Once again the Green Party is going to screw up a race!!!

[LynneSin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102300948.html

As you know, in the Top 10 Conservative Idiots list the GOP PAc is listed for contributions for adulterer and mistress beater Representative Don Sherwood out of PA-10. I know his district really well - both sides of my family originated in this congressional district. My grandfather had Don Sherwood's business card magnet on the side of his fridge for years.

It's an extremely rural area where Sherwood wins usually in the mid-double digits (that is if he even has a candidate running against him)

But it's also an area that has a deep sense of faith and Sherwood's Adulterous, Violent ways have erode his popularity and could lead the way to a democrat winning this seat.

Now, for the first time a very viable candidate is opposing Don Sherwood in the elections - Chris Carney. I'll be honest, I don't think the guy is going to come across super liberal, but in this area it won't play well. Plus every seat we pick up, even with a moderate dem, that puts us 1 seat closer to getting republicans out of control. Plus it seems that Carney is getting some support from Republicans in the region that realize that Sherwood is a crook and a horrible person. Christians are fickle voters - in 2002, these voters alienated then Sen. Tim Hutchenson because he had left his wife for a staffer.

So of course this looks positive for PA-10 until I read that above article in the Washington Post and I catch a glimpse of this:

But recent reports that a Green Party activist may enter the race next year should doom any Democratic chances of picking up the seat

What the hell is the Green Party doing messing around in an extremely rural, republican district race???!!! I mean, because of the scandal we could feasibly pick up a seat in this race but a Green Party candidate is going to help strip away votes and ensure that Sherwood is re-elected. I mean, does the Green Party get campaign contributions from the republicans - it sure seems convenient if a Green Party candidate shows up in this race!!

Don't get me wrong - I want the Green Party to succeed, but shouldn't they focus their campaign in regions where they have a fighting chance to actually win instead of races where clearly their presence will help republicans win.

I try to have respect for the green party, but if this a true statement and there is a Green in the race then what little respect I have will go down the toilet. Carney has a chance in this district to help us get one of the 15 seats we need to regain the house - please Green Party - do not fuck that up for us

[Walt Starr]

1. I dunno, I might be feeling ebtter about the Greens

depending upon how the Democrats in the Senate react to the Alito nomination.

[Pirate Smile]

81. Walt, his nomination just was announced yesterday and it looks like

it will be a huge fight.

I don't get your reaction. He isn't walking into the Supreme Court tomorrow.

There will be a fight.

[merwin]

2. Sorry to say, but this is not a 2 party government. It just happens that

every other party is kept down. The greens have just as much of a right to be in an election as the Democrats.

[LynneSin]

7. Oh, I agree....

...but this is an extremely rural, conservative area and the SHerwood follies have opened up a chance for democrats to pick up a seat. Green Party barely stands a chance in the region, but you could almost say the same for the democrats.

It would be one thing if Greens ran a candidate in every race - then the fact there is a candidate would be expected. But they don't - so why not pick & choose races where they stand a chance to build acceptance instead of a region where even democrats have a challenge. This is just money wasted by the Green Party if you ask me - but Republicans will be greatful for the third party and hell, probably help fund the race just to ensure that this adulterer and woman beater keeps his seat

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. What are the rules for parties maintaining ballot status in your state?

Sometimes we run candidates because we have to snag a certain percentage of the votes in order to maintain the mere life of our party.

We need a better system that is more friendly to smaller parties. If we weren't forced to run candidates sometimes we could better pick and choose when and where to run.

[LynneSin]

24. I respect that reason and there are other districts in Pennsylvania...

...where Green can pull in great numbers and maybe be competitive to boot.

What I don't understand is the could put a candidate in this extremely republican district and yet not bother with regions where there are larger numbers of liberals.

I guess it's just common sense

[sandnsea]

3. There's a way to use this

Push Sherwood even further right, way out of the mainstream. Use the Green Party to differentiate far left from Democrat to give the centrists a comfort zone and pick up the seat that way. If the Green candidate is smart and careful, this could actually help you guys. In a rural area, the Green candidate isn't going to get any votes anyway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. So,, Greens aren't allowed to run for president because we screw that up..

So we're told to run for local races.. Except that if we do we will be yelled at for screwing that up too.

So when DO we get permission to run for a race.. and for what? School board? City council? Are we reaching too high there as well?

Here is a thought, since you are desperate to get the Repub out, why not have the Dem drop out and endorse the Green? That way you can be assured that the progressive vote won't be split.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Good post! (n/t)

[LynneSin]

12. I have never blamed Greens even for 2000 (it was faulty voter system)

But with this particular race it just seems like a waste of money and obvious play to help keep republicans in office. If we are to eliminate Sherwood we need every vote we can get. ANd yes, there are some Green Voters who won't vote for a democrat even if there was no other choice; however, there are those who will vote dem if that is the only option.

Green Party may only take a few hundred votes, but I've seen Representative races won on less than that (mainly in suburban Philly). So every vote we can get counts.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Thanks.. see post 13 :^)

[mikelewis]

48. If it means losing then we lose....

I support any candidate or candidate's party that wishes to run for any office. They are welcome and I look forward to the debate. If it means losing, then so be it. Either you believe in Democracy or you don't, you can't have it both ways. I know how important every seat is and I understand how they can undermine the elections for democrats. However, if your democratic candidate is appealing, the green party's entry into the race will be insignifigant.

[LoZoccolo]

67. We only say you people should run locally to keep you from running...

...for President without a major whine-fest explosion happening. It's the bending required to prevent a break. Congratulations, your overheated emotional and irrational tactics have caused people to give up reasoning and lie to you like you were little kids throwing a tantrum. That's what happens when the Greens run around saying there's little difference between the parties - people figure they can't be reached.

Now don't run for local offices either.

[Zynx]

76. The progressive vote is not enough to win in most areas.

[mirrera]

80. Instant Run off Voting...

We should all be fighting for IRV if we want multiple parties to work the way they should. The way it works now it would make sense for the Republicans to fund a progressive 3rd party. It might be their only chance. What would be perfect is if we had Greens join every race along with a couple of wing-nut 3rd parties to split the Republicans. Maybe Howard should help some Republican 3rd party candidate. Are there any?


http://NoBullshiRt.com

[IronLionZion]

83. Greens do very well in non-partisan local elections

My overwhelmingly Republican county in southwestern PA has a few greens as mayor/town council/school board and that's great because Greens have the right ideas on local issues.

But not the friggin US Congress!!!

Every day the Republicans are in power, more Americans are dying in Iraq, dying in cold winters, dying in hurricanes, dying from a lack of health care. In these kinds of elections where the fate of America is at stake, Democrats need the Greens with us not against us. Same team.

Undisciplined disorganized idealism on the left empowers the right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. What makes you think a Green in congress won't work with the dems

on progressive issues, though? I am pretty sure Rep Eder works quite a bit with the dems in the Maine legislature.

[Tower]

92. No, the Democratic Party's slow creep to the right empowers the right.

Idealism can be taken to far, but tossing it out completely is not the answer.

[Inland]

94. The Green solution: we'll stop helping repugs defeat dems if the dem quits

all on his own.

