XT]

lol, I knew EXACTLY what you meant 2sense, so no foot in mouth for me...but thanks for looking out for me. I was simply responding to your last line because it amused me. If it my humor bit you I appologize...I just found it funny.

Personally, I whole heartedly agree with your second post, and totally respect your stance, as I feel much the same way (though obviously from another part of the political spectrum). I'll most likely be voting Liberatarian this time around as so far none of the big parties candidates appeal to me.

-XT

[2sense]

Originally posted by milroyj
Yes, please do vote for Carol Mostly-Fraud. How helpful of you! The phrase "useful idiots" rings a bell.

Excuse me. Have I directly insulted you? No I haven't because I understand the rules here.

Besides, I can't vote for Ms Braun. We have a closed primary here in PA and she isn't going to be on the ballot come November. But if she were I know of no reason not to support her.

[Fang]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Don't need to. Who's going to vote for Nader again, knowing what the effect was last time?

Um, the same morons who were told last time what would happen and decided to vote for Nader anyway, justifying their decision with nice little moralist platitudes like "If Gore couldn't win by himself then only he's responsible" or some such? I recall hearing a lot of talk about the whole issue before the election, and the ultra-leftists voted for Nader anyway. Not that I really care either way, as I haven't decided yet if I'm going to vote for Bush or for a Dem, but I think all the whinging since then by the same people who refused to vote for Gore is a bit silly.

[Tejota]

Nader is that Nader isn't particularly green. His gig is anti-corporatism, not greenism. In policy positions, Gore was far more green than Nader ever wanted to be.

Sure, Nader was more leftest than the other candidates, but Green? Not by a long shot.

Anyone who really votes "green" (as opposed to Green Party) would have voted Gore.

And 2sense. The Green Party is indeed partially at fault for Bushism. They didn't have to run a presidential candidate. The fact that they did is pure narcissism. They knew (or should of know) up front that they would have no purpose other than to act as spoiler.

Greens have a place in politics, running in races where they have a chance of winning. Right now, and for the forseeable future, they have no business putting up a presidential candidate unless their goal is to harm the environment as much as possible.

I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of Geens understand that now. It's a shame that they had to do such harm to the country earning their merit badge in unintended consequences.

Oh, and for Nader, electing Bush wasn't an unintended consequence, He meant to prey on the simplicity and trust of greens to elect Bush. He believes that things have to get worse before they can get better, and so he did his part to make things worse.

[adaher]

2sense, conservatism has been dominant in politics since 1981. And we've enjoyed excellent prosperity since then.

[Galena]

I think there's one point to this argument that we may be missing... I, myself, a democrat, voted for Nadar because I wanted to send a message to the party. The Democratic Party in 2000 did not have a reasonable platform (or for that matter, a platform at all), clear message, or a strong candidate that would stand up for the party's principles. The party leadership needed to know that they can't continue to be wishy-washy and still run the country. I can't tell yet, but maybe they got the hint.

[rjung]

I dislike the implication in the OP that the Democrats need to "control" anyone.

Dictating to others how to behave is not what the Democratic Party is about, IMO -- if it was, they might as well be called Republicans...

[Blalron]

I don't blame the Greens for our current President. I blame the millions of people who voted for George W. Bush. THEY are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mehitabel]

If I were a prominent Green wanting to run for national office, I would. I'd run the best campaign I could, appealing to liberals of all stripes, not just the McDonald's-is-trying-to-take-over-the-world types. I'd get a few celeb endorsements so that the convention (from which I'd appeal to the delegates to accentuate the positive only) would be well-covered by the media.

And here would be my acceptance speech:

"My fellow Greens, I am delighted that I have received the nomination of this fine party. I think we have shown that the left wing has plenty of common sense to go with its idealism. And so here's a little more: I hereby decline the nomination and withdraw from the race for President. I ask that all of you take the vote you were going to give to me and mark the ballot of (insert white Protestant Dem guy name here). No, Mr. WPDG is not the perfect candidate for us, but we will not deliver the Oval Office to his opponent. Again. Thank you and let's get cracking on those Congressional seats."

Never happen, of course, but I would only vote Green if I knew my state was A LANDSLIDE ONE for WPDG. For sure. I'd do the math and check it twice every day.

