The Real Difference: (between Dems and Greens)

[BayCityProgressive]

http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html

I know I will probably be flamed for posting this, but I was looking at the Green Party site and came across this. Reasons like these are why i will still support Dems nationally but locally I am done with them unless they are progressive.

[AllyCat]

1. Question...not a flame

I'm reading that and saying "Boy, this is why I am a Green!". What specifically do you dislike about their position that makes you want to support progressive Dems?

[BayCityProgressive]

3. What I meant was

I will vote Green Party locally unless there is a progressive Democrat that supports these ideals. I am just starting to think, since the Democrats control nothing anymore, it can't really hurt to vote Green the Dems are powerless now and still have not changed their ways. I am not sure that they are even capable of changing anymore. I support progressive Dems like Feingold, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Kucinich, probably Boxer ext. But I am done with the DLC wing (90%) of the Democratic Party.

[AllyCat]

9. That's cool.

I am thinking the same thing as many people here. I vote Green locally, but this year, I felt the Greenest POTUS vote was Kerry and supported him. At this point, I now realize Cobb deserved my vote and think he and Badnarik are superstars for joining each other to help the voters. This can only benefit them. If their popularity rises after this and enough people like you and me have had it with the Dems, the rise of a third party could be viable.

Personally, I think there is little point in voting for Dems anyway until we get this election fraud thing fixed and fair.

Can you see the disgruntled Republicans going for the Libs, the progressive Dems joining the Greens, and maybe we'll have three parties (assuming the Dems wither) or four if they all stay afloat? What choices we would have!

[ever_green]

34. Cobb and Nader were in my heart this election, seeing as it was stolen, I

should have gone ahead and voted for either of them. I would probably feel better about myself right now. I love Dean, Feingold and other TRUE progressives, but anyone else.....nope, I'll go Green.

[Sperk]

2. Ya know, If I don't start hearing the Dems talk the truth....I'm voting

green next time. I have a friend who is much older than I am. She is very political and has spoken very highly of the Democratic party, but even she is so fed up with their lack of fight that she's at 71 years old considering voting Green. I think the Dems better wake up. If my votes going to be stolen anyway, might as well send a message.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. also,

It is hard even for progressive Democrats in elected office to bring up many of these issues without being attacked by the Democratic Establishment like Cynthia McKinney was. I hope she switches to the Green Party truthfully. The Dems don't even want her.

[barb162]

24. "might as well send a message" I fight about this too as I am so

fed up with the Dems and just this past week the Harry (I am a Repuke) Reid deal.

But when the Dems lose votes to the Greens or they lose votes to each other, the Pukes still win. And the pukes will be laughing their heads off. I don't know what to do. Although normally I am extremely political I am almost thinking of taking a break; not read any papers, no news, etc. It sends no good message

[Ardee]

5. No flames here

Just a question....Assuming that you were supportive of the web site's claim and noted that you were more in line with Green politics than with the Democratic version why continue to support democrats nationally?

I understand the standard mantra that only a democrat has a chance to unseat the GOP candidate at the national level but it would be equally true that only a wholesale desertion of that party will make a dent on the neocons in charge there.

I happen to believe that only the rise of third party politics in this country can keep the progressive agenda on the table.

[Cleita]

6. I will be Green from now on, although it's not

a big leap for me because I always have been that far left. I still won't throw a vote away though. I hope we can work to change our voting system to one that is the most Democratic and fair one we can reinvent.

[BayCityProgressive]

8. It is just sad that

The Democrats have moved so far right wing that Greens are considered "far left". They are basically just "Great Society" "New Deal" Democrats.

[serryjw]

26. Your RIGHT...they are and I am

I will not vote dem again until the party awakens. What ever one is forgeting is the Roosevelt Democrats....Every 4 years we lose more and more...2008 very few will be alive. can someone tell me how many over 70 voted this year?