I mean, that's good for everybody, right? No only do the Greens accomplish their goal of destroying the democratic party, but the democrats finally stop complaining about greens, having lost the election on their own volition rather than by greens siphoning a couple of percent.

I wonder why it's not a perfect solution.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. It means a republican victory in the general, and while greens seem to live with that okay, democrats don't like that. I don't like that.

[Ravenseye]

5. The Green Party is a danger to America

Ok so that subject line is harsh, but I just think that we don't have the same sort of system as the multi-party parliaments of Europe. There are places where multiple parties work, and I like those systems better. In our system though, it's winner take all. If the conservatives run one candidate, and the liberals were to run two in every district, the country could vote even up to 60% for the liberal candidates, but the conservatives would hold all but a tiny sliver of the seats in congress and senate.

The Green Party in this country should NOT run candidates. They should help sponser Democratic Candidates, and work hand in hand, like a Liberal Environemtnalist counterpart to the Religous Right. A group with membership and power, but not threatening to the Democratic votes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. And the Baptists should fold back into the Catholic church...

I am willing to promote progressive Dems. I am even willing to work with moderate dems in exchange for a shot at election reforms that would make the system more friendly to parties other than the big two.

[Ravenseye]

17. It's different

If the neocons, fiscal conservatives, and religious right maintain their alliance in the republican party but the liberals split into two parties, you can say hello to a truly fascist christian state.

If we had a form of government that fostered multipole parties, I probably would vote Green. As it is ANY vote for green is a danger to this country.

If we split into small tents, and the republicans stick with their 'big tent', any semblance of a progressive movement in this country, even with 60% of the national votes, would be dead.

[Walt Starr]

62. We're one SCOTUS member away from a Theocratic State as it is

so if the Dems fld up here, why should I give a shit about the left splitting? It'll be over anyway!

[Ravenseye]

74. So you're saying help it along?

I think the progessive side needs to unite and grow some balls, not fracture and have more infighting.

[leanin_green]

99. The fracture happened a long time ago.

When many liberals began seeing the Democratic party become more and more beholden to corporate interests and fat lobbyists.

As much as I am a loyal Democrat. I'm more loyal to my liberal heritage. And when I see my party hijacked and progressively led away from that heritage, I'm forced to act. The Greens are a liberal answer, an outcry at the perceived injustice of a two-party system that in essence fights only for the right to spend OUR money. That are two sides of the same coin(corruption and greed). They sleep in the same bed, together, and are both tainted by their acts of indiscretion. I say, if a Green can get a more national podium in which to speak, more power to them.

[LynneSin]

51. What we so desparately need to do is get rid of the electorial college

and we need congressional districts not designed by the people who were elected to them.

As horrible as this sounds - we are stuck with the 2-party system until we address the whole election process. Electorial college worked backin the 1700s but it doesn't work today.

I love the system in Louisiana where if one person doesn't get 50% of the vote then there is a run-off election between the top 2 vote getters. A system like that would help give a boost to 3rd parties because they wouldn't affect races like the Sherwood PA-10 race but then they would have a better chance of getting a seat in more progressive districts where Republicans hardly run a candidate.

It's a bad system - but after 6 years of Bush, Lott/Frist, Hasert I'm tired of this so-called "Wake-up" call we're suppose to be giving the democrats - the only losers with this system is ourselves!

[Savannah Progressive]

61. Interesting, but true

One thing that Green Party Voter seems to be saying, and it's something that was being discussed when I first stopped sandbagging, and started posting, is that we prefer Liberal/Progressive Dems, to Repugnik Lite.

Here is the Rub. In my district, we unseated the White House supported Repugnik in favor of John Barrow. The Repugniks have had a cow over this, redrawing the district so that John Barrow's own house is now outside the 12th District. Barrow is moving to be back in the District, and will probably win re-election, I hope so, I am supporting him however I can.

His position on all issues isn't perfect in my opinion, however of the two choices in the last election, his was far better than Max Burns, the choice of the White House.

The larger question is who do we vote for period? If a candidate of a minority party, like the Greens, more accurately represents our views, our ideals, don't we owe it to ourselvs to give that candidate the support we can? For too many elections, we have been choosing Repugnik Lite, and getting what we choose. We bemoan the 22 Dems who voted to confirm Roberts, or the 50 Dems in the House who voted for Bankruptcy Reform (also known as the screw the little guy act) and then demand everyone march together and push to elect more repugnik lite dems.

We take issue with Repugniks who support the illegial and immoral war in Iraq, and then give a pass to the Repugnik Lites who support the same war in Iraq. They voted 98-0 in the Senate, No one voted against it. No one put their belief on the record, and still won't to this day. Well let me say that no one put the belief we HOPE they have, that they allude to, on the record.

Give me a Democratic Candidate whom I agree with on 60% of the issues, and a Green whom I agree with on 70-80% of the issues, and it is an incredibly hard choice. I know the Green won't win, but I also know my vote may help get the Green matching funds, so they can spread their issues and beliefs further, and recruit even more.

I admit living in a solidly Red State makes the choice somewhat easier, Georgia wouldn't have gone for Kerry if he was the only name on the Ticket. I further admit my vote for Nader would be a token, even in Georgia where the Progressives are outnumbered by over 1000 to 1. Here is what gives me pause though, don't I owe it to society to vote as I truly believe, instead of how someone else thinks I should? Isn't my vote my voice? By voting for Kerry instead of Nader, and Kerry loses the state anyway, am I not doing more harm to Nader and the issues I truly want to have discussed in our society?

If we choose Repugnik Lite, don't we lose the moral authority to bemoan the Repugnik LIKE behavior?

[Ravenseye]

73. I"m not sure why people don't understand what I'm saying

Ok lets take your real world example. If you were to run a Green candidate who was 80% progressive, against a Democratic candidate who was 60% progressive, and a Republican candidate who was 70% conservative....who would win?

If the Green candidate is valid, and people don't have a problem just voting their convictions then the Republican candidate would win probably every election.

Now if the Green Party sponsored Democratic Party candidates...As in, instead of running the same 80% progressive guy as a third party candidate, run him in the primaries against the 60% guy, and throw the full support of the Green Party, activists, money, etc....to get him on the ballot.

The Republican party has moved further to the right, partly because the far right groups HAVEN'T fled the party, but formed coalitions, and voting groups, and will go to the polls, or stay home, to get their candidates. The result? Everyone, including Democrats, pay them heed these days.

The same thing needs to be done with the Green Party. Running it as a standard party is firstly I think just a losign proposition, but secondly will, with a modicum of success, cause even more progressive candidates to lose. If the Greens were to be a sub-party in this country, their numbers would EXPLODE. Many people agree with the Greens, like me, but won't 'throw their vote away'. If they were a large power group...you can be assured that the Democratic politicians would start listening to them.

[Danger Duck]

18. Walking your dog is a danger to America

The Greens are only dangerous to Democrats that suck. Like Al Gore circa 2000. He ran a shitty campaign, and lost a gimmee. kerry ran a shittier campaign, and really lost a gimmee.

Here's the thing about the Greens. People understand them, and know what they are for and against. Ask three people to explain what Kerry is for, or what Democrats are for, as a whole. You'll get a lot of different answers.

We can tell ourselves that kerry was clear, and that we have a consistent platform, but we really don't. there is a diversity of opinion in the party, and we must, and most do, learn to be tolerant of diversity of thought and embrace the common goal, the better life through better government in the United States.

