Interesting piece on Greens, Dems and this year's presidential election.

[HuckleB]

This is a piece from the local weekly that discusses the Greens and former Greens among the ranks of Kucinich and Dean volunteers in Oregon. It appears to show that ABB is a key tenet of many Greens and former Greens this time around. However, at the same time, the rolls of Green Party members have doubled in Oregon since 2000, and increased dramatically across the nation.

----------

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4762
"Marnie Glickman, one of two Pacific Green delegates to the national party, puts it more bluntly. "Our numbers are increasing because the Democrats are continuing to fail people that are progressive," says Glickman, a former fundraiser for Oregon Democrats.

But as Election Day 2004 draws nearer, those progressive voters may look at the current resident of the White House and decide that maybe Al Gore wasn't so bad after all. (Nader captured nearly 97,000 votes in the decisive state of Florida, where Bush finished with a precarious 537-vote margin over Gore.)

Liz Trojan, co-chair of the state Green Party, concedes that the desire to cast a meaningful vote against Bush, particularly in a swing state like Oregon, will be hard to resist, particularly if the Democratic nominee at least talks the Green talk. "We do talk about voting Democrat," Trojan says.

"If there's a Democrat who shares 80 percent of our values...I have a tough time with that one. I have to take it on a race-by-race level."

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4762

----------

Anyway, I found it interesting as an anecdotal awareness of where some people are at. Hopefully, ABB will win out for many.

Cheers!

[prodigal_green]

1. I'm back!

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. I'd hope Kerry

Someone with a liberal rating in the mid-90's, would be acceptable to this group.

[HuckleB]

3. He might.

But I suspect that he may have some reaching out to do.

[HuckleB]

4. Another thought.

The party might be wise to send Kucinich and Dean out to meet with some of these folks, and show solidarity with the nominee.

[prodigal_green]

5. I was feeling somewhat disheartened

about getting Bush sent back to Texas until I heard Dean talk about the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. That got me paying attention again. I'll vote for any Dem who gets nominated becauase I think that there really is new vitality in the Democratic party.

BTW, I voted Green in a "safe" state--NY.

[HuckleB]

6. Well, I've got plenty of good friends who voted Green in '96.

For the same reason, Oregon was a safe state then. Most returned in '00 to vote Gore, even though it was difficult for some. And I don't blame them. My respect is fully intact. I'm not one to blame Nader for what happened, anyway. Gore should have won, regardless, in my mind. But I hope we can all gather together to stop the flow of damage caused by Bush.

[Turkw]

7. I'm from Florida, I like Nader better than I like Gore, both are to blame

Gore, for running such a poor campaign and Nader for actively running in competitive states. The worst thing the Greens or Nader can do this year is to try and run a competitive campaign. Really, if the Green party wants to send a message to the DNC, they should pick candidates to run for offices, all change their affiliation for the primaries to Democrat, take the fight inside the party. After the primary, switch back their affiliation to Green. With good candidates, and a strong organization, now that would be a kick in the seat of the DNC.

[HuckleB]

8. Actually, if you read the article.

I think the Greens are taking a wise tack in regard to the presidential election, and in regard to the future.

[EvilJam]

16. amen. my thoughts, exactly!

the Greens seem less antagonistic and more pragmatic this time around!
and, if they continue that tact, i could find myself easily making the switch! i've been dumped by my own Dems, and am Party-shopping! will be interesting to see what happens!
i would LOVE to see Dean and Kucinich and Golisano merge with the Greens! be one butt-whippin' Party! - evil

[HuckleB]

27. I suspect that we all have more to gain from those three continuing to

work within the Democratic Party.

[corporatewhore]

11. cough NAFTA/WTO/GATT cough

[Neecy]

9. I'm sort of mixed

While I'll always think the Greens in the competitive states helped elect Bush, what did the Green movement in 2000 actually accomplish?

What one would assume is that the Democratic party, knowing that they'd be bleeding votes to the Greens in 2002/2004, would have learned something and stopped this ridiculous sham of being 'centrists' (otherwise known as quasi-Republicanism). Instead, they lost big in 2002 and saw Dean - who borrowed a number of Green themes - take a huge early lead.

Rather than take some lessons from 2000, the Democrats in the Senate bent over backwards to accomodate the charlatan in office. That's why I'm glad that Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich are in the race, because they're all sounding the warnings about the future of the party unless we go back to our roots. I just hope that somebody is listening.