[whalerider55]

7. yeah

a little clarification would help.

i am a green elected official, have voted democratic all my life. I am a green on the local level because party affiliation doesn't really matter, altho everyone knows who you are; i am green because it is a platform that makes a lot of sense locally, frankly statewide, nationally and even internationally.

finally, all politics is local, as the tipster said. i like mine progressive; which does not describe the local dem party. here in MA, although we haven't been able to elect a governor since the duke, we haven't sent a republican to congress in six years.
but that doesn't mean that the state and the party hasn't begun to show a lot of hardening of the arties- one party rule, especially when money becomes the party, isn't good anywhere.

whalerdier55

[whalerider55]

10. and another point

one of the more interesting dialogues going on within the greens has been whether we should continue to run candidates at the federal level, or spend our resources organizing at the most local level- town and city councils, shcool committees, mayors, and state legislatures. to give greens experience in the give and take of politics, and to begin to inculcate an appreciation of green values at the local level.

the back and forth is that without national visibility, you cna't remain a viable party; i tend to believe that we need ten to 15 years of grassroots organizing and winning elections locally to bring forward strong unabashedly progressive and vetted candidates.

whalerider55

[Cleita]

12. Also, running candidates and winning at a local level

gives you some seasoning and more up close and personal views of the opposition. As you start winning locally you can move up to state and federal elections as you gain membership for the party. I do think our first Federal Green Party Senator will be from California.

[villager]

11. been a registered Green for years...

...though I still mostly vote Democratic in "strategic" races (though, for example, voted Green when Grey Davis ran for re-election in California, because he was so unstomachable...)

If the Repubs don't take their theocratic crypto-fascist "base" for granted, why are we letting Dems get away with DLCing their "large-hearted progressive" base? Are we all just too damn nice?

[Cleita]

13. Soooo, who are we going to run against DiFi?

I'm keeping Barbara Boxer, but DiFi has got to go.

[villager]

20. that's a good question, Cleita...

...which brings up lots of others: Is it in the long-term interests of "progressives" to keep a Dem vote in the Senate, no matter at what cost, or what Dem? Do we get more ruthless -- like the Repubs -- and tell the Zell Millers to go screw themselves, no more party backing?

Will strong Green runs force Dems to talk about progressive issues, or just screw things up, a la Nader in 2000?

For California, I say a charismatic showbiz Green, since that's the only to get press, and because she/he could get some issues out there that otherwise wouldn't be covered...

[Cleita]

22. I agree about the showbiz Green for California.

I hope someone reads this and steps up to the plate.

[villager]

23. We need to fill in the blanks in the "Draft________

Movement" for California!

[NEOBuckeye]

14. I hope that the Greens make a real grassroots push now

They really must push to get serious candidates into city and local level government positions, like school board and city council. From there, they can run people for regional/county positions, then onto state legislature, and from there, Congress. If they focused their efforts upon taking a particular region -- say the Pacific Northwest ("Cascadia") -- they could be a major regional party within 20 years.

[Disturbed]

16. Don't blame the Greens...

for Gore losing. When 10% Dems voted for Bush how can Dems blame anyone but themselves for the horrible state of Amerika?

I vote Green for all elected positions. I feel that progressive Dems should leave the weasle moderate and Republ Lite Dem party and join the Green Party.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Because in theory the greens know better...

I don't necesarilly believe in this mentality, but this is the best that I can explain it. The idea is that if you value any liberal ideals at all, then you would've voted for Gore because he is a hell of a lot better than Bush. The democrats who vote for Bush don't know any better. The Greens, who are liberals, are supposed to know better.

[ever_green]

35. I agree. Instead of moving more to the dispicable right, lets go left

and get a real party in office.

[DireStrike]

15. Some questions:

They say they opposed the war in Afghanistan. What would they have done instead?

They also say:

"Support
Support full access to abortion, with funding for all women in the
U.S. and around the world."

What does that mean? Full access to what exactly, all types of abortion? Do they really support funding abortion abroad with US dollars?

[whalerider55]

21. i'd suggest

you take some time and contact the webpage and ask.

remember that local greens and national greens are actually two different entities; and that national greens have strong ties with european and other greens worldwide.

so one possible interp might be that some of those statements reflect linkages with the issue on a worldwide basis.

you pose good questions, and even tho i am a local green elected official, i'd encourage you to pose the questions to national.

whalerider55

[rndmprsn]

i took an online test somewhere that said i was 89% in tune with nader...

and 65% with kerry...3% for bush*

i voted green in 2000, but voted for kerry this time out...at first as an ABB person...but i did come to really respect and admire kerry...i still do, but yes...i am more progressive than the national democrats, but inspite of this i'll still support them nationally, but locally will b a diff story...if i dont start seeing better local people running.

[norml]

17. This link is bullshit!

On many issues where there is much difference between the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties they are listed as being the same. It leaves out issues where the Green Party position and that of the Republican party is the same,such as both supporting a ban on human cloning. And our military operations in the former Yugoslavia,with their low cost,zero US combat fatalities,and successful outcome are something to be proud of. Finally Green party economic policies with their punitive restrictions on the movement of capital would be disasterous.