But our candidates are afraid to embrace the party because they fear that they will lose the support of the "middle". The middle respects someone who isn't bullshitting them, or bullshits them so well, it makes them feel nice. You're Reagen and Clinton types. people loved these guys. They were both pretty damn likable to.

So, in short, if we could put up a decent candidate, not a guy that looks like he was created in a lab and has about As much charm as a petri dish, we wouldn't have to worry about the Fucking green party.

[Ravenseye]

21. No, that isn't my point

Look I like the Green Party ideas, I just think that running candidates is the wrong way to go. I'm talking about creating a voting block. Something that actually could have power over progressive candidates much as the religious right has over the republican ones...

What's the goal for the green party then? To take away votes from democrats? To become a valid third party? I'm telling you that it's just not possible to have a valid sustained third party in this country. Power will always settle back into the two party system within an election or two, simply because of how it's arranged.

The green party can never gain a standing third party status because it would only get votes by poaching from democratic candidates, causing neither of them to win.

The future of the Green Party is as a voting block supporting the progressive candidate and shaping the national debate as an organization but not through direct candidates.

[Danger Duck]

31. I respectfully disagree

and so would the green party. There could and should be a third party in this country. In fact, IN the next twenty years, I imagine there will be at least four parties. There are to many interests to all be represented in one party. The Republicans work best when they are a small issue party, not a lot of government, just low taxes and low maitenance. They can capture a lot of votes that way. they poach Religous votes, and keep them in the hip pocket, much like the Dems keep black voters in that pocket.

But if the greens don't try, they will never suceed. Failure may be likely, but it is never moer certain when you simply don't try.

[Ravenseye]

34. There has never been 3 active parties in this country..

..for more than two election cycles. It's just not feasible to have more than 2 national parties. Local third parties have had a bit more modicum of success, but not much.

There will NEVER be four active major parties in this country, so get used to it. The myth that America can sustain even three major parties needs to be debunked. It's never happened, and with the way power is structured never will.

The Green Party would have much better luck, and foster much better progessive candidates, by acting as a voting block and brokering power along the lines that the religious right does. A Sub-Party if you will. It's own organization, which finds and supports the progressive candidates.

I personally prefer multi-party parliamentary governments, but we don't have that. We have a winner take all power grab republic, and if the liberals split into two parties, you can say hello to a conservative dominiation of this country, until they realign.

[Danger Duck]

39. Silly defeatist

With one party right now, the liberals are so far out of government it isn't funny. And our country is young, oh so young. The two party system is eroding everyones faith in politics and the system. To say that it won't change because it "hasn't" is silly.

Look at England. they have had a few changes over the last thousand years. And there is nothing that would prevent us from adding other parties. The "power grab" that you speak of, I'm not following you. Senators and congress people get elected vote by vote. The electoral college applies to the President, and if there is no majority, the winner is elected by the congress, which would really make a multiple party structure interesting.....

[Ravenseye]

53. Our system and England's are different

Englands system allows more than four parties to exist, and build coalition governments...we have a different form of governemnt. It just won't work here. <-that's a period there.

[Greyhound]

29. So once again, a dem fascist is better than a

re:puke: fascist. Gee, I wonder what's wrong with amerika. :eyes:

[Ravenseye]

33. you get what you pay for

if the green party wasn't competeing against the democratic party, but instead working towards buliding a coalition of progressive voters they'd have a much stronger position to support democratic candidates who were truly progressive.

There is a third way. I'm not saying "just vote democratic". I'm saying broker your power, and you'll get better results.

[Greyhound]

47. I'm not a Green, nor am I a Democrat, but it seems to me that

it's the Dems that won't work with the Greens and others as well. They have real concerns with many issues that the Dems should be behind, but because it would alienate their corporate masters, they tell a significant number of voters to go screw themselves. It comes down to the old 2 party shuffle, better the re:puke:s than a third party, nobody else is allowed to play their game.

[Ravenseye]

52. They've not been given reason to

The Green party has never come from a position of strength and numbers. If they had ten times the members, who would vote, or stay home from the polls..they'd have a hundred times more power.

[Greyhound]

59. I think the possibility of winning some elections would be

sufficient reason.

[Ravenseye]

79. I agree

That's why the Green Party needs to flex it's muscle more effectively and start dragging the Democratic Party back to the left. If a candidate knew they needed to be supportive of Green Party positions, or the Green Party members would stay home from the polls...and that by not having the Green Party voters he'd probably lose the election, you're gonna see a shift to the left.

The problem is if we take all the left out of the democratic party and put it into the green party, then we just have a pseudo left party who ignores it's own flank.

The Green Party is the BASE of the Democratic party in the same way the religious right is always talked about as the base of the Republican party. The difference is that the Religious Right is working from within, and the Green Party is working from the outside.

[ikojo]

66. The powers that be within the Democratic party

DO NOT want progressives in the party. Look at the short shrift given to Dennis Kucinich during last year's primaries!

[converted_democrat]

75. Thank you for posting that!! I agree 100% with what you are saying..n/t

[jonnyblitz]

56. The DEM party is a danger to America when it poses as an

alternative when it isn't that much better. It would be nice if we didn't even have a need for the Greens but they exist for a reason.

[Ravenseye]

78. I agree, but

I never said that we don't have a need for the Greens. We need the Green party to be STRONGER. That's right. Stronger, but with a different focus. We can't afford to split the progressive vote, what we need to do is use the Green Party to foster good progressive candidates within the Democratic Party, and become a sizeable force for the left, comparable to the religious right.

[ixion]

6. Frankly, I'd like to see more involvement from both Greens and

Libertarians.

I think the repugs and dems are both in need of some competition.

[Stevepol]

8. The Greens may be the only ones who protest rigged voting!

At this time, it's far more important to get the vote counting right than to think that just with money and enthusiasm you can beat the machines!

At least the Greens aren't afraid to state loud and clear that there need to be audits.

[Danger Duck]

9. I've always liked the greens

Not to radical, just right. I worry more about the vegans. Any-hooo, both parties are beyond flawed, and people like the Greens will fix them. If a Democrat can't beat a green, why not? The two party system is terrible, and needs to go. The entitlement mentality Dem's have against the greens is comical. WE lost to shrubbery twice. Well, once. But the first race was pretty damn close, way to close, even though we won, and subsequently lost(it was sort of like that scene at the beginning of Raiders, where Indiana has to give up the Idol that he earned...). That aside, more power to the greens. They only exist because in some areas, the Dem's are weak. Then need to get strong or die. That's why it's good to be green.

[The Magistrate]

14. Indeed, Ma'am

It is time that it be understood the Green Party takes the Democratic Party as its main target. Its most active elements have no interest in the defeat of Republicans.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[joefree1]

22. Greens can't stop bashing Democrats

My dad is a green and I have a lot of respect for some of their issues but unfortuanately they are the scorched earth party. They are too busy bashing Democrats to spend any time fighting Repukes.

Since we Democrats are not going away that means an endless war between moderates, liberals, and the far left. What a waste of time. Even my dad is sick of it and thinking about joining the Democratic party (he was a Republican a long time ago).