[HuckleB]

10. I don't know if there is a right answer.

But the Greens have little to gain by pushing themselves into the presidential election, at this point. They seem be going about things fairly smartly, focusing on local, winnable races, and working to improve the representation rules that keep third parties out of the process.

[not systems]

12. A debate between Normon Solomon and Peter Camejo...

on this topic from last week is here:

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/specials.php

"Which Way Greens in '04"
Live from the Crest Theater in Sacramento
A debate between Normon Solomon and Peter Camejo
Broadcast 7 - 9 pm Thursday January 29, 2004
Should A Green Run for President in 2004? A Debate between critic
and author Norman Solomon and recent Green Party gubernatorial candidate
Peter Camejo. At the Crest Theater in Sacramento,
courtesy of KVMR - FM in Nevada City.

[HuckleB]

13. Gracias!

[Terwilliger]

14. this was a good show

I wish we could see these kinds of debates in more places

[John_H]

15. Cool. Time for another episode of Math for Greens

The number of votes gained by Dems courting Greens in '04=2.7 percent minus (the number of loyal greens who will never vote anything but green) minus (the huge majority of greens who live in states we'll already win handily) minus (the number who live in states we'll already lose) minus (the large numbers of ex-Greens smart enough to see that "indistinguishable" was utter bullshit and have come home) minus (the number of moderate vote's we'd lose in important states trying to attract Green voters)

That's a negative number. Big time.

Sure, if there's another election that hinges on 200 votes, anyone can play a factor. Hell, the Marxist literary theoreticians of Florida's universities could have turned 2000. But barring that, the Greens' primary function will be comic relief in what looks like an brutal contest between us and the Chimp.

[Iverson]

17. Ah, sanctimony. It must be such a comfort.

In a discussion that freezes the world and excludes ideas one could, with a credulous audience, present one's value-laden "math" as objective fact. The teensiest detail of a footnote, though, was buried in the original message where few were likely to find it:

"However, at the same time, the rolls of Green Party members have doubled in Oregon since 2000, and increased dramatically across the nation."

It should raise the question as to where those increases are coming from, but I guess not.

Were I to craft my own sneering math lesson in response, I'd refer to that radical leftist Harry S. Truman, whose advice (If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll pick the Republican every time.) could be mathematically applied to the religion of endless "triangulation." However, there's no need; those who are open to actual exchanges of ideas have already remembered this themselves.

[MMT]

18. If lots of Greens are ABB this time, I hope they make clear that

it's a one-time gesture. Otherwise, all the Corporate Party need do is run another Bush each time under their GOP banner to frighten everyone into voting for the Bush Lite they're running under the Dem banner. That might finally even penetrate the perceptions of the wilfully-dull.

[John_H]

20. Most Greens are ABB? C'mon, if that were true, there would be no Greens.

[HuckleB]

23. Did you read the article?

Yes, many Greens are ABB.

[JVS]

22. Democrats will always demand the support of Greens

[HuckleB]

25. Would you expand on that?

I'd like to hear more on the thinking behind that statement.

Gracias.

[JVS]

33. Yes.

Every election is always made out to be a grave matter. When I think back to 96 and the idea that we could now be seeing the end of Dole's second term it makes me laugh. I doubt that two terms of Dole could have been as bad as the current administration. Yet every four years the voices rev up telling us that this election is a matter of life and death. As such, there is no time where Greens are welcome to make an appearance on the national stage, because god forbid that the massive struggle between good and evil not be helped by all on the left. The excuse given: Greens should focus on the local level. BULLSHIT.

The Greens' constituents are not a geographical group. If it were the Union of American Tobacco Farmers, I could see why the party might want to focus on states where tobacco is grown, but Greens speak to a more scattered group.

Also Greens attempts to gain representation on non-national levels are roundly condemned by many here who consider themselves far left. See California recall, and San Francisco mayoral election. The San Francisco election is a most offensive example of bad advice because Greens are told not to attempt to get national figures (i.e Pres. Candidates) and then when they focus on getting a city (which is local as they've been told to go after) the Democratic party rolls out the big guns who have worked at the highest levels to campaign for them. Why? Would a Green mayor have destroyed San Francisco? Because losing a traditional Democratic stronghold would be too demoralizing, too big a symbolic loss. This shows not only that the Democratic party is unwilling to accept any loss of power to Greens on even a local level. This is a requirement of cooperation. Imagine if I said "Join me for dinner, but I must get all of the food" This demonstrates also that Greens need to work on a national level in order to be able to support local politics (they need big guns of their own, since the Democrats will use them)

This is why I am certain that Democrats will continue to demand the votes of Greens. To say it quickly: It is always either a matter of life and death, or something too symbolically important.