[DireStrike]

18. Yeah, I'm not sure why they opposed the kosovo actions...

I gotta look into it I guess... (or some of you nice greens can make the point for me?) :)

[eridani]

27. Yeah, Kosovo was a 'success' alright--

--the Albanian majority has successfully completed its ethnic cleansing of the Serb, Jewish and Rom minorities under the watchful eyes of NATO. It was this ethnic cleansing that Milosevic, in his vicious Ariel Sharon-style way, was attempting to prevent.

The war was completely unneccessary, as the Serbian Parliament, realizing that the Milosevic style was counterproductive, passed a resolution to make the province a UN mandate area. The US insisted that the only way to avoid war was to have NATO occupy all of Serbia as well as Kosovo, and to agree to open up all worker-owned companies to being taken over by foreign investors, a demand that no ruler of the country could accept.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has the same positions as the Green

on many of these issues.

I voted for Kucinich in the presidential primary.

I want us to make the Democratic Party more progressive.

[Selatius]

25. I was torn between voting Cobb or Kerry

I must've spent about a minute just trying to make up my mind as to which circle to bubble in (paper ballot). I am a registered Democrat, but I realized the corporate corruption that was slowly overtaking the party years ago.

I wanted Dean or Kucinich, not Kerry. They drew a blatent line in the sand when it came to corporate/special interest money. The fact that the DLC takes corporate contributions from such companies like Chevron or Amoco and the ultra-rightwing think tank Bradley Foundation was a big turn-off. It was supposed to be a party for the people, not monied interests.

In the end, I selected Kerry. Regardless, given the Electoral College, my vote in Mississippi would not have affected the national scene, since it was not a swing state. I could have voted either way, and the result would have been the same.

I regret a little bit that I voted Kerry instead of voting my conscience. I had the ability to do so given the College, but I chose to vote for Kerry, and in the back of my mind, voting Kerry was a vote for the corporate interests behind the DLC, and I don't want that.

This just leads me back to the conclusion that the party must be rebuilt from the ground-up. Howard Dean gave us a glimpse of how to do it, and I think it's a good way to go.

[eridani]

28. What the Dems have that Greens don't have

Precinct Committee Officers. Granny D is right. Running for public office is not a personal statement or a protest, and you shouldn't do it unless you intend to win. For Greens that means sticking with races in which media can be overcome by visiting every single voter, i.e. strictly local.

But if enough PCOs are progressive, we can either take back the party or have an organized membership split as a whole. That means we have to be Antarctica, and McAuliffe et al the iceberg, and NOT the other way around.

[sandnsea]

29. Why I'm a Dem, Greens are idiots

Here's why:

"Greens favor giving the UN and a regional coalition a major role in dealing with security issues during Iraq's transition to a new government."

That statement is a joke. The UN doesn't want to send 150,000 troops into Iraq. There aren't 150,000 troops to send in without the US. So in reality, the Greens favor a continuing military presence in Iraq which would mean continued military assaults, they just can't bring themselves out of their lalaland long enough to realize it.

[Forkboy]

30. oy vey

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

33. Yeah, that's astute

About as astute as the magical UN troops solving everything in Iraq and hollering about being anti-war when your own plan is no less of a war plan than the one we've got. :eyes: indeed

[Forkboy]

36. It's all your screed deserved

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

39. Yes

It annoys the hell out of me. People who rant about ending the war and pulling the troops out, whose only plan is to put in different troops. An occupation is an occupation and is going to be resisted. And it isn't going to do anything about the problems between the different sects. Not to mention the different troops don't exist. If your plan is to continue a war with different players, don't pretend your anti-war.

[blindpig]

38. has it occured to you that the Iraqis are fighting US?

I am strongly of the opinion that a UN prescence would require many fewer troops as the Iraqis would NOT be fighting imperialist occupiers bent on stealing their natural resources. I suspect that adequate numbers of troops could be found if it were truly an UN operation, particularly among Muslim countries.
Regardless, we need to get out, we cannot help matters.

[sandnsea]

40. UN reputation

France, Germany and Britain's reputation in ME oil. It's not all that good either. And it seems to me if a group of countries were willing to put up a different plan and put up the troops to back it, they would have done so, through the UN. They haven't. Then there's the conflicts between those ME countries that could be inflamed with different groups in Iraq and the different countries trying to exert power to gain control of the oil themselves. Distrust, all of that. And the fact that the groups in Iraq are using distrust to recruit people for their own political agendas in the country. I still see it as pretending to call for an end to the war when what they're really calling for is a shuffling of the deck. It's naive and disengenuous.