[ikojo]

64. Many people in the Greens are former Democrats

The Democratic party jettisoned it's left wing in favor of appeasing its corporate masters. That's the primary reason the Greens have emerged as a party. Had these people felt welcomed within the Democratic party (and many are LONG time activists) perhaps there would be no Green Party, you know?

Why people are upset that there are people out there exercising their political rights is beyond me. At least they are engaged. Intead of bashing the Greens ask the Dems why they helped create the conditions to make the formation of the Green Party favorable?

[Cults4Bush]

36. Sir, I must most sincerely disagree if on nothing but persoanl experience

I am not a Green though I have had many activist friends who wanted me to register as such because their stated platform much more closely aligns with my own, than the Dems appears to be regarding the Iraq Occupation and a host of "smaller" issues. I stayed registered with the Dems of course and tried earnestly to get them to switch in return... they have their convictions as well though. None, not a single one of these long time Greens voted Green on the presidential ticket. They are extremly active and care about not just America but its place in this world and how that affects all human beings.

I could in fact point out that Greens rail as loud against Neocons from the heart and with utter conviction as much as any Dem Ive ever heard.

I think your labeling and broad brushing of the active Greens as not having interests in defeating Repubs is quite largely without due.

I think your post comes off as saying that greens who vote their conscience are not about getting the 'pubs out of power, I find that kind of certainty on a question of deeply personal introspection (i.e. ones vote) to be out of place in a democratic society. At least as out of place as screaming ninnies who insist blind faith support of their political party (or candidate) is the only way to go. All else be damned and especially the conscience and intelligence and personal experience of the individual voter.

Green activists want to win and at times that means going after Dems as well. To place such a large swath of a misnomer upon them is not only bound to be wrong in many cases (as it always is with strokes so wide), but rings of a love for a winner take all two party system and status quo. If Dems can't satisfy the more Liberal amongst their ranks just who is to blame?

Honestly Sir, this is the kind of thing that makes me hope most Dems dont feel this way but if they do, it probably wont be too much longer till I leave the party for Independent status.

Are you sure that is what you really want?

[EFerrari]

68. Your honor, I must disagree with you

and probably, to my peril.

I went Green in the aftermath of 2000. And since then, have worked with Greens on specific issues.

At least in this little quadrant of the planet, we Greens work on issues, not spoiling anything.

I'll make you a deal. You get the Dems to stand up for their own core values and I'll come back.

Always hoping they will . . .

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. I would advise you not to vote Green candidate.

If you don't like their candidate or what he/she stands for, vote for another candidate. I believe it's called "democracy".

[LynneSin]

20. Great, what if 'democracy' is the deference between Speaker Hasert or

Speaker Pelosi

We need 15 seats. There is no impeachment possible without 15 seats. The war will not end without 15 seats but unfortunately (thanks to redistricting) only about 31 seats are viable.

Normally PA-10 is not a viable seat and rarely does any candidate run against Don Sherwood. But Sherwood was caught with his pants down and not only did he cheat on his wife, he was accused of beating his mistress. In a rural, someone religious district this doesn't play well at all.

Chris Carney, the democratic candidate has an uphill battle even with the scandal surrounding Sherwood. There are republicans out there that would rather have an adulterer & woman beater than to vote for an honest candidate that would bring honor back to their district. But if Carney has any chance it's going to be a real squeaker of a race where every vote counts.

To be honest, a Green Party candidate might not get more than a few hundred votes and some of those votes will be from people who will only vote green. But there are other green voters who will vote dem if no other choice is out there and we need all those votes if we are to pick up this seat and oust Sherwood.

So yes, in my very selfish way, to me it seems like money wasted by the Green Party to field a candidate in what could be a very tight race down to the wire where maybe less than a few hundred votes could decide the winner. And with those 15 seats that we so desperately need - we need that SHerwood seat. Maybe I'm being selfish but I want the republican leadership out of the house!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Then you should definitely support and vote for your candidate.

If he's, as you say, a "moderate" Democrat that you favor over the more progressive Green or the conservative Republican, and you are not troubled by his "moderate" stance on the issues, vote for him. Howerver, I posit that the Green votes your are worried about are probably available to him IF he moves to the left. Perhaps you should pressure him to do so.

Given a choice between Pelosi and Hastert (I don't have a vote in that, as I suspect you don't), I would vote without hesitation for Pelosi, being that she is a progressive who I have few quarrels with.

[damntexdem]

19. Get over it! The Greens have a right to exist and run candidates.

It's time the Democratic Party stopped blaming the Greens and looked to its own failures. The Party should be riding high right now; but it's not -- it is barely respected more than the GOP.

[LynneSin]

23. If it was a green in my own congressional district I'd be happy for it

hell I might vote for them.

But this isn't a left leaning district - this is hardcore bible-banging, god-fearing republican country and a scandal that has made their candidate vulnerable.

Greens, last I checked, aren't overflowing with cash - shouldn't they choose races where can either do respectively or even possibly win. Personally, I think a green in this race is like taking your money donated to the green party and lighting it on fire!

[welshTerrier2]

25. the right way and the wrong way of sharing power

think of it this way ... if the Green candidate believes the Democrat has a real chance, and the Democrat shares many of the views held by the Green, it would be sort of crazy for the Green to jump in and split the vote ... i assume that's the essence of your argument ...

but let's say that the Green does not agree with the Democrat on key issues ... what should happen then???

here we end up at the same cross-roads we're seeing within the Democratic Party itself ... take the anti-war Democrats as an example (i include myself among them) ...

if we are ignored; if we see no path to compromise; if we believe we have no voice and no chance to effect change in the direction of the Party and its elected leaders, what path is left open to us???

the answer in the PA race you wrote about is NOT to blame the Green candidate just as it is wrong to blame anti-war Dems for choosing to vote for a third party progressive ... first, it has no impact whatsoever ... and second, there is another way that might accomplish what you're seeking ...

and the path is to negotiate ... the Green Party, even though it is unlikely to win much anytime soon, nevertheless represents a block of voters who might be persuaded to vote for Democrats if some degree of common ground can be arrived at ... while Democrats might want to make the argument that "anything's better than a republican", they often fail to understand that there are many of us who put issues ahead of party ...

instead of criticizing Greens, Democrats should get to work trying to win their support ... and the only way to do that is to sit down with Greens and try to work out a settlement on the issues ... it's too bad the Democratic Party has yet to realize the need to do the same thing with many of their own constituents ... unity must be earned; it cannot be demanded ... when the Democrats find a way to share power with alienated Democrats, Greens and non-voters who are so disgusted with the process that they've stopped voting completely, the Party will quickly regain its majority status ... i just wish they understood that ...

[Nite Owl]

26. Why aren't the dems

trying to run on the Green line on the ballot?

[EFerrari]

27. With respect, the Greens do not exist to carry water for the Dems.

And they are as legit an expression of the will of the People as the Dems are.

Let's try coalition building before demonization. It worked last time, when we elected John Kerry.

:)

[ourbluenation]

28. I love the greens - I do. But if they do this the republican will win.

It's really as simple as that. Perot split the repub vote and that's what got Clinton in...now is NOT the time for 3rd parties, imho.