[even sven]

I'm a leftist.

The democrats have made it pretty clear they have no use for the left. Instead they'd rather spend their time vote-grubbing for the middle and trying desperately not to take a stand on anything that might imply they are the dreaded "liberals".

As such, they are not my party.

I vote green.

[Mehitabel]

Now, see, that's OK because you're from California, which always goes Dem...uhm...never mind. Having fun with the Governator?

Molly Ivin's latest, although she's not a Green, has a couple of pertinent phrases:

I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win.

It is the bounden duty of bleeding-heart liberals like myself to make our political choices based on purity of heart, nobility of character, depth of compassion, sterling integrity and generosity of spirit. The concept of actually winning does not, traditionally, influence the bleeding-heart liberal one iota -- certainly not in the primaries.

Over the years, I have proudly voted for a list of losers whom only a lily-pure liberal could love...

Priceless. And I agree about the money-grubbing and the only ones who are using their teeth on the issues are the bottom four candidates. But the alternative, as I see it, is NOT a Green President, it's a repeat of 2000 if the race is close. As for me, I'm going Kerry or Lieberman if either dude is on the ballot by the time it gets to me

[even sven]

Originally posted by Mehitabel
Now, see, that's OK because you're from California, which always goes Dem...uhm...never mind. Having fun with the Governator?

'

And why do you think that happened?

Because Grey Davis gave off the impression of being a political slimeball who didn't stand for a single thing. Grey Davis was grooming himself for presidency, and thus he felt it important to establish a record that would play well to moderate voters.

He did repugnent things and passed repugnant legislation in order to appeal to the center. For example, he across the board refused to grant parole to people regardless of circumstances in to look "tough on crime".

I'm not okay with that.

The Democrats are never going to win another election if they keep scrambling for the center. The Republican have the center right now. The Dems arn't going to steal that away by parroting the Republicans. All they can do is stick to their guns and hope it won't stay this way forever. Right now they just come off as pale weak Republicans, and thats just not a winning stance.

Come on folks! Abandoning your principles isn't a good way to get anything! I'm not going to reward that. And I'm not going to accept being taken for granted. If my party won't represent my needs, I'll find a new one. And I have.

[jayjay]

Isn't that kind of like the hens voting for the fox because the Chicken Party candidate didn't deliver on the "scratch three times a day" plank in his last term?

Geez, people. It's real life! Principle be damned...if you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil will win. Your vote is thrown away until you understand that the Not-Evil isn't even on the odds sheet.

[Shodan]

[whiny sing-song voice]
"We're gonna win the election, we're gonna win the election..."
[/whiny sing-song voice]

See you in November. Hee hee hee.

Regards,
Shodan

[Earl of Sandwhich]

Originally posted by Tejota
Nader is that Nader isn't particularly green. His gig is anti-corporatism, not greenism. In policy positions, Gore was far more green than Nader ever wanted to be.

Sure, Nader was more leftest than the other candidates, but Green? Not by a long shot.

Anyone who really votes "green" (as opposed to Green Party) would have voted Gore.(

Al Gore, green?! I'm waiting for the canned laughter to begin.



A little bit about Al Gore's environmental record.

[vanilla]

Originally posted by 2sense
As a Green I resent the implication that we are to blame for the Bush nightmare. He's Republican. Point the finger at them. If the Dems nominate an acceptable leftist like Braun or Kucinich we will support them. If instead the Democratic Party picks a moderate or conservative candidate to appeal to those voters then fuck 'em. If they don't care enough to seek our support then they can win without us. Perhaps another four years of Bush's idiocy is just the thing America needs to wake up to the dangers of conservatism. Maybe by '08 both the voters and the Dems will have learned their lesson.

Its also not nice to punish people just to teach them your lesson!
vanilla, formerly Green.

[vanilla]

Originally posted by Tejota


Oh, and for Nader, electing Bush wasn't an unintended consequence, He meant to prey on the simplicity and trust of greens to elect Bush. He believes that things have to get worse before they can get better, and so he did his part to make things worse.

We know that now .I still recall Flymasters thread back then.
I'm still sorry.
Heck, I would vote for Larry Flynt over GWB.