[HuckleB]

35. Gracias. Good post.

I do think you show strong evidence to make your points, especially in regard to the SF Mayor and the '96 election. Your point about always selling every election as do or die is well taken. Doing so may very well weaken that argument this year, when the evidence of damage via four more years of Bush is quite clear, making solidarity truly important this time around.

Thanks for the wonderful explanation.

Cheers!

[JVS]

38. Woohoo, 5000th post!

:party:

[Iverson]

39. kudos, JVS

:toast:

[redqueen]

26. You're right - this needs to be clear

I'm afraid we're already experiencing the scenario you described, though. It's why lots of people who lean Green (like me) vote for Dukakis, then Clinton twice, then Gore. I see that the two-party system is rigged against third parties, and Reagan and Bush I both were 'scary' to me, so I voted Democrat, even though I'd prefer a more liberal leader.

How many Democrats like me are out there? Democrats who lean Green but keep being 'frightened' into voting for the lesser evil?

[HuckleB]

28. There are many.

But I don't think that it's always just a case of "being frightened." I think third parties are starting to understand where they can make a real difference, and that is locally, as well as by working to create a more representative system that will lead to changes in the current, winner-takes-all system that leaves so many without representation. In terms of the president, it will be very difficult for a third party to truly effect change via that race until it develops the aforementioned changes, which is why the Greens are taking the tact of working locally and working for systemic change aimed at creating truly representative government, rather than wasting exhorbitant energy and resources on a national election. Further, because of these factors, voting for the lesser evil, is also voting for the best possible leader for the nation. That is a positive thing to do. It shouldn't make anyone feel bad for doing it.

Just my take.

[IrateCitizen]

29. The 2 major parties see third parties as a HUGE threat

Want a sample case to back up that assertion? You need look no further than the recent mayoral race in San Francisco.

Faced with a formidable Green candidate (and no Republican) in the run-off election, the Democrats brought in the big guns -- to include former President Bill Clinton -- to stump for the DLC-favored Democrat, Gavin Newsom.

One must wonder what in the hell they were so scared of. It's not like San Francisco would suddenly be in question in a Presidential race -- the city would affirm its citizens' belief in progressivism.

Maybe THAT was the problem -- an example of people endorsing unabashed progressivism and fighting on behalf of regular people, and therefore threatening the business interests that have come to dominate the more "moderate" elements of the Democratic Party.

Democrats tell Greens to work toward victories on the local level. They do just that -- only to see Democrats work twice as hard to stomp them out as they do in many races where the opponent is a Republican.

Just more evidence of the two parties being primarily interested in maintaining the two-party system above all else, IMHO.

[HuckleB]

30. Of course.

They won't give up power willingly. No one is saying that they would.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Nor did I expect them to -- it's just evidence of true loyalties

During the 2002 election for NY governor, I never ONCE saw any of the "big guns" come out of the DNC to stump for Carl McCall.

Some friends of ours recently moved to SF. They told us that even as Democrats, they were absolutely sickened by the way that the campaign went.

It's just pretty telling to me, that's all -- that the Democrats act as if their greater enemy is the Greens rather than the Republicans. It then makes me wonder how much the Democratic Party really DOES want to represent the interests of "regular people".

[HuckleB]

36. Well, it certainly can be argued that such tactics actually

hurt the Dem party more than help, at least in the long run. It's like shooting oneself in the foot, as one attempts to shoot a feared enemy who is ready to sit down and talk.

[IrateCitizen]

37. How it affects "Dems" is not the real issue

The REAL issue, when you scratch the surface, is all about power structures. The threat from Gonzales's Green candidacy (and very possible victory) in the SF Mayoral race was that he threatened to upset the power structure. He proposed such outrageous policies as preserving existing neighborhoods and expanding affordable housing -- as opposed to Newsom's staunch support of the real estate lobby and their "gentrification" projects that have made SF unaffordable for the working and middle classes.

The underlying issue here is not the success of the Democratic Party. It is really all about keeping power concentrated in the hands of those who currently have it. Any attempts to wrest away this power and distribute it in a more egalitarian fashion is resisted vigorously by the powers-that-be.

[John_H]

19. I'll leave sanctimony to the one-percenters. But I will help you

out with a fair guess: The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the Indistinguishability Rag, with which you've tried to saddle Truman, couldn't be farther from the truth.

I do advocate keeping it up, though, since I would like to say, "I remember exactly where I was when the Green Party wing of the GOP died."

[Iverson]

21. Your words belie your title.

But it was a nice try.

[HuckleB]

24. Sorry.

This was a positive article on the matter, and I hoped for positive discussion. This sanctimony just takes things to the gutter, where little reality exists, as everything becomes an endorphin fest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The endless left vs right struggle continues.

As one who may well be voting Green this November, I'm damned grateful for the Green Party.

The Democrats take the left wing vote for granted, and have done for decades. The result has been a steady shift to the right by the party in hopes of stealing votes from the puglies. This was most obvious under Clinton with his "triangulation" strategy of compromising core liberal values.

Some of us Democrats have had enough of this selling out exemplified by the IWR vote. If Kerry or Edwards get the nomination a lot of us will be voting, and working, against the established power of the corporate/military/political alliance of the Democrats and Republcans.

[HuckleB]

34. Can you explain what you would hope to accomplish in the pres. election?

By working for a third party candidate this year, especially if the Greens are focusing most of their energies toward building a stronger base?

[Atlant]

40. Modifying the behavior of the Democrats.

> Can you explain what you would hope to accomplish in the pres.
> election? By working for a third party candidate this year,
> especially if the Greens are focusing most of their energies
> toward building a stronger base?

Modifying the behavior of the Democrats. As someone correctly
observed, for some reason, it's "never" the right ("safe") time
to vote for other than the Democratic candidate, but this year,
the establishment Democrats have clearly ridden rough-shod over
the wishes of everyone in their party who is on the left (whether
we're discussing the war, global trade, human rights, constitutional
rights, or what-have-you).

So this year, I'll be expressing my displeasure with their
behavior come November.

It was, after all, their choice as to how they would behave;
they chose unwisely.

Perhaps in 2008 they'll make wiser decisions?

Atlant

[HuckleB]

41. What evidence gives you hope that this will work?

[Atlant]

43. They've been losing elections since 1994. They'll either learn or vanish.

What evidence gives you hope that this will work?

The Democrats have been losing elections since 1994. They'll
either learn or vanish; I no longer care which, but they will
no longer get my vote while they kick me.

Atlant

[HuckleB]

44. Of course, there are many reasons for that.

Though I should point out that the Dems won the presidency in '96, as well as the popular vote in '00. I think the Green Party is working a smart route by focusing on changing the way representation occurs in this country and not wasting resources and energy on the presidency. It doesn't serve their cause, nor the cause of most Americans to spend inordinate resources on a race that won't end in real results.

Sorry, but the answer offered doesn't give evidence that anything will change from such a practice. I can understand feeling dissed by the party. I do, often. But I also think the picture is large, especially in regard to national elections. It's difficult for me to simply slap the party for dissing me, if doing so is going to cause me and my fellow citizens even more pain by allowing Bush to continue. That's just how I see it. If I could find an argument that offered a logical extension toward an obtainable goal, I might change my mind. But...

[IrateCitizen]

42. I might argue the contrary, Atlant

While I am certainly not pleased on the motivated-by-fear voting patterns exhibited by the vast majority of Democrats over the past few years, I do hold out hope that this pattern will be changing. If you look at the current Presidential campaigns, I think you'll find some whiffs of populism that were lacking just 3-4 months ago -- and let's not even start on 2000 and 1996!

Of course, a big reason for this is probably the early surge for Dean before the primaries, along with Kucinich and Sharpton in the debates forcing issues to be brought up that none of the others really want to discuss (perhaps that could be a motivation behind the NYT call for their exclusion from debates). And whether it holds true through the GE and especially upon election remains to be seen. But if the Democratic party chooses to abandon this populism, they deserve whatever ill fate awaits them.

I personally am willing to pull the lever for the Democratic nominee in the GE while simultaneously agitating like hell to advance a progressive agenda (currently being voiced most eloquently by Dennis Kucinich). Politicians, by and large, aren't leaders -- they're followers. The obligation comes to us to organize and make sure that they have to follow a populist tack rather than a corporate one.