[crispini]

30. How candidates get chosen:

Now, I don't know much about the Greens, other than the obvious: small, probably not a lot of activists, or a lot of funding. So, I would venture a guess that Green party local candidates get chosen in the same way that Democratic candidates do for the smaller races, at a county level, for example:

The candidates choose themselves.

That is to say, if a Green party voter lives in a certain district and wants to run there and they are willing to put up their own money and time, then the party says Go for it. In other words, I'm not sure your beef should be with "Green Party strategy as a whole" because I'm not entirely sure that there is a national or state Green Party strategy.

Now, I could very well be wrong, but I'd bet a ten-spot that 90% of the reason that race may have a Green candidate is because that race has a person who lives in that district and wants to run. Not much to do with "the Green Party" per se.

[TahitiNut]

32. Eeek!! Mice!! (That's sooo ... Republican. To be scared of mice.)

Unless votes are earned, they're not 'owned.' :eyes:

[EFerrari]

69. Eek back atcha, Tahiti. How will we know if votes are earned?

Surely you don't approve of faith-based elections?

:)

[MadHound]

35. I think that you should get used to it friend, and deal.

The Dems have proven time and time again that they are part of the two party/same corporate master system of government. The IWR, funding of the war, the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, the list long, and goes back into the Clinton years and beyond(NAFTA anybody, welfare "reform"). People on the left are sick and tired of having their issues ignored by the Dems, yet they are expected to fall into lockstep voting every two years, even if the candidate violates some of their most sacred beliefs.

Thus, they're caught in a quandry that allows for only one of two solutions. Either give up voting altogether(which many have done, as evidenced by the fact that most non-voters are liberal) or vote Green.

This is how our country works, so I suppose you can do one of two things, either deal with it, or work with the Democratic party to nick some Green positions in order to bring back the left vote to the fold. FDR had to do this with the Socialists during his first re-election, and gee, look what we wound up with, those two solidly socialist planks known now as Unemployment insurance and Social Security. And gee, this is probably a tactic that would work now. But that actually means that the Democratic party would have to listen to the left, and conceed something to them, an action that the party has been unable to do since the late sixties.

So what is a good leftist to do? Vote for a pro-war 'Pug, or a pro-war Dem? Vote for a corporate controlled 'Pug, or a corporate controlled Dem? Violate every moral fiber of our being, and pull that Dem lever. No friend, sorry but I cannot put the lives of innocents in the balance against political pragmatism. Life wins every single time.

So the Dem loses, so what! Perhaps it will wake the Dems up to the fact that they need to move left a bit, make some concessions to that group they once considered their base, their foundation. And if losing election after election won't get this message across, then the Dems will follow the Whigs onto the dustbin of political history. Leaving room for a true left party, one that isn't beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and corporate America. And that my friend would be a good thing.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Or those of us in the Dem Party can work to make the Greens unnecessary

As we spiff up our own party.

[MadHound]

42. That would be a great alternative

Make the party more accomadating to the left would be an excellent idea. However, sad to say, that the people in power don't seem to want to, and after years and decades of trying to work for change within the party, myself and many many others are tired unto our souls, and have finally said fuck it, we're going where we're welcome.

You solution would be a good one, and let us know how that works out. But don't expect any help from those on the left, we've already donated more than our fair share of blood, sweat, tears, money, energy and votes to the Democratic party long ago, and quite frankly don't have any more to give to an organization that at best ignores us and at worse villifies us. We're done, we're through, and you're going to have to bring about these changes on your own. If you do so successfully, then you will get the left to come streaming back.

Think of the left as a dog that has been kicked around and abused for years. Finally, one day the dog just gets tired of it and either runs off for good, or turns on its owner. That's where the left stands vis-a-vis the Democratic party.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Weirdly enough some seem to think the Party has gone too far your way

and people like Rush act as if you are all that exists in the Dem Party. Weird how the perspectives change. Rather like how some folks blamed the loss on Gay Marriage and Pro-life/Pro-Choice issues.

I'd like to see if both sides could agree to a populist vs a progressive agenda. I'd like to focus on making the lives of the people better overall, while still keeping the other issues alive but not putting them front and center as if they were the only thing we were about. That's one idea, anyway.

We have to find an angle that keeps the "big tent" afloat. But damn it's tough.

[jonnyblitz]

57. BINGO! exactly LittleClarkie!

:thumbsup:

[LynneSin]

49. You know I heard an interesting concept in DC

we talk about all the democrats we don't like and how we want to get rid of them. But we never really talk about the idea that by getting rid of too many democrat we essentially give our power to the republican party.

Anyhow the concept was that since we are in the majority, now is not the time for us to get fussy about who is in the democratic party (hear me out now). Without the majority we have our hands tied to get important issues across including election reform, the war, fair judges and a host of other important issue. The majority gets to control what bills go through the system and what gets buried in committee.

Back when we had our slim majority in the Senate - even Zell Miller, a DINO if we ever saw one, still stayed in the party and supported Dashcle as majority leader. He could have easily swapped sides and given his support to Lott and thus giving control back to the republicans.

Right now I want a democratic majority somewhere - house, senate, white house SOMEWHERE!!! Because without that majority we are fucked. Hell with the majority we're still pretty much fucked but maybe not as much with the repuke majority. Remember, when Dems were in charge back in 2001-2 - bad judges never got out of committee and ANWR was never at risk.

We complain about the members we have in DC representating us but personally I feel that our complaining about them is like a poor person complaining because he/she wasn't giving Lobster & Steak as a free meal instead of the meatloaf offered.

Harry Reid has proven that his is a good, effective leader and I'm even warming up to Nancy Pelosi. They will always deal with renegade moderates but they'll do a Zell Miller on em - give them the least important committee seats and strip leadership from them so they in turn cannot do any additional damage.

This whole "We need to stop voting for bad democrats" is just old and tired - we have primaries, vote your conscious then and there. But when that is overwith consider the fact that we will not improve this country as long as we have leaders like Frist, Hasert & Bush running this country. Once we get the majority then we can start fighting the right-wing Democrats - force them out of the party if there is enough leeway to lose a seat. But we don't have that liberty now.

As for Greens - they need to run smart races. I know PA-10 since I'm probably related to half the people in that district - hell Sherwood could be a distant Uncle for all I know. This region is very very conservative so getting even a moderate democrat is a major improvement in that region. But to run a race where maybe you'd get 100-300 votes is a waste of money and a risk to possibly getting a republican replaced with a democrat that will add to the majority.

So I'm complaining because well, that's what I do best.

And BTW, this "Maybe Dems will have a wake-up call" strategy has now officially not worked for the last 3 major elections (2000,2002 and 2004). Don't you think it's time for a new strategy?

[MadHound]

58. A nice premise, but one that doesn't fly outside the wind tunnel

Even when we had control, when we had Clinton in the WH, when the Democratic party was ascendant, what did we get? NAFTA, welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, and on and on ad nauseum. Sure, sure, the economy was good, if you were rich and corporate, but meanwhile that old gap between the rich and the rest of us opened to a record breaking chasm, and real world wages continued to decline. The group known as the working poor first came to prominence, strangely enough under Clinton. So what the fuck good was the power held by the party when they simply squandered it away pleasing their corporate masters?