[Apos]

I still don't get the point of the Green Party. They are pushing the Democrats to the right (because they are teaching the Dems that they cannot count on leftists, they are too picky and not worth going after when it could lose them the much more important center). And they have 0 chance of ever winning national elections, because the US public simply doesn't agree with their platform. They have some fantasy about how it's just a matter of access and getting the word out. The word is out. People are just not willing to vote for skyhigh taxes, no military to speak of, and socialism.

[2sense]

Originally posted by vanilla
Its also not nice to punish people just to teach them your lesson!
vanilla, formerly Green.

Since you seem to have missed it, I'll say it again. Greens aren't responsible for what Republicans do. We didn't vote for Bush. We don't have any congressional representation so it wasn't Green quislings that helped Bush pass his agenda.

Bullying us, condescending to us, ignoring our desires... these things aren't going to make us support you. If you want our support then earn it. If you won't work with us then don't blame us if you fail. The Dems don't have to run a presidential candidate either. Y'all could ask your boy to drop out and support our candidate. Or you could nominate someone we can all get behind. If you choose not to then don't come crying to us for not abandoning our principles when you are unwilling to compromise.

[minty green]

Given that the politics of 2sense and even sven are complete anathema to me, I merely wish to register my enthusiastic support for their decision to remain completely irrelevant.

[furt]

Who are the smartest Dem pols out there? The Clintons.

Where is Hillary positioning herself? Smack-dab in the middle.

The Dems will be back in the game as soon as they rid themselves of the Green fringe the way the Pubs dumped the Pat Buchanan right.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Galena
I think there's one point to this argument that we may be missing... I, myself, a democrat, voted for Nadar because I wanted to send a message to the party. The Democratic Party in 2000 did not have a reasonable platform (or for that matter, a platform at all), clear message, or a strong candidate that would stand up for the party's principles. The party leadership needed to know that they can't continue to be wishy-washy and still run the country. I can't tell yet, but maybe they got the hint.

I'm unaware of any 3rd party having successfully sent a message to either of the mainstream parties in modern times. Perot won something like 19% of the popular vote, but I don't see any changes either the Dems or Pubs made in response to that.

Having said that, I'd like to encourage all the left leaning folks on this board to vote Green. It'll make you feel real good inside.

[rjung]

Whaddayamean, "dumped"? Looks to me like the Republicans have been taken over by the Pat Buchanan right...

[Brutus]

You don't know who Buchanan is, do you?

[ElvisL1ves]

Buchanan is gone from the GOP, but the Buchanan Right remains.

2sense: "Greens aren't responsible for what Republicans do. We didn't vote for Bush." Your votes influenced the outcome that way, and you had been told clearly what the effect would be, but you did it anyway. The result is an administration that is much further from what you want. Yes, you do bear some responsibility for the consequences of choosing ideological purity over the real world.

[Evil Captor]

As for containing Green Party spoiler candidates, I suggest inviting them to a Tupperware party and then sealing them in giant Tupperware containers until December 2004. That oughtta contain them.

Hmmm, might work for Pubbies too. THAT oughtta narrow the field!

And as one who voted Dem in 2000, I agree with the Greens -- it's up to the Democratic Party to win Green votes if they want them, the Greens have no responsibility to vote Dem.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by 2sense
Since you seem to have missed it, I'll say it again. Greens aren't responsible for what Republicans do.

No. You're responsible for having put them in the position to do what they do.

But what they were going to do was pretty predictable.

As such, you're a bunch of enablers.

Bullying us, condescending to us, ignoring our desires... these things aren't going to make us support you. If you want our support then earn it.

That's awfully self-centered of you.

I've got my own political agenda. Neither party is close to supporting it. But it's not about me, and I realize that. It's about this country, about which we're singing about.

And if you want to be responsible, rather than be children (yup, I'm condescending; whatcha gonna do about it?), you might ask yourself what's best for the country?? And then do it.

From the Green perspective, that should be pretty damned obvious. The environmental rapaciousness of the GOP (remember, you're Greens: the environment is your big issue), now with precious little Democratic restraint on it, is in plain view.

Yes, the GOP is actually doing it. They're the primary evil.

But the Greens could have kept them from being able to do it, knowing damned well what their anti-environmental goals were. They didn't. They share responsibility.

