Greens - What Will You Do?

In My Humble Opinion
1

As I’ve mentioned on this board - once earlier today, actually - I’m a registered member of the Green Party. If I hadn’t found their message attractive in 2000, I wouldn’t have registered and voted, and I wouldn’t be registered now either, I’m sure. But this probably sounds like I’m starting a debate I’m not interested in. What I DO want to ask is this: Are any other SDMB Greens pondering their options right now?

I think there’s a chance I’d change parties if Dean has a chance (and/or needs the support in NY) when the New York primary rolls around. I doubt I’d do this for any of the other candidates - I can’t stand Gephardt, Edwards is probably too conservative for me, I passionately hate Lieberman, and (at the moment, anyway) I can’t trust Kerry - he’s criticizes Bush on occasion and doesn’t always stand behind it, supported the Iraq resolution and waffles a bunch. [The other candidates don’t really have a chance.]

I think I might vote for Dean if he squares off against Bush, otherwise I might vote Green.

That’s how I’m looking at it right now. Obviously there’s a lot of time to go, but hey, I’m curious now. :wink: Anybody else in the party wondering what to do? What do you think you might choose? Why?

2

Depends on the candidate-- Gore’s move to the center (I’m way out on the left) pissed me off, and I felt he was purposefully trying to alienate my range of his constituency in favor of the center and just-to-the-right masses, but if there is a democratic candidate who represents my views, sure I’ll vote for him/her. I’m waiting it out for a while.

3

I’m not American, but I do vote Green (in Australia). In your situation, I’d consider voting for Dean (he seems like a pretty progressive kinda guy), but if he didn’t run, it’d depend on the state. If it was going to matter (eg. Florida) then I’d vote Dem, but if it was in a state firmly Democratic or firmly Republican, I’d stick with the Greens, hoping to build up their figures to one day make them a respectable third party option, or at least show the Democrats that they can’t ignore their left.

(If you replace Democrat with Labor and Republican with Liberal, you can discover my voting strategy in Australian politics, too. It’s very adaptable).

4

New York is firmly Democratic, which left me a free conscience in voting Green in 2000. (I would’ve done it anyway, but it gave me a retort to people who whined at me about it.) That’s basically how it shakes out for me, I think: Dean or Green. If Kerry changes my mind, maybe him as well, but probably not at the moment.

5

Move to the center? Obviously, you are monumentally ignorant of Prince Albert’s record as a Senator.

6

Gore started off a conservative Democrat, and ended up… yeah. He talked more liberal than he was while running for VP. I suppose that can sound like a move toward the center. It can be stated he was too far center/right one way or the other.

7

Ralph Nader’s stated goal during the 2000 campaign was to play spoiler and throw the election to Bush, with the assumption that this would energize leftist and progressive thought and action, which was without a doubt waning in the face of Clinton’s successful “Third Way” push. (Although Clinton was more liberal than the archetypal New Democrat.)

But here’s the thing – the plan worked, Bush is in the big chair, civil rights are being shredded, ten of thousands of people are being incarcerated, deported, and persecuted because of their race, the U.S. is building an execution chamber at Gitmo, thousands – probably tens of thousands – of Iraqis have lost their lives in a war based on “intelligence” reports that were faked, plagarized, and the result of pressure from the top down, the social safety net (already gutted in 1996) is being decimated to provide a tax cut which will be all but unnoticable to everyone but the richest 20%, privacy is a thing of the past, the economy is in a shambles, and the “Justice” Department has spent thousands redecorating because John Ashcroft is so bedazzled by breasts – even inanimate ones – that he can’t make a speech in the same room as them. Like I said – the plan worked.

But no one’s noticed.

There is, I am sure, some slight increase in the constituencies of left-leaning groups such as the ACLU, but the majority of the U.S. populace is perfectly happy with the way things are going. Bush has a majority-positive approval rating, most people of voting age think we actually have found WMD’s in Iraq, and meanwhile Runsfeld and Wolfowitz are starting to make noise about taking out Iran next – even though, unlike Iraq which had to comply with UN resolutions, there’s no reason why an Iranian arms program justifies attacking them.