And while Bushco came in, and the Dems still held that slim majority, yeah, ANWR didn't come up and bad judges never got out of committee. But boy howdy that Patriot Act sure flew through, so did the IWR. Gee whiz, look what good we did with our majority.

I'm sorry Lynn, you're a good person. But I have become tired, impatient and grouchy in my middle age. I've worked hard for the party all of my life, done the whole "work from within for change" trip. And what has it gotten me? Bupcus, zip, zero, nada, a party that is willing to sell out its base for those thirty pieces of silver, a party that is willing to sell this country down the river in order to curry favor from its corporate masters. And I am so sick and tired of it that I want to scream. Do you realize that while tens of thousands of innocents were dying during the laste election campaign, this country was having to decide between pro-war candidate A and pro-war candidate B to fill our highest office? And judging from the looks of things now, what with Hillary and all, that looks like the same no choice that we'll have next presidential election. What in the name of mercy has this country become?

And quite frankly, I've worked with the party in high enough positions, for a long enough time to realize that primaries can and are rigged one way or the other all the time. I have lost all faith in them and the process. Yes, I'm bitter, jaded, and thoroughly disgusted with the party and all that it now stands for.

These aren't mighty powers that we're begging for scraps from the table Lynn, each and every person in Congress and the various governing bodies across this country are our employees! And quite frankly they all need to start acting like it. Look at the IWR! Messages against it were running 268-1. Millions of people nationwide and worldwide were out in the streets saying "NO". Every major poll in this country at the time showed that the American people were overwhelmingly wanting to wait for the inspectors to do their job before making any decision of any sort. Yet the Dems trotted right out with the 'pugs and rammed through a rationale for this illegal, immoral war. And tens of thousands of innocents have paid the ultimate price for that decision. Does that sound like the work of an experienced, well paid, compentent employee? Hell no! So it is high fucking time that we do with these poor employees the same that would happen with us, fire their happy asses and hire in people who can do the job well.

Part of the problem is that these people have gotten so used to getting a pass from us. And that is because they always have! It is time to reign them in and make them realize that we're not their serfs, they are our employees. And this can only be accomplished with a radical change. Doing more of the same ol' same ol' not only won't get you anywhere, but by some definitions it is considered insanity.

[LynneSin]

60. Well you know - that's where you are wrong

You know, don't assume I'm some idealistic 20 year old kid - I'm middle age too. Been following politics since Carter and voting since Reagan.

You make it seem all so simple - let's just abandon the Democratic party, let's teach them a lesson boy they'll come a changing when we do.

I'm still waiting.

The democratic party is extremely flawed but right now its the only thing we have to fight against almost total republican rule. ANd right now they're about 1-2 justice away from getting complete rule.

You can complain about all the bad that Clinton did and I can add to it but he did plenty of good and kept that Supreme Court balanced favorably so at least when the shit hits the fan we had that final protection.

I'm not sure if I want to live in a country where repukes have total control including the Supreme Court. Because if you think it's bad now - it is going to get worse. Religious nutbags making legal decisions that even if we could get congress/WH back, the courts will just overturn it.

So you know - go put your head in the sand and live in the dream world that we're somehow, someway teaching the democrats a lesson. We aren't. THey haven't changed in decades so why bother now. But if we had some sort of comfort level protect like a democrat in the White House, control of the House and/or senate or our Supreme Court protect - then we can start getting antsy towards democrats that go to far to the right because when we lose them we've lost nothing.

You're just too happy to give away everything to the republicans - they hope you continue to stick with your beliefs.


Edit note: Take a look at the 2004 Specter SEnate race in PA. This is what republicans do and you know, it's not a bad idea. Repukes would love to replace old Arlen Specter with someone more on the lines of Rick Santorum. They knew the seat was safe and they knew their senate was safe, so what did they do - they put ultra-conservative Pat Toomey in the primaries against Specter in hopes to oust him and possibly get a neo-con to replace him. And the funny thing is that Toomey came damn close to beating him. If we have a majority this is the stuff that we can do with gusto - go after moderates with more progressive candidates in the primaries, hell I wish we would do it now. But we don't. That's our problem

[MadHound]

70. Lynn, I've been around DU long enough to get most of the major players

Ages correct. I didn't assume that I was talking to a naive twenty-something, OK. We've both been around the block a few times, and have the same political and age reference.

And I have never, ever in my life given anything to the right wing of this country.

Which is one reason why it the political scene in America today makes me sick, I feel cornered and trapped, for in neither direction do I see anything remotely left, much less liberal. Yes, Clinton kept the Court as the last resort for hope, but even that last resort, especially on economic, corporate and property matters was dicey at best. But he also ran one of the most pro corporate administrations since the days of the robber barons. The notion of economic and even social justice was a remote concept in his administration.

And to be handed a choice between two pro-war candidates, come on! How can one's karma truly be clean with that one? My soul cries, it aches, and I rage at the political games being played while thousands upon thousands of people die.

But you are correct, I do live in a dream world. I dream of peace, justice, all the good that life has to offer. And no, I refuse anymore to parse it up into one unholy compromise to prevent another unholy compromise. I've played that game time and again, and have only found despair.

Sure, what I work towards is a Quioxtic quest. But there is a way, and if part of that way has to involve the demise of the Democratic party, so be it. But I would rather the party would relearn how to at least reach out to the left. FDR during his first re-election bid was being threatened by the Socialist party, a much more serious threat to FDR than the current Greens are, though they were still essentially playing a spoiler role. Fearing the spoiler role, FDR reached out and stole a couple of Socialist planks and made them the cornerstone of his campaign. And many of the Socialists, being ultimate political pragmitists at heart(much like many of the Greens) made enough common cause with the Democrats to put FDR back in the White House.

Those two planks were what we now call Unemployment Insurance and Social Security.

So again, why can the party not reach out to the left? Back a populist position of some kind, any kind? Go for the big one, ending this illegal, immoral war. After all, all of the latest polling data states that it is a winning position. But sadly, the funding bills are passed, and the only real candidates that are getting some buzz are those who are more or less hawkish. When does the bloodshed end? Do the Democrats really feel the need to relearn the lessons of '68?

Lynn, you and I walk in the same woods, we just are taking different paths.

[Inland]

95. "If a Dem loses, so what?"

Suddenly, the evaluation of what an individual of conscience is to do in a political system that requires compromise by its very nature takes a turn into complete and utter bullshit.

To achieve your desired conclusion--that you aren't going to give an inch--you simply presume that there isn't any difference, that a dem losing to a repug makes no difference, and if it does, it's only a good difference, because losing helps the true progressives.

Therefore you are actually rooting for the republicans. After all, there needs to be a few more defeats of dems to get you your realignment.

Now, I have to go read threads about an administration that lied us into war, a congress that won't investigate it, and a supreme court packed with righties, and an environment already past the breaking point, all thanks to the republicans you wanted to win because you thought that in the LONG term, it would be helpful. Or to give you more doubt than you deserve, the republicans that you would just as soon see in charge as the democrats.

Because that's the reality. You took a campaign slogan like "
there isn't a dime's worth of difference" and pretended like it had something to do with reality, and that's a lie. It just is.

[MadHound]

98. Wow, you're making a mighty big stretch there,

And painting with a very broad brush.