[ExTank]

I love the way the far left (as opposed to the center-left) lumps the current administration into the far-right. I mean, the center-left does, too; but I understand that that's mostly just polticking. The far-left really seems to believe that W. and his crowd are truly far-right.

I've met some far-rightists, both in Texas and here in Missouri. They make George W. and his current crowd look like, oh, I dunno, Mondale-Ferarro?

I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

The (far) left has to wake up to the fact that mainstream America, while perhaps sympathetic to some (far) left issues on principle, are unwilling to commit themselves totally to their cause(s)

Their are just some issues, some aspect of governmental function, that I simply wouldn't trust the (far) left to anymore than I'd trust a pack of dogs let loose in a butcher shop.

BTW: same goes for the (far) right.

So it comes down to picking centerist candidates who we feel who will do well within the boundaries of their own inherent idealogical constraints, while doing the least amount of damage when confronted with something outside the realm of their idealogical platforms.

All-in-all, I say it's 6-to-5 and pick 'em.

And I found this priceless: (from Blalron

don't blame the Greens for our current President. I blame the millions of people who voted for George W. Bush. THEY are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves.

Yea, verily, millyuns and millyuns of evil doers cast their lots; and yea, verily, millyuns and millyuns bore the mark of Cain for electing the idiot-king who led his chosen people into the wilderness, to be set upon and feasted upon by the lions, the tigers, the bears, the cats, the dogs, the chickens, the dogs, the cows, the fruit flies,...

:ahem; skip forward a bit Brother Maynard:

Yeah, millions of Americans are guilty, Guilty, GUILTY of having differnet political views than you, Blalron.

We're absolutely horribe, 'orrible people! Shame on us!

Wicked, wicked people! Oh! The shame!

Is it just me, or does anyone else, anywhere on this message board, find the left's idealogical intensity and intolernace as equally disquieting as the right's religious fervor and intolerance?

One slight nit-pick: (from even sven)

The Dems arn't going to steal that away by parroting the Republicans. All they can do is stick to their guns and hope it won't stay this way forever.

For the left, the above should have the phrase "...stick to their anti-guns..." substituted for maximum accuracy.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by ExTank
Is it just me, or does anyone else, anywhere on this message board, find the left's idealogical intensity and intolernace as equally disquieting as the right's religious fervor and intolerance?[/b]

Ideologuism is an ugly thing no matter who has it. But you asked about disquieting effect, and yes, it's just you. The far left has little opportunity to even make itself be heard, much less have a real effect on the real world. The far right is in power. That's obviously more disquieting.

[jayjay]

The far right is not in power. The center-right is in power, and they're trying to placate the far right, which is necessary for them to have the votes for re-election. Ex-Tank is correct. GWB is not far right. He's far too pragmatic to be far right (just as Clinton was far too pragmatic to be far left). The neo-cons are moderately far right socially, but center-left fiscally...notice that the concept of "smaller government" hasn't even been paid lipservice during Dubya's admin. Tax-cuts, yes. Less spending...ehh.

As each generation's political mainstream merges with history, the understanding of centrist politics changes. And the presidency is never very far off of that. Even Reagan was center-right, for the 80s. We consider Nixon far right because we think of the Love Generation as being dominant then...they weren't. The Love Generation were teenagers and young adults who usually didn't vote because they opted out of the "ratrace, man". Nixon's "silent majority" were more responsible for determining the country's political center than the Flower Children could ever be. And when the Flower Children did become the arbiters of centerness, Clinton was elected.

The presidential candidate has to be elected by ALL the people. This makes it imperative that the candidate run to the center. You can get extremist Representatives elected, no problem, because their districts are small. It's harder with Senators, because they're elected statewide. And it's nearly impossible with Presidents, because getting a majority of all voting Americans to agree with an extremist ideologue has astronomical odds against.

[ElvisL1ves]

"The center-right is in power, and they're trying to placate the far right, which is necessary for them to have the votes for re-election. " If the far right is getting what it wants, for whatever reason, then it's in power.

You're right that Bush got his votes by adopting a roughly-centrist appearance but he hasn't governed as a centrist, has he?