The country is headed straight down the tubes – which is what Nader wanted – but it has so far failed to energize the left in any significant way, and it’s only going to get worse.

We’re in a time of crisis. It’s time to close ranks. You may not like Gephart or Edwards – myself, I’m voting for Dean – but whoever is up against Bush a year and a half from now, please vote for him – even if it’s Kerry. shudder Because if Bush gets another four years (and then what? Cheney? Ashcroft? Frist?), he’s going to do damage to our nation and our planet that it will take decades to fix. We have to stop the bleeding – once that’s done we can fix the problems with the left in this country, and I admit they are many – but letting Bush have another four years, that’s a true catastrophe. Even were such a thing actually effective in energizing the left, it’d be tough to justify, but we’ve seen in the last year that it’s NOT effective.

Do what you can for your candidate today, but in November, please, vote for the guy who can win – whoever that is. We can’t take much more of this.

–Cliffy

8

That’s a complete lie.

I’d say that’s a somewhat limited reading of the way things are right now. And it’s not that everybody is so happy that they’ve let Bush get away with murder - there’s that September 11 thing that happened. That changed a lot of things.

This is, unfortunately, a fallacy. “Don’t vote for third-party candidates, they can’t win. And they can’t win because nobody votes for them.” :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, when I started this thread, I almost put in an explicit comment that I don’t want to do the “Nader cost Gore the election, vote Democrat whatever you do” thing. The first part is stupid, overdone, and inaccurate, the second part is not an option for me - I will NOT vote for Lieberman or Gephardt, period, and the others (aside from Dean) I’m up in the air about. And I’m bored of both parts.
I’m interested in gathering opinions, not rehashing the same old junk. And you notice that the question is directed at Green Party members, Cliffy, which you stated you’re not. So please don’t do that, and if anybody else wants to chime in on the subject - please just start a Great Debates thread and have the argument there. I’m actually considering my options and I just want to hear what others in the same situation might do.

9

Why do you hate Lieberman Marley23?

10

An illustration of my own feelings first:
My brother is a big Boondocks fan… they ran a cartoon the other day featuring this exchange:

“Joe Lieberman says he’s the only Democrat who could beat George Bush.”
“He’s right… [pause] Wait. Did he say “beat” or “be?””
“Beat.”
“Oh, never mind, he’s crazy.”
Yeah.

  1. He’s very vocally religious (which annoys me in politicians), but the real problem is that it’s in a ‘it’s not a personal decision, it’s a credential’ kind of way, which I can’t stand. He’s actually so loud about it that he puts off some Jews - they generally feel faith is a private matter; he prefers obnoxious shows of faith like a fundamentalist Christian.
  2. He’s very socially conservative and blames Hollywood and music for EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech and expression don’t appear to mean much to him.
  3. Agrees with Bush on everything regarding foreign policy - supporting Israel no matter what (which even Bush seems to be shying away from), he adamantly backed the attack on Iraq and is pushing for Iran to be next), etc. He’s a hawk.
  4. Supports parental consent and parental notification abortion laws.
  5. Says things like “[We shouldn’t] indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”
  6. He ran with a man who says things like “I believe that the purpose of life is to glorify God.”

That should be a decent sampler; I could go on. “Democrat” strikes me as a misleading word for him.

11

As an addendum: in 2000, Gore struck me as too conservative in a number of ways. When he picked a running mate who turned out to be even more conservative, that sealed the deal for me - no way could I vote for them, scared of and disgusted by Bush as I was. That probably didn’t influence me to vote for Nader; my initial plan for that night was to stay at home, and that didn’t change until about a month beforehand. But it alienated me from the Gore ticket, and from the Democratic party and the direction it has moved in general.

  1. I meant to add that Lieberman is pro-death penalty.
  2. Even for minors.
  3. Supports Star Wars (the missile defense system).
12

Damn. I thought this was going to be about salad.