You speak of compromise friend, and that is exactly what I've been doing for the past thirty plus years, compromising my country away a sliver here, a chunk there. And what the fuck has it left us with? Two parties that have moved to the right, and both of which supported the war. Two parties who are indeed controlled by the same corporate master. Two parties who put corporate America ahead of the rest of America every single goddamn time. You bitch about the "not a dime's worth of difference" meme, well get used to it friend, for in many many case it is true. The IWR? The Dems were in favor. NAFTA? The Dems were in favor. The Patriot Act? The Dems were in favor. On and on ad nauseum, with no end in sight. Are all Dems on board with this? No, I'm not saying that. But enough Dems are on board with this that is has distorted the party to the point where I don't recognize it anymore.

And friend, what I'm rooting for is returning government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people. And yes, if the Dems have to fall, so be it.

Get you head out of the sand and join us in the reality based world. These aren't the Dems of your father and grandfather. These are cold, calculating Dems who value their corporate lucre of the American public every single day of the week. Wake up friend, and stop being part of the problem.

[Inland]

105. Golly, you must think you are the only person who has had to compromise.

Or more likely, you think that giving up your positions is hard, and the rest of us giving up our positions is easy, because you're a great guy with great positions and the rest of us are shits who just wheel and deal without an ideal in our heads.

Fact is, we don't compromise because it's easy, or fun, or because we don't passionately believe in things. We just don't indulge in the sort of self righteous blather you do, and indulge in the lie that it doesn't matter if dems lose.

Living in the reality based world, we realize that there is more going on than our personal purity. We give up something because there are countervaling considerations, like republicans winning....a problem you make go away by simply pretending that there isn't anything wrong with republicans winning.

If I didn't think there was anything wrong with republicans winning, I'd be holding out for a few things myself and patting myself on the back, like you. But I don't lie to myself that way.

The "dimes worth of difference" meme I won't get used to, because it's a lie, like many political lies.

By the way, five soldiers dead in Iraq today. I wish they had lived long enough for you to give them the dimes worth speech. Hey, how about some Katrina victims...the living ones.

You're part of the republican victory. You want it, you don't mind it, and you think it is actually for the good. Of course, your reason for wanting republicans to win is stupid, but that just makes you like any other dupe who thinks that republicans winning is going to help them. Well, not like any other. I bet you had a lot of education and reading to get to the point of self delusion and self gratulation;unlike the dope who just doesn't understand how social security works, you had to put a whole lotta brain wattage to get to the exact same shitty result.

Why aren't you gone already?

[QC]

38. GREEN = Get Republicans Elected Every November n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

65. Hehe. nt

[IndianaGreen]

90. Greens support equal marriage rights for LGBTs

Democrats do not!

[QC]

106. That doesn't do me any good if

the Greens keep putting Republicans in office. Good intentions alone aren't worth squat.

[noiretextatique]

40. oh for god's sake

if the democratic candidate can't win with a green in the race against an idiot like this guy, then the problem in your area, and in america, is much deeper than anyone realizes. can democrats only win by suppressing voter options? if so, that's more of a commentary on the democratic party than the voters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. They would rather chase rightwing votes than Green.

The Green votes are available to them if they move left. Just as the rightwing votes are (somewhat) available to them if they move right.

As you say, it's more a commentary on the Democratic party than the voters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. I share your belief that it is absolutely imperative to get a Democratic

majority in Congress. I would hope the Green Party makes a serious reconsideration of its strategy for advancing their issues and drops from this race and other races where their biggest impact would be to throw the race to a right-wing Republican.

However, I don't buy the excuse anymore that rural conservative districts can only elect so-called "centrist". Both Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders win conservative Republican parts of their districts by landslide proportions in spite of their socially liberal views. They do this by focusing on the bread and butter issues that have won election for Democrats for decades. If they cannot give socially traditional voters a reason to vote Democrat-- they will never, never, never break into "red America" in a serious and long-term way. If the GOP candidate pushes wedge issues and the Democratic candidate offers only vague platitudes and slick campaign adds this nut will NEVER be cracked. The style over substance approach that has dominated our party for the past three decades is not only morally lacking, it is political suicide.

[B Calm]

46. YES the Green Party get campaign contributions from the republicans

[bluedawg12]

72. Great, have a third party but don't run 'em where neither greens or dems

will win.

This Pa. case sounds like a vote splitter and I am tired of repug domination.

[MadHound]

85. Care to prove that? Better yet care to put your money where your mouth is

Nice flame baiting accusation you have there, but I seriously doubt that you can back your happy ass up with proof. And until you do, all you're doing is what the 'Pugs do, spreading lies, smears and false information. Doesn't make you look too bright.

[pinto]

50. I think a "Green Coalition" within the Democratic Party -

mentioned by Ravenseye, above, deserves a look by members of both parties. Interesting idea that could hold benefit for all...

Politics is about managing government power on behalf of the public. You've got to hold the handle to that power - or at least have some effective influence with those that do - to accomplish it successfully.

The Green Party may well be better off, in the long run, considering a coalition position within the Democratic Party.

Appreciate the post, it's an interesting thread all around.

[JudyM]

108. Agree completely. I am more a Green than a Dem but we must be smart

about getting the message across. Both parties would get more accomplished by teaming since we have so many more common values than either has with the rethugs.

[kwolf68]

54. Democracy

We need more of it.

[jonnyblitz]

55. now if the DEM is a viable alternative this might not be an issue.

Often times the DEM isn't much better. you DEM party loyalists fail to realize this when you have your little hissy fits over the Greens.

[ikojo]

63. The person running as a Green will need to do what

the Dem will need to do...that is EARN a vote...I know it's a novel concept, but just because someone has a D after their name does not mean that person is a progressive, just think Joseph Lieberman.

If the OP is concerned about the Greens running a candidate, then he/she should try to find someone in the area to run as a Democrat, preferably somone with solid progressive cred.

[1932]

71. I think 2000 killed liberal third parties. What did Nader get in '04? 01%?

[JNelson6563]

77. That's too bad

here in my neck of the woods we work with our local Greens. If they have good candidate for a spot and we don't we support theirs and vice-versa. We've not wasted the resources running against each other.

Julie

[long_green]

82. To many of us, the Democrats are on the clock...

they are past due when it comes to acting like a real opposition party. If they run to the middle in 2006, I'm leaving.

[formernaderite]

84. You people are laughable sometimes...

instead of trying to attract the other half of the country that doesn't vote, you get pissed at the Greens or any other left wing candidate that is attracting voters. You believe those voters would vote for you no matter what....but you're wrong.
The one thing we always found to be true, is that Greens do register voters that feel ignored by the system, often times these are new voters.

How about this as a compromise....let us register and attract them to BE VOTERS! Maybe they'll give you guys a chance in the future.

[MadHound]

86. It is how they spin the shortcomings of the Democratic party

And how they disguise the rightward movement the party has and is taking. It is an old projection tactic that the 'Pugs first used. They invest so much mythical power in the Greens, but it is really just a spin to hide how badly the Democratic party is failing us and them.