[jayjay]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
"The center-right is in power, and they're trying to placate the far right, which is necessary for them to have the votes for re-election. " If the far right is getting what it wants, for whatever reason, then it's in power.

Not really, no. The Bush administration plays lipservice to the social far-right, but doesn't seem to have the social far-right's deeply held beliefs as its core value system. They're throwing them bones. That doesn't equate to them being in power. In fact, it equates to them being carefully petted and groomed like a pack of pet voters. They don't rule the kennel, they're just allowed to think they do.

You're right that Bush got his votes by adopting a roughly-centrist appearance but he hasn't governed as a centrist, has he?

Not entirely, no. Bush's neo-conservative cabal revolves around an awful lot of issues, not all of which are held in the same esteem or with the same values. The "smaller government" plank doesn't even get looked at. The anti-abortion plank hasn't really seen a lot of action, either. The tax-cut plank, on the other hand, got heavy activity in the early part of his term. The war-hawk plank is currently at the top of the agenda.

Truthfully, I can't say exactly where Bush II stand on a lot of issues...his administration values scale seems to be a sliding one. There's a circus-worthy balancing and juggling act going on in an attempt not to fall off the big ball in the middle of the political ring.

Note that I'm not defending Junior's administration. I'm no fan of the current crew.

[John Mace]

Elvis:
No, he's not governing as a centrist because he isn't a centrist. "Center right" means somewhat right of center. But the way a president governs also depends on the situation in Congress. Do you remember the 2002 elections? Not exactly a resounding endorcement for the Dems, was it? Would not the outcome of that election be expcted to shift the politics of this country in the direction of the Republicans?

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by jayjay
The Bush administration plays lipservice to the social far-right, but doesn't seem to have the social far-right's deeply held beliefs as its core value system. They're throwing them bones. That doesn't equate to them being in power. In fact, it equates to them being carefully petted and groomed like a pack of pet voters. They don't rule the kennel, they're just allowed to think they do.

I'd say it's the other way around: the social far-right is getting the bulk of what they want, and moderate voters are getting the occasional bone - or, more likely, something that looks like a bone, but isn't.

Take the judiciary. Chalk up a W in the far-right column.

Take the abortion issue. Partial-birth law? W for far right. Stem-cell research? Ditto. Moderates got something that looked like a bone, but wasn't; there are far fewer useful 'lines' in existence than Dubya claimed, and not really enough to be useful for research purposes.

Take homosexuality. Dubya's said marriage should be between a man and a woman. His not coming out for a Constitutional amendment is a sop to the center, but you can bet that's where his heart is.

Bush's neo-conservative cabal revolves around an awful lot of issues, not all of which are held in the same esteem or with the same values. The "smaller government" plank doesn't even get looked at. The anti-abortion plank hasn't really seen a lot of action, either. The tax-cut plank, on the other hand, got heavy activity in the early part of his term. The war-hawk plank is currently at the top of the agenda.

The tax-cut plank has seen plenty of activity each year, including in this one.

And that's part and parcel of the "smaller government" plank. The plan is: reduce government revenues to the point where government is starved out of all but the most essential functions. They're winning, and winning big.

And re the anti-abortion plank, see above.

You left out one key group: business. Talk about a group that's being serviced (yeah, I chose that word deliberately) very efficiently and enthusicastically by the Bushies. They're getting Christmas presents out the wazoo - in the Medicare bill, in the tax cuts, in the war appropriations, in the Omnibus Bill to keep the government running, and just about everywhere else you can think of. Those campaign contributions are paying off richly.

In the sense of giving business everything it could possibly want, and eviscerating as much government regulation, consumer protection, worker protection, and environmental protection as possible, this Administration is far-right. Just as they are far-right on taxes and government, just as they are far-right on social issues. Centrists get the occasional sop like the Medicare bill and the No Child Left Behind law, and that's about it.

[Shodan]

You're right that Bush got his votes by adopting a roughly-centrist appearance but he hasn't governed as a centrist, has he?

Yes, he has. The point being that, to the far left, centrist appears to be extreme right.

Which is something I have said a dozen times. The lefties on the SDMB are incapable of judging what a center-right position would look like to the rest of the country. Anyone to the right of the Greens you consider a sell-out, if Democratic, or a fascist, if a Republican.