[blindpig]

42. are you talking to me?

I said nothing about European troops, I did say Muslims, though I failed to specify so now I'll suggest troops from Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia just as examples. This conceit that we are the only ones able to make things right is nothing but a RW talking point that enables imperialism. If we announced we would be gone by x, something would be done. We are going to have to deal with the results of our madness, a Shia regime, nuclear proliferation and who knows what else but that's the price of greed and stupidity. Money should help, preferably raised by a tax on oil or wealth. Pretending that this scenario can have a happy ending is wishful thinking so let's get on with it and stop the killing and destruction by US troops. It's the one thing that we can do.

[sandnsea]

43. The UN

"I am strongly of the opinion that a UN prescence"

That's what you said. I'm sure you realize the UN is seen as a US/European operation by many in the ME.

It isn't a matter of thinking only the US can solve Iraq, at all. It's a matter of not enough troops from anywhere else to be able to handle it. If these other countries want to do this, all they have to do is step up and put together a coalition. There's a meeting on Iraq right now, Arab League in attendance. Where's their proposal to put troops in Iraq?

And if Iraq is just against occupation, why wouldn't they fight other troops as well? You do realize there are more tensions around the world and eve within the ME than just hatred for the US, right?

Naivete. If the Greens would grow up and look at the world realistically instead of just kneejerking against the US, they could be a real voice for change.

[blindpig]

44. indeed, stay the course

Nobody's going to do anything until we indicate our exit. To do so would get one tarred with our filth.

I believe that Iraqis can tell the difference between invaders and an international security force, particularly if they are co-religionist.

Naivete is believing the standard BS handed out by the drones and fixers of the dominant elites.

[sandnsea]

45. Stay the course

Which is what is proposed by the Greens. If they believe an outside security force must be maintained in Iraq, then that's staying the course. Iraq is too unstable to be left to its own accord. That's the only conclusion one could draw from the plan to put outside troops into Iraq. That clearly means the Green Party believes that the course of elections, building an Iraqi security force, and outside troops until that is accomplished is the correct course.

That is hardly a course of end the war and bring the troops home, which is what they pretend their policy is. I consider it what they delude themselves into believing, but maybe that's just me.

If there were a strong, clear voice from the international community of a UN coalition willing to take over Iraq; they would have to be listened to. They aren't there. They've never said they would be there if the US would leave, not once. The most they've said is they might be open to more participation if we had a different approach or new leadership, we didn't get that.

Given the reality of the situation, the clear cold reality, the Greens have no plan. Unless they're honest with themselves which makes it; stay the course.

[blindpig]

48. you just don't get it, do you?

The US is not going to "win" this war, any more than we could have "won" Viet Nam. To do so then, as now, would require war crimes magnitudes greater than those that we have already committed. No one but the neocons and their christofascist allies have the stomach for that.
It is in our best interest to stop throwing fat on the fire, to stop creating new terrorist. A new approach is required, at least the Greens understand that. The fine points can be dealt with. I do not believe that the world would stand by and let Iraq become a Beirut, the oil will see to that.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I haven't given up hope on the democrats yet, and here's why...

First off, we still still have a group of very good progressive congressmen/women and senators.

Secondly, while democrats are definately more under the influence of corporate interests than greens, the gap between the Democrats and Republicans is HUGE. Republicans get assloads of money from big corporations, democrats get a tiny bit to help them survive.

Third, I truly believe, that most democrats truly give a shit about this country and about its people, I can't say the same about the Bush administration or about half of the Republican party (the other half is the half that cares about the country but thinks that Jesus will solve all of its problems, not the federal government).

[Skidmore]

37. I have considered the Green Party in the past, but

will NOT vote for a Green Presidential candidate if that candidate is Ralph Nader. He's right up at the top of my S list (and that don't stand for sugar) with *.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

41. off topic question

Do you happen to be from my neck of the woods? I noticed your username, but wasn't sure if it was for the same place I am thinking of! PM me if you don't want to make it public :)

[genieroze]

46. Well

Maybe the dems are repugnantkin lites. The democratic party needs to return to it's roots. We need to stop moving right and start moving foward.

[Sterling]

47. I voted for the last time Nov 2

Voting is for people who think they still count the votes.