Lord knows, it couldn't be that Gore ran a piss poor campaign both in Florida and nationwide, no. It must be those mean, powerful Greens, who with a wave of their wand elevated Bushco to the presidentcy. Don't pay attention to those 600,000 voters in Florida that Gore alienated to the point where they voted for Bush. Don't pay any attention to the selection made by the Supreme Court. It's all those nasty Greens fault:eyes:

[formernaderite]

96. Absolutely....

we will not see a true democratic agenda again, until the democrats stop playing tug a war with the same group of voters that the republicans are tugging at. The politically/ideologically disenfranchised voters in this country can't tell the difference between the two parties, no wonder they don't vote.

I happen to be a huge Dean admirerer, but he pissed me off on Chris Matthews the other night. While the Duers spent their efforts getting pissed at Chris, I saw Chris's point. The democrats have to stand strongly for issues....whether they're unpopular or not. People may have a disagreement with you, but they'll respect you for standing tall.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Stop sounding like General Motors!

GM put out lousy and expensive products and then screamed foul when consumers switched to Japanese automakers. Market a better product than the competition and you will be fine.

Democrats are not entitled to anyone's votes. They must earn the votes and you can't do that when they don't take a stand on issues that people care about such as jobs, the war, LGBT and abortion rights.

BTW, I want the 2-party system to die! It is inherently undemocratic and leads to corruption. I also want the death of the Electoral College for the same reasons.

[Tower]

89. There's a reason people vote Green, you know. They do it when Dems

ignore the left. The Democratic Party doesn't own their fucking vote, and if they want it, they can earn it.

[KG]

91. whaaaaa!!!

yep, if the dem party candidate loses, it would naturally be the greens fault, not the dem party candidates'. :eyes:

that is just so weak. really, it's no mystery the dem. party is totally out of power.

[rmgustaf]

93. I usually see a Republican sense of entitlement to votes...

but the Democrats have been exhibiting it as well.

If your candidate is strong enough, he'll win. If he's weak, he won't. But the bottom line is that he's got to earn votes. He doesn't deserve a single damn vote unless he proves he's worth it.

If people want to vote for a Green, your candidate failed, simple as that.

The Greens are not the problem. Your sense of entitlement to every vote left of Arlen Specter is the problem.

[LynneSin]

97. You know it would be nice if you late posters read some of the earlier...

...discussions.

This isn't about keeping greens out of the race. This is about a congressional district that is overwhelming republican but has a representative neck deep in an adultry/abuse scandal. This district makes Paul Hackett's district in Ohio look liberal. But because of the scandal there is a chance. A liberal will not fly in this district but even a moderate democrat (who from his website has some good liberal stances on many issues) might be able to win and that seat will help bring a democratic majority to congress. Btw if there is 100 greens living in that district it would be a miracle so personally it seems like wasted money. And I know this because the bulk of my family & hertitage is from this district.

You do know that there will never be an impeachment until we have the majority in the house. It seems running a race in a district where there is so few liberals to begin with is a waste of money for the green party. Last I checked your coffers aren't overflowing. If we are to get rid of the democrat it'll happen by a slim margin - so that's why I'm bitching.

But you know, and flame me all you want, it seems greens are a selfish lot that prefer republican rule. This crap of "We'll teach them a lesson and stop voting for democrats" has not helped us much the past 5+ years.

If I were running the Green Party I'd focus my candidates and our money in races where we could make an impact and gain significant votes. PA-10 seems like nothing more than tossing money in the firepit.

[Rainscents]

100. I think having Green run might be good idea!

This might be very good for Dems! Look what happened in 1992? Bush Sr lost many votes to Ross and this how Clinton won!

[_testify_]

101. What you call a 'moderate dem'

I call a DINO.

Run a better candidate, or encourage your own party to address the issues the Green Party is trying to bring to light.

And as a Dem, what do you care how the Greens 'waste' their money? Because it interferes with the DNC plan to get this 'moderate' elected?

Why don't you ask the Republicans to drop out?

[12345]

102. Good point.

Why is voting your conscience a wasted vote? I believe that if the democrats are losing votes to the greens,they need to consider why and address those reasons. If the Democratic Party were satisfying its constituents, competition from the Green Party would be a non-issue...

[LynneSin]

104. Consider this about what you call a "Dino"

Even after Jeffords left the republican party and giving the democrats the majority there were rumors that Zell Miller was going to do the same and return the power back to the republicans.

This is PA-10, a place that makes most of Alabama look like a liberal haven. The person in PA-10 is not representing you nor will he/she represent me. That person will represent an area in North Central PA where in 2004 the republican candidate received 92% of the votes and yes, he had an opponent.

But because of the scandal surrounding that republican (Don Sherwood - cheated on wife, assaulted mistress) the region is actually vulernable but only if we find a way to pull republican voters over to the democratic side.

WE get too selfish here sometimes about congressional representatives. The PA-10 can be a raging DINO even worse than Zell Miller (he's not - I've checked him on the issues and I wouldn't even call him a moderate). But even what I call a democrat and you call a DINO represents one very important thing: It represents one of the 15 seats we need to obtain a majority in the house. It put us one seat closer to Speaker Pelosi and NOT Speaker Hasert. It puts us one seat closer to the democrats controlling what happens on the floor and NOT the republicans. And it puts us one seat closer to possibly having the power to at least introduce the articles of Impeachment on the floor. You do know it's very unlikely an impeachment will occur if the republicans have the majority.

We need to have a netgain of 15 seats if we want that majority. I've read where of all the 450+ congressional seats only 31 of them are actually considered competative which means we're going to have to keep every seat we currently have and find a way to pick up 15 additional seats. Doesn't seem like alot but that's a mightly mountain to climb.

Don Sherwood gave us a gift. He offended the strong Christian population of PA-10 by having an affair on his wife. This will alienated voters (It did in Tennessee when then Republican senator Tim Hutchenson left his wife for a staffer) and it could help us. If a candidate that leans more towards the Center were to run he/she could pick up the votes needed to give us one of those 15 seats needed so we can have control of the house.

But maybe that's not important to you. Hey, if you want Hassert as your Speaker then go ahead and complain. I would like to see this as a pickup for the dems and a step towards finally toppling republican control.

The representative for PA-10 will represent the people who live there. The bulk of my family is in that region and I've spent countless vacations, holidays & summers visiting them. I'll take a moderate knowing we are one step closer to getting back the majority. It's an easy choice!

[_testify_]

107. I understand your point perfectly about wanting that seat back

but what does it matter if he doesn't vote that way when push comes to shove?

I don't know this candidate's record, so I won't call him a DINO per se, but you have to admit asking the Green candidate to drop out rather than getting your own act in gear is pretty weak.

[Goldensilence]

103. congrats green party voters

I've checked out the party page for the first time. I don't see why dems hate the greensso much really. the agenda is ...welll democratic.

While i haven't voted the past two elections here in Texas for obvious reasons one being the obvious win of bush here. Which i think why the bushies moved to texas to snipe off an old Democratic state.Much the same reason I'm sure ol Jeb has been planted in Floriduh.

I agree with most of the greens here actually. Maybe the Dems would've hada better shot backing just a few of the greens ideas Or take up some socialist perspectives. Really appeal to the left instead of fighting for these "swing voters"

[WI_DEM]

109. haven't voted in the last two elections because it was obvious

that Bush was going to win? I'm glad many voters in other "RED" states didn't do likewise. It shouldn't matter if it seems obvious someone else is going to win. Weren't there any state or local races worth voting on?