Many of our more vocal posters here are not necessarily unanimously left-wing. But they are damn near unanimously anti-Bush. You can be libertarian, providing you take a sort of "a plague on both your houses" attitude towards Democrats and Republican. But a good number of you make it a point to try to shout down any hint of support for Bush.

People with that attitude aren't qualified to judge what will appeal to the American mainstream. If you think Bush is an extreme, hard Right, ultra-conservative ideologue, you simply don't know what the terms mean.

Which, as I said earlier, warms my heart. The Left is forming its usual circular firing squad, and pointing fingers of blame at each other for losing in 2000 without learning anything about losing in 2004. And the general campaign hasn't even begun yet. Wait until Bush gets started. You guys are gonna go nuts.

(on preview)

Partial-birth law? W for far right.

Perfect example. The idea that opposition to partial birth abortion is an extremist view, is itself an extremist view.

Regards,
Shodan

[jayjay]

RTFirefly, tax cuts don't necessarily follow to a smaller government plan. The Neo-cons are absolutely in LOVE with deficit spending. They'll cut taxes to shut the masses up, but don't cut spending. They don't have to deal with it, future presidents and generations do.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by ExTank
The far-left really seems to believe that W. and his crowd are truly far-right.

I've met some far-rightists, both in Texas and here in Missouri. They make George W. and his current crowd look like, oh, I dunno, Mondale-Ferarro?

So? The existence of the American Communist Party doesn't make Dennis Kucinich center-left. Just because the spectrum keeps going past the 99th percentile, doesn't make the people at percentile 98 'center-(direction)'.

Anyway, see my response to jayjay; I was responding to you, too.

We're absolutely horribe, 'orrible people! Shame on us!

Wicked, wicked people! Oh! The shame!

Is it just me, or does anyone else, anywhere on this message board, find the left's idealogical intensity and intolernace as equally disquieting as the right's religious fervor and intolerance?

ExTank, my friend, you've stepped into a partisan thread here: this is pretty explicitly a discussion among left-leaning persons about the appropriate course for taking on the right. The assumption of this thread, unlike your normal GD thread, is that left-of-center is largely good, and right-of-center is largely not. When Karl Rove and other GOP political strategists get together to debate strategy, I don't expect even-handedness from them on issues. Same deal here.

[spectrum]

Originally posted by 2sense
If the Dems nominate an acceptable leftist like Braun or Kucinich we will support them. If instead the Democratic Party picks a moderate or conservative candidate to appeal to those voters then fuck 'em.

The Democrats have to pick a candidate who is a centrist-liberal, not a leftist. Do you know what percentage of the vote a fanatic like Kucinich would take in the general election? About 10%. Maybe 15%. He's such a nut that you'd have the unions endorsing Bush.

Politics is the art of the possible. You have to get behind a candidate who can win, not just one who is orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is the surest way to get the other side elected. If you don't mind continuing to fracture the center-left coalition, thus allowing the right to win every vote, then by all means, go ahead and vote Green. When the Dems lose by a razor thin margin again, don't blame Dean for the rape of the environment. Blame those who put political purity ahead of political efficacy.

The Green movement is backfiring. They're helping to elect more conservative politicians by fracturing the center-left coalition, and in fact are making the Democratic party more conservative. You're further marginalizing your concerns, not helping them.

[spectrum]

Originally posted by 2sense
The Dems don't have to run a presidential candidate either. Y'all could ask your boy to drop out and support our candidate.

If it were a race between Bush and Nader, with no Democrat, Bush would get at least 90% of the vote.

I don't think you Green fanatics realize just how far afield you are from where American politics is. You have no broad support.

To vote for a fanatic who meets 100% of your desires, but loses badly and siphons enough votes away from the more mainstream, center-liberal candidate to give the vote to the right-winger, is to commit political suicide.

If the Greens want a voice in politics, they should run candidates for Congress, not the presidency. You have enough concentrated pockets of support across the country to mount feasible Congressional campaigns. But you have to set aside orthodoxy for efficacy in a nationwide race. You have to accept that to win a candidate has to appeal to the middle as well as their edges.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Shodan, any chance we can commit you to a big ole helping of crow next Thanksgiving if your predictions about the Democrats turn out false?

Daniel