13

I’m not a registered Green. I voted for Nader in 1996 because Clinton was pretty much unbeatable and his signing of DOMA pissed me off. I voted for Gore in 2000 even though I live in a relatively safe Dem state because the idea of another President Bush terrified me. I am all about building and supporting alternate parties but, not to be accused of the “waste your vote” thing, there is no way that the next president of the United States is going to be affiliated with a party other than the Dems or the Repubs, and there is too much at stake to vote for a Green presidential candidate. Whoever wins the presidency in 2004 is going to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. Which is more important: making a point by voting Green; or denying George W Bush those two (or more) appointments?

14

Otto writes: “Whoever wins the Presidency in 2004 is going to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices.”

President Carter didn’t appoint a single justice in his four years. President Clinton made two appointments during his first four years, and none during his second four years.
So, not neccessarily.
I hate to look at him as some kind of a Messiah, but what are Ralph Nader’s plans for 2004?

15

I would not count on it. The nomination of judges has become so politicized that you have a snowballs chance in hell of any of them retiring. Also, expect them to be forcibly hooked up to as many machines as possible if any show signs of dying. If Bush is reelected Rehnquist may retire allowing Bush to replace him with an acceptable justice, but what difference would this make to you? It would just be one conservative for another.

16

Rehnquist and O’Connor are 78 and 73 respectively and both have expressed interest in retiring. O’Connor’s alleged comments on Election Night 2000 expressing dismay at Gore’s apparent victory meaning she would be unable to retire are one (among many) of the scandals associated with the Court’s decision in Bush v Gore. Stevens is 83. I think he would rather die than retire under a Republican president but he can’t live forever. The current court has sat together without replacement for longer than any other court in US history. Justices typically don’t retire in election years, which means that if one is going to retire it will most likely be this year. The Court has scheduled an extraordinary September session to hear a challenge to McCain-Feingold, so the likelihood of anyone’s retiring this summer is low. Barring death, we will not see a change to the Court until at least 2005. If GWB is actually elected in 2004, I believe Rehnquist, O’Connor or both will retire in the summer of 2005.

O’Connor is the Court’s swing vote, the 5th vote in many of the Court’s 5-4 decisions. Her retirement would allow GWB to cement solidly the Court’s conservative majority. Either her or Rehnquist’s retirements would not simply be “substituting one conservative for another.” First, Rehnquist’s retirement would probably result in the elevation of Scalia to Chief Justice, the thought of which fills me with terror and rage. Second, GWB would undoubtedly appoint justices in their 40s or at most 50s, meaning that their conservative views would dominate the Court for the next three to four decades.

17

Since Dean’s name comes up as one of, or only, palatable Democratic candidate in the eyes of Green party members, would his selection as VP instead (assuming he were to loose the presidential nomination) be “good enough” for Greens to vote Dem.?

Although I’m undecided on favored choice for Democratic party presidential nominee, I think Dean would be an excellent VP selection for whomever is selected (and Kucinich, IMO just as liberal, if not more so, than Dean, just gives me weird vibes.).

Marley 23, I think your passionate hatred of Liebermann is actually shared by many in the Democratic grass roots. His high polling figures are, IMO, mostly due to name recognition. I certainly also hate him with a passion…

18

Hate is an awfully strong (and often abused) word.

19

I have been considering voting Green for the first time in the next Presidential election. I am sick to death of voting for two white males.

If John McCain switched parties, I would consider voting for him. Joe Liberman is too conservative. If he runs, I will definitely vote Green.

Dean has a lot of appeal. I need to read more about him though.

A few words about Gore: He served Tennessee well as both a Congressman and Senator. He is liberal and it was obvious back then. No one ever mentioned his being “stiff.” He seemed very relaxed and knowledgeable. To the best of my recollection, he never lost an election…until 2000 when he failed to carry his own state. I think that one of the reasons that he lost is that he became much too concerned about his “image.” I hope that the next Democrat to run will not reshape herself or himself to be what someone thinks the people want.

20

Hey, I’m Green because they support what I believe in, and I’m way out on the Left too, and I may not like the Dems moving toward the Right, but what the hell. I’m sick and tired of Dems and Greens fighting each other. This is stupid considering what’s at stake.

Only one thing matters right now: throw Bush out and end this extreme right-wing Republican domination. It’s absolutely imperative that Dems and Greens put aside their differences and unite. We must hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately.