An Ode to the Third Party Types

[AtomicKitten]

Lovely to hear from you here at DU, confirming the picture we already have of you lobbing garbage from the sidelines, content, no, proud to muck up the process. We remember you as far back as 2000 when this national nightmare began with the judicial coup d'etat that wrenched this country so far to the right.

I sincerely hope your strident attitude brings you comfort if, in fact, the presidential election does not go to the Democrats in 2008 and the next Supreme Court justice is appointed by a rightwing loon. You can kiss goodbye any hope of gay rights being advanced, much less what little has been gained preserved. You can kiss goodbye safe and legal abortions. You can watch the planet move exponentially closer to the catastrophic effects of global warming unchecked. And say hello to the official merging of church and state, the implications of which will be far-reaching.

You claim you will not vote in lockstep, that you do not subscribe to fascism. Ironically that's precisely what you will get if a Democrat is not elected president in 2008. You can revel in your high-fives knowing your ideological purity came first.

The rest of us understand what is at stake. We will work to select the candidate in the primary that we want to see in the White House. I have my fingers crossed for Al Gore. But when democracy has been rendered in the primary and a candidate has been chosen, the rest of us will close ranks and work to make sure the picture I have described above, the very one you thumb your nose at, does not come to fruition.

Thanks for playing. Drive through.

[k_jerome]

1. excellent. nt.

[ProSense]

2. Gore could have been finishing up his second term, or Kerry in the middle of his first. Sigh!

We're doomed!

Down with the third party! Down with Terribly McAwful! Down with Chuckie Carville!

[mtnsnake]

9. You got the first part right.

After that, it's all downhill.

[ProSense]

13. Ode to lockstep

Lieberman.

[Prophet 451]

3. That's unfair

Look, it comes down to principle versus pragmatism. Most of us are pragmatists. Even if we agree more with, say, Ralph Nader on the issues, we'll vote for the Democrat with the best chance of winning. The 3rd party types come from the other direction, they place principle over pragmatism.

I'm English. I have voted for the Liberal party since I was old enough to vote but in British terms, they are very much the third party. Admittedly, the differences between our system and yours means they can often make a difference but I vote for them because I agree with most of their stated positions. That's what politics is supposed to be about: You look at the issues and pick the candidate whose positions are closest to your own. Admittedly, the advent of formal party politics has buggered that up somewhat but that is what the 3rd party guys are doing, picking the candidate they most agree with. The rest of us are playing strategy politics, we're voting for people we might not agree with because they're better than the main alternative.

Blast teh third-party people for their naivete, sure but you can't fault them for idealism.

[LeftishBrit]

85. Thanks - I'm in the same position!

I also vote LibDem or sometimes Green, because I won't vote for either Blair or the Tories.

However, I think there's a difference between the UK at present and the USA, in that (a) recent elections have not been close; (b) the Tory leader at the moment, though bad, really is not that much worse than Blair; and though his predecessor Howard was worse, he had no chance in hell of winning.

If it was likely to be a close election with the prospect of getting Maggie Thatcher or similar back again, I'd recommend voting pragmatically; and if I were in America I think I'd vote for any Dem against any likely Republican - under present circumstances. Under another circumstance, it could be different.

[Ignacio Upton]

126. There is no realistic third party to vote for in our country

The way in which Congress and the Electoral College are structured make it impractical.

[treestar]

4. This is not an Ode

An ode should rhyme. :hide:

Really, there is not so much to worry about. This has been happening since the dawn of the Republic. The Democrats will inter-fight until the nomination is made and then take the side of the nominee over the Repuke. Third parties have not sprung up or grown very much in a long time.

Even Ross Perot's run still allowed a Democrat to win the election.

Rethugs are in similar shape - the very far right nut cases will think their candidate is too liberal. I have spoken to actual nutcases who think Bush is not tough enough.

Not to worry. :hi:

[Greyhound]

6. Oh but that's not the point at all. It is about nothing more than a pathetic

attempt to distract from the unconscionable lack of choice they're trying to push down everybody's throat.

[Dr Fate]

5. So long as Hillary is not nominated, 3rd parties will not be an issue.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and make all Lieberman supporters Democractic, Lamont supporters and all Greenies DEMS- but I cant.

The next best thing is to nominate a candidate that the most folks in the base can agree on- which is not Hillary.

[Esra Star]

10. Why not take out some insurance. Start a campaign to support

a loony right person who wants to become president.
Maybe that can bleed enough votes to counter any Nader assault.
Has the left in America ever financed a right stooge?

[Dr Fate]

11. Why waste my time? I'll continue to work for DEMS, thank you. n/t

n/t

[dsc]

19. that is flat out false

Nader has threatened to run no matter who wins. He ran against Clinton, he ran against Gore, he ran against Kerry, and if somehow we nominated Kucinich we would find something wrong and run against him.

[Dr Fate]

56. Nope- it is a fact. Running and having followers & voters are 2 diff. things.

Nader can run all he wants- if it is anyone but Hillary, he will be a mere blip-cant have a party if no one shows up.

[mtnsnake]

50. Not true. If a leftist candidate was on top, a 3rd party conservative Dem would emerge

3rd party candidates are born from being opposed to any particular position, Whether it's left, right or middle that they don't agree with, there's always gonna be a potential 3rd party spoiler.

[Dr Fate]

57. No, it is true- and Obama, Edwards, etc are not "Leftists"

I had them figured for plain old moderates or progressives.

As I said to the other fellow- you can have all the 3rd, 4th, 5th parties on the ballot you want-but it means nothing if most everyone is voting for the DEM.

I'm saying that folks who are moderate-to-left will mostly vote DEM this time around so long as it aint Hill. I dont see extra parties as a factor otherwise.

[Sterling]

103. I think you nailed it.

If we offer a great candidate that appeals to all we will win. If not, why do we "deserve" to win. Complain about Nader or 3rd parties is for losers. To look at the total context of the selections and chose to focus on Nader reeks of trying to pick on a defenseless target. I chose to blame the pukes who stole the rights of all of us to have a free and fair election. @nd to blame is the Dem's who have yet to call the Repukes out on the stolen elections. Ralph come in somewhere so low it does not hit my radar. I am not so timid I need to find a tiny little man like Nadar to pick a fight with.

[mtnsnake]

7. Awesome!

The same people, the ones who are so quick to threaten to vote third party if they don't get their way, are are always the first ones to whine about what went wrong when the Repukes are put back into office. They always put themselves and their 1 or 2 special interests above our Party as a whole.

Well said, as usual, AK!

[PresidentObama]

8. 2008 is too important to waste my vote on third parties n/t

[ripple]

12. Well said, AK

I wish we could have a viable three or four party system, but until campaign finance is resolved, it isn't going to happen.

If anyone still thinks there is no difference between the dems and repugs, they haven't been paying attention.

First priority is getting our nation back, then we can talk about real election reform.

[Clark2008]

14. I have only one Dem I wouldn't vote for.

Let's not make him the nominee and I'll be OK.

I simply can't vote for people I don't trust. I'm sorry.

[Hekate]

15. R #5. Well said, AK. nt

[rudy23]

16. How 'bout An Ode to President Lieberman?

Let's not forget, the Democratic nominee in 2000 wasn't exactly a victim in all this.

He wins his home state, he would've been president. It'd be much better than this, but you've also got Joe Lieberman one heartbeat away from the presidency. Let's hold Gore accountable for his bad choices in hindsight, since that's what we're doing to the voters here.

[karynnj]

40. Except he actually won - even with Leiberman

Also remember that he had to pick Leiberman to counter a big negative blotch on the Democratic parties reputation. Without that misbehavior, Gore would likely have selected someone else - and almost anyone would have done better vs Cheney in the debate.

[kath]

53. Aww, quit the "home state" bullshit already. It didn't get as much attention as Florida,

but there was PLENTY of election fraud and voter suppression in TN in 2000.

[rudy23]

121. Interesting. I can't believe I didn't really consider it. I would love to hear more about this

Seriously. I can't believe I hadn't thought more about that.

[kath]

123. Here are some links

There's no question that they're going to find widespread voter disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, voter suppression, not only in Florida, but also in Tennessee. I was in Nashville, and people complained that they registered to vote, they did it the right way, and somehow or another between the motor vehicle office and the voter registration office no one turned in certain precincts to the right officials to make sure those names were on the rolls.

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/05/22/election/index.html

Intimidation and disenfranchisement of Blacks in the presidential election wasn't limited to Florida. Equally egregious violations were swept under the rug in Tennessee.

http://www.alternet.org/story/10589/

Improving Democracy: Voting Rights in the South http://www.democracysouth.org/improving/rights-disenfranchisement.html

U.S. Justice officials examine complaints about unfair treatment at Tennessee polls http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/01/04/03966405.shtml

Florida, however, was not alone in the problems of Election 2000. Allegations of voter disenfranchisement and irregularities have surfaced in other states, as well. In Tennessee, the right to vote for thousands of citizens was thwarted by actions taken by elections officials such as telling people they could not vote without voter registration cards (this is not a requirement to vote in Tennessee); voting sites suddenly closed without warning on election day; people who had NAACP stickers on their cars were told to take them off or leave; people who had registered to vote through the DMV were told they could not vote because they were not officially registered; voter registration books missing or pages missing; poll opening times were changed in some areas from 7:00 a.m. to 8 or 9:00 a.m. without notifying voters. At Tennessee State University, many students were told they could not vote even though they were registered.

Much of this evidence has been collected by the Tennessee Voter Empowerment Team, the state branches of the NAACP and Catherine Danielson. Reports are still emerging and, according to Catherine Danielson, the Department of Justice is presently in Nashville investigating these allegations, which largely affected voters in minority precincts (The Tennessean, April 4, 2001). The national NAACP will be conducting hearings, as well, at Fisk University regarding the irregularities of Election 2000. The date for these hearings has not yet been set as of this writing, but if you would like further information regarding this you can contact the Nashville NAACP office at 1308 Jefferson Street, Nashville, TN 37208; phone [phone].

http://www.geocities.com/theaddictedtourist/commentary.html

[rudy23]

125. Thanks for the links nt

[TheWraith]

17. Kicked and recommended, and I wish I could do it a dozen times more. NT.

[porkrind]

18. So who's a bigger problem?

A) Corporate establishment DINOs who side with big business against the populace.
B) Progressives who are so fed up with the DINOs in "A" that they vote third party.

I guess you think "B" is the major problem? How about having a left wing party that is populist enough to earn a majority? We have a world where true progressives like Kucinich are "unelectable" and Corporatists like Hillary are real contenders. WTF? And you think "Third Party Types" are the problem? I agree that we need to vote tactically for the lesser (lefter?) of two evils, but the key to a winning leftist candidate are clear and meaningful pro-populace/anti-corporatist policies, not more-of-the-same.

[AtomicKitten]

24. (c) The Supreme Court

This has NOTHING to do with either (a) or (b).

[wyldwolf]

20. AK - none of us remember, but history books tell us...

Simon-pure third party types have been mucking up the process for Democrats since at least 1948.

[madfloridian]

22. Since so many in our party are going another direction from us...

there will be more 3rd party types.

I think you are being insulting to good people who expect their party to stand for something.

Things have changed.

[wyldwolf]

30. on the contrary - it is the simon-pure types who are going the opposite direction

..as always, but seem to think they're the majority.

The party DOES stand for something, just not the ideologically strict ideals of a misguided few. The only thing that has changed is the Wallacites/McGovernites have gotten louder.

[AtomicKitten]

26. I have nothing against third, fourth, or fifth parties ...

... when they are viable options. Whichever party takes the WH in 2008 will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. 2008 is too important to experiment with third parties IMO, but I'm also just as certain that screaming factoid will mean zilch to some here.

[madfloridian]

21. Your talking down to people here is not helping one little bit.

I posted this in your other thread, and will repost it here. Also may I remind you that speaking of 3rd parties...Unity 08 is about all I have heard about. It will be very centrist, mostly Republican. A reminder that Hillary and Bill founded The Third Way so they could join with other world leaders rather than listen to the people of the Democratic Party. That group sets the agenda, we are supposed to happily follow.
From the other thread...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Since the Iraq War vote we have been asked "to stay on board", that it would be disastrous if the other side won.

Most of us did. In fact a high majority of us here did get on board with Kerry. And we worked locally.

We watched right after the 2006 election wins as Hillary's close friend and confidant James Carville asked the chairman to step down for winning.

He later said that they had not told him to hush about Dean, and he said that silence was meaningful. They did not dispute him.

She told us the other day that if we don't like the way she talks about her vote for the war, that we can vote for someone else.

Maybe she meant it. I don't know. But she holds herself aloof when her advisors like Carville say Dean was incompetent, when Begala says he doesn't need to hear from assholes from Vermont.

Her silence is telling, just as telling as her invitation to vote for someone else.

She will win. She will win the primary and probably lose the general unless she takes a Republican VP.

I am very tired of getting lectures. I was on board in 2002, only to see Bill McBride blow the whole damn campaign for governor here. I was on board in 2004, and the rest is history.

I think that it will no longer work to just give warnings. It is far too late for that, and most of us know it. Hillary will never reach out to the people of the party. I used to feel differently, but now I know she does not care what we think.

I don't have a candidate yet. I don't know what I will do. But your post brings out a stubbornness in me, and in many others. And those joining with you to instill guilt are not helping either.

The time is past for warning us to stay on board.

And I have been wanting to say this since 2003..."hell...it's just politics." All the attacks here then....just politics. If you play dirty politics it comes back to bite you in the butt. That's how it is...get over it..."it's politics."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1101

[AtomicKitten]

23. I'm telling it like it is about the Supreme Court.

That is not a hollow threat now with Alito and Roberts on the court and Stevens being 86.

The Supreme Court molds our lives for decades if not a lifetime.

If you consider pointing that out talking down to people, that's your misinterpretation and certainly not the content of my message nor my intention.

[Sterling]

106. Honestly when pols give me the attitude you are here it is a real turn off.

It comes off creepy and does not motivate people to become active in the interests of the party. The choice of voting for a repuke or someone with your tude really just motivates me to stay home. Do I really want to vote for someone who tells me what I should think and how wrong I am for my convictions. It is lazy and the wrong way to reach out to people you seek support from. It's gonna take a whole lot better than the kinda crap that started this thread to fix what W fucked up. You should take a deep breath and reinvent your approach to helping the cause. Wasting time bitching at people who are already unsatisfied with the party won't cut it this time.

I hope I don't see this stuff become endorsed by the site in an op by an admin like last election. It's a real turn off and we need to keep things positive between various factions of the party. I barely have time to visit DU anymore and stupid Nadar threads are not going to pump me up to be part of whatever "team" it is we will be going into the election with. Why would anyone support people who thin it is ok to act like douche bags and assume because the other guy is a bigger douche they deserve support/votes?

[Forkboy]

25. Ahhh yes...another "I'm so glad I'm, smarter than you" thread.

Where would the dems be without them?

[AtomicKitten]

27. The Supreme Court is a dead serious consideration for 2008.

I realize for some of you folks at DU it's fun and you thrive on just being contrary and fractious with others here, but others like to try to find common ground on important issues, like this one.

We will pencil you in as not interested.

[ProSense]

28. It was a serious consideration in 2004. In fact, Iraq was more serious and more deadly. n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

32. The war and those who speak out forcefully against it is more important.

There is no absolute that says the Repubs will appoint another Alito or Roberts (Reagan nominated O'Connor). The nominee must still be confirmed (Dems are in the majority now). So unless you're suggesting that they will confirm an extremists, what is your point?

Iraq, on the other hand, is deadly, and will be everyday until the troops are withdrawn.

[AtomicKitten]

34. you actually just augmented my point

Iraq and the Supreme Court - both important reasons to put a Democrat in the WH in 2008

[ProSense]

36. No, you've been using the Supreme Court as a strawman argument n/t

[AtomicKitten]

38. hardly

But thank you for coming out and saying so. Speaks volumes about what's important to you and the lame caliber of your argument.

And it still doesn't negate the importance of the Supreme Court and the 2008 election.

[ProSense]

41. Dems get to confirm. Yes, Iraq is more important in this scenario n/t

[AtomicKitten]

43. That's your opinion.

And Dems got to confirm last go and look how nicely that turned out!

Stick a fork in it. You want so desperately to win but all you can do is reiterate your opinion over and over again. And that's all it is, your opinion, not worth any more or less than anybody else's around here.

[ProSense]

46. Neither is your opinion, coincidentally. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

48. well, you see, we DO agree on something

[Forkboy]

31. Save your self congratulations

It's unbecoming,and you might break an arm patting yourself on the back.

[AtomicKitten]

33. if I convinced you how important the Supreme Court is

I'd pat myself on the back ... otherwise I'm at the receiving end of barbs you lob because for some bizarre reason you aren't comfortable with just disagreeing with me.

That's too bad really because I don't choose people I'm friendly with here at DU based by their POV. It isn't necessary nor a debating technique to be snotty with people just because you disagree with them. There are some people here that operate that way, and I guess I'll put you down as one of them.

[Forkboy]

39. Add me to the list

Sorry I don't fall for thinly disguised intellectualism.

There are some people here that operate that way, and I guess I'll put you down as one of them.

An earlier thread today showed just how you operate,thank you very much.

And I'm very comfortable disagreeing with you :shrug:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

35. Hey, it's all just politics. Or so I have been told.

And we all have to take it. That's the way the cookie crumbles. That's the way the ball bounces. Such is the way of the political world.

Many of us toughened up in 03 and 04, now it is time for others to stop whining and get to work for their candidate.

Just remember..it is all politics.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1101

[AtomicKitten]

37. It's a process, as you well know.

And that still doesn't negate what's at stake.

Two snaps around the world and back for drama, as always.

[fuzzyball]

42. The Greens and the Libertarians are ideologues, not realists

which is why they keep wasting votes. The so called
independents are not pure ideologues but are day dreamers.
The Perot voters for example day dreamt about a Perot win.

So, in the end it boils down to put your dreams in a box,
and vote for the only party with a realistic chance of winning.
In 2008, don't matter who gets nominated...HRC, BHO, JE or the
gov of NM....just pull the lever and hold your nose........
if you have to.

[Forkboy]

51. Everybody is an idealogue

The "hold your nose" theory ended with Kerry for me.

[PhilipShore]

44. Actually the DLC/Repukes picked Hillary this time...

as the de facto third party liberal -- too take away Dem votes in swing states, rather then Nader. In 2000 the Nader voters defected to the Green Democrats (Gore) and/or traded votes in swing states with Nader or Gore voters, once they found out that they were actually being funded and working for the GOP campaign.

I worked as a volunteer for the DNC, and the Green Democrats in 2000: and it was estimated that Nader lost 50% of his support; once the fact got out that that the Nader campaign - was just a GOP campaign funded front group.

The DLC/Repukes main worry, is a Gore/Clark 2008 ticket -- when they run Jeb Bush or Pataki in 2008.

Rumor has it that Hillary may be turning into a Huffington/liberal, between now and 2008. I think that that is all Gossip though.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

47. As long as our nominee isn't Hillary, 3rd parties won't crop up

But they are already gaining strength at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton nomination.

AtomicKitten, you just don't get it. There's a very strong reason why so many Democrats won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she were nominated-- she has shown that, fundamentally, in far too many ways, she is against the most basic principles that make us Democrats.

In this sense, she's *even* worse than a Republican who might be elected to office. At least with a Republican in office after 2008, the Democrats would have the opportunity to nominate and elect an actual progressive in 2012 (after the country would be tired from 12 years of GOP screw-ups). And with the Democrats controlling Congress, and a GOP nominee almost inevitably less crazy than George W. Bush, these legions of alienated Democrats could tolerate 4 more years of a Republican presidency in 2008 if Hillary were nominated. Frankly, many see this as an opportunity to inject fresh ideas into the flailing United States 2-party system, whether you like it or not.

The solution to this dilemma is easy-- nominate somebody like Barack Obama, or maybe someone like Richardson from N.M. They're far less polarizing and far less offensive to the most basic principles of Democrats, and they'd do much better.

[AtomicKitten]

49. It's not that I don't get it

... I just don't agree with your assessment of Hillary. I have worked within the Democratic Party for 35 years and have written for a Green paper. I consider myself a solid liberal Democrat. I have heard the arguments and read all I can get my hands on regarding HRC, and I just don't think she's as bad as you seem to.

No worries, though. I agree the solution is to nominate someone that could garner as close a consensus as possible within the party and that is my most fervent hope. My point is 'just in case.'

At this point, I support Obama in the primary, but will support Gore if he jumps in.

My point is a what-if scenario.

[unkachuck]

52. sorry....

....a corporate funded war-monger won't get my support regardless of party, in the primary or general....it's less about a particular candidate and party, and more about who owns them....corporate owned/funded or grassroots owned/funded....

....I think we need change badly, within the two party structure or without....a corporate funded candidate will do me harm....nothing I've experienced over the last 30 years disavows this; candidates will not represent people like me when they're bought and paid-for by the rich....

....I'm waiting for a grassroots-funded progressive candidate that's as serious about the left as bushco is about the right....remember, they didn't find anthrax in Lotts' office when he blocked Clintons' healthcare reform....

....I hope such a grassroots, left-wing progressive candidate emerges from the Democratic primary....but if a war-mongering corporatist gains the Democratic nomination, brace yourself for more 'national nightmare'....

[Manifestor_of_Light]

54. Nader did not spoil the election. The SCROTUS decided it.

And thereby made the biggest mistake of their career.

[DeepModem Mom]

55. K&R

[MadHound]

58. How sad, how pathetic, how predictable

Once again we see Democrats bashing the third party vote as though it were some great, all powerful force, coming in with what, less than two percent in '04? Yet this two percent is so threatening to the Dems that they devote reams of paper to it, attack third parties at any and all given chances, and some devote so much energy to attacking third parties that they have little left over actually doing Democratic party work.

All of this concerning two percent of the vote:eyes:

Methinks that thou doth protest too much. By continuing to imbue third parties with all manner of political evils, Democrats are setting up a straw man that they can attack time and again, bashing away at that two percent of the vote, while continuing to ignore the myriad numbers of problems that face their own party. Problems like the rightward drift the party has taken over the past couple of decades, the extreme amount of influence that corporations have on the party, the ongoing lack of a Democratic spine, etc. etc. ad nauseum. No, it's much easier to attack the Greens and Nader, unleashing all that vitriol over a measly two percent of the vote. On parties that are, in Democratic eyes, both all powerful, determining the fate of the country while simultaneously being quite powerless.

And this attack is rather hypocritical, since the Dems actually welcomed the third party vote that initially put Clinton into office. Dems were cheering on Perot all during '92, for they knew that Perot would help their cause. But heaven forbid, a leftist who decides to exercise their Constitutional right of running for office is considered just short of the spawn of Satan. How pathetic, how hypocritical.

And unlike Democrats of old, new Dems are inflexible and incapable of adaption and compromise. Even Roosevelt, when threatened by the Socialist Party challenge was able to adapt and compromise. Rather than railing against them, FDR simply nicked a couple of the Socialist party planks and made them his own. Good thing too, otherwise we would have Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, those two uber-Democratic institutions that actually came from *gasp* a third party.

So please, stop your whining. Everybody has the right to vote in this country for the person that they want. If the third parties are so very threatening to you(in all of their two percent horror), then do something besides whine and gnash your teeth. Appeal to their constituents, nick a couple of the Green planks and make them your own. But threatening, insulting, and browbeating third party supporters is not the way to win them over. All it does is piss them off even more, and make them work that much harder. Good job:eyes: You've done your share to energize the third party vote, and to show up the Dems for the intolerant, uncompromising, petulant, whining, hypocritical fools that so many of them are.:thumbsup::eyes:

[Forkboy]

59. I fully expect this to go over the heads of the very people who should think on it the most

It may be true,but it won't be popular.I hope some people read it once or twice and think about it before attacking you.

[MadHound]

62. Some will think it over, some won't

And those will go on to attack me in vitriolic diatribes that will provide further proof of my premises. Sadly ironic, don't you think?

[AnOhioan]

60. An excellent response

[bread_and_roses]

61. 2nd that. (n/t)

[AtomicKitten]

66. typical third party "look at me" crap

All of this concerning two percent of the vote

A fraction of that teensy 2% - or in practical terms 97,000 votes Nader took in Florida in 2000 - would have changed the outcome of the election.

I wrote for a Green Party newspaper for years. The whining not only rings so familiar in my ears, but it hasn't evolved one iota over the years. All your bellicose recriminations are indeed sad, pathetic, and predictable - and ludicrous.

... show up the Dems for the intolerant, uncompromising, petulant, whining, hypocritical fools that so many of them are

Pot, kettle, black ... We'll miss you when you take your ball and go home. I mean it. Really.

[MadHound]

74. Typical Democratic "blame everybody but me" crap.

Failing to hold your candidates responsible for their own actions and mistakes.

For your information, Nader did not cost Gore a goddamn thing in '00, and here's why:

First off, Gore pissed off 600,000 Florida voters, either registered Dems or self described liberals, with his pro drilling stance. These people were so pissed over the fact that Gore was ready to open up near shore drilling off the coast of Florida(at the behest of his oily master BP) that they decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush. If the man hadn't been so beholden to his corporate masters, and compromised on the issue, he would have easily gotten enough votes to win Florida, but noooo, he had to please the BP folks instead.(Greg Palast, Best Democracy Money Can Buy).

Secondly, the above noted Palast handed Gore the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter, names, numbers, connections, the whole ball of wax, all early on in the recount process. Now think about this for a minute if you would. Here you are, involved in a razor thin election, with a golden opportunity to not only win the election, but to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? Well guess what, Gore decided to sit on the information, take the electoral hit, let the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of people pass unmentioned(violating his oath of office in the process, you know, that part about upholding and protecting the Constitution), and lose the race in the process.

Third, even the great DLC god Al From doesn't think Nader hurt Gore, and God knows, he would be looking for any sort of scapegoat. No, instead he says, "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Fourth, I think that you are deliberately overlooking the dramatic effect that the Supreme Court had on this outcome. What, did Nader pack the court too:eyes:

Fifth, and most interesting, Gore actually won in Florida. After all the hoopla had died down, a consortium of news outlets went in and did their owned, unbiased recount, and found out that yes indeed, Gore won. Of course this report, originally scheduled to be released in Sept. '01 was instead pushed back to mid Novemeber. When it finally came out, few knew of it, few still paid attention, due to all of the 24/7 fear fest following 911. <http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-01.htm>

And speaking of whining friend, apparently you learned that well, where ever you recieved your lessons at. You're sitting here whining about a party that pulled in two percent of the vote, didn't cost anybody anything, and is old, stale news. You started an entire thread on this. Now that my friend is whining.

Why don't you and the rest of the Nader haters stop your whining, and take all of that misplaced energy and direct it toward solving the many problems that are rampant within the Democratic party?:shrug: Not only would you be doing something constructive, but you actually might bring in some more votes if the party got its act together.

[AtomicKitten]

77. I know Greg Palast and you have misquoted him.

Not surprising for folks that can't make an argument on their own merit.

I have NEVER overlooked the judicial coup d'etat that occurred in 2000. You, sir, claimed the third party vote had NO EFFECT on the 2000 election and that, of course, is not true; in fact, 2000 was the textbook example of that false claim.

Funny how you alternately try to discount the 2% of the vote and then come off all puffed-up as if that 2% was something to reckon with.

You stand in the vast minority, sir; DU is a tiny microcosm of the bigger picture wherein your mindset is fly-shit in the bigger scheme of things. I stand with the Democratic Party, always have, always will. You, sir, cannot make that same claim since your bellicosity reveals your real intent.

[MadHound]

86. LOL, you are amusing!

You may know Palast(though I have my doubts) but you apparently haven't read any of his books. Please, provide me with any quotes or links that disprove my statements, which come straight out of the above mentioned book, are wrong. Until you can do that, you're simply blowing smoke.

You may not have overlooked the Supreme Court decision, yet somehow you are asserting that the effect Nader had on the election was greater than anything else, including the Supreme Court decision. Sad, really.

Oh, and for your information, I'm not puffing up that two percent vote as if were something to reckon with, that would be you and all of the other Nader haters out there who claim that Nader had this wonderful superpower to effect the outcome of the election, all with a tiny vote percentage, completely overlooking alll of the other factors that went into that mess. Whatever.

Ooo, and I noticed that you didn't address either of the issues I brought up concerning the recount showing Gore actually won, nor the piece from Al From stating that Nader made no difference. Hmmm, I wonder why?:think:

And pal, you know nothing about me, nor my political experience. I will correct that now. I have worked on every single Democratic campaign since 1972, long before I could vote. I have raised money, gotten out the vote, ran the office, even went to the 1980 Democratic Convention in NYC as an alternate delegate, and had the pleasure of meeting Jimmy Carter. I was on the floor when Kennedy gave his concession speech, that damn near got him the nod anyway. I will stack my Democratic credentials, match you sweat for sweat, dollar for dollar, blood for blood, anyday of the week and twice on Sundays. You really have no idea who you are speaking with, so it probably wouldn't be a bright idea to go making assumptions.

However, unlike you, I'm not a lockstep Dem. I won't damn somebody for exercising their Constitutional rights to run for office or to vote for whom they please. I actually acknowledge the problems, and they are many, that the party has, and work towards correcting them. I don't dwell on the past, nor scapegoat others for these problems. Yet sadly, a large number of party members do just that, preferring to blame the results on outside, uncontrollable factors, failing to see the myriad internal problems, yet continue to wonder why the party continues to lose.

In the eyes of some, probably yourself included, this makes me a heritical Democrat. Be that as it may, such labels don't bother me. What does bother me is the attitude of people like you who insist that if only the Greens wouldn't run, or if Nader wouldn't run, or if, if if some exterior force would or would not exert its influence, the Democratic party would win every time. This is the utter, absolute height of conceit and self deception. The simple reason why the party loses is because it fails to attract enough voters to its side. This is due to its own problems, of which there are plenty. If people like you would put as much energy into addressing these problems as they do insisting that it is the fault of some mysterious outside force, well damn!, our internal problems would be solved and we would be actually winning elections with consistency.

So next time you want to bash that all-evil "other" outside of the party, take that energy instead and use it to help out with the party's own problems. Then we can work towards a goal that benefits everybody.

[AtomicKitten]

91. I wish you were amusing,

... unfortunately all you have to offer up are stale rationalizations and uninteresting insults, yet so very DU.

And I assure you Greg would shake his head at your lame attempt at making his arguments and would probably ask you to cease and desist, that is if he gave a crap about this petty posturing display you are making here, which I'm quite certain he doesn't. Because Greg is a nice guy that doesn't employ being an a-hole as his style of delivery.

[MadHound]

98. And *you* presume to speak for Greg? Puhleeze!

Stop it, you're killing me. Here you are, giving little Miss Manners lessons, yet you are refusing to address the evidence, straight from Palast's book, that I've given you, nor any of the other sites I've listed. Why is that? Why do you refuse to debate the *facts* that I bring up, and choose only to address empty arguements over form? Is Al From not good enough for you? Or your "friend" Palast? Or a consortium of newspapers? Yet you even have the gall to scold me over my style of delivery, while in essence calling me an asshole:rofl: Does the irony of that little rant not strike you as funny? I think it is. The sure sign of an untentable position friend is when you start arguing style over substance. Do so generally means that your position is intelectually void and morally bankrupt but hey:shrug:carry on if you must.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I'll tell you just cuz.

I wrote for a Green newspaper for years and got to meet and talk with Greg many times during that time. We aren't best buds, never said we are, but we are friendly acquaintances and he does know me and I him.

Get over it.

= A lame debate technique utilized when that's all you've got.

We're done. This is just getting creepy.

[MadHound]

102. LOL, that is funny

It seems as though you don't wish to debate sustansive issues, and when pressed on issues of substance, choose to run off. Oh well, that in and of itself tells me all I need to know. Thanks for playing.

By the by, next time you see your "friend" Greg, have him get you a copy of his book that I mentioned above. Read it, think about it, then get back to me. I think that your "friend" Greg is probably a hell of a lot closer to my way of thinking than yours concerning the '00 election.

Peace:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

110. you have no debate to offer up, sir

You have exposed your agenda to be winning, often the goal of people that are more interested in sharpening their elbows and poking around rather than actually talking about issues.

You seem to think that only like-minded people commune. That's what sheep do. Greg was always up for lively debate which we did, and I always enjoyed the interaction. With you, not so much for the reason I stated just above. Greg would most definitely be appalled by your tactics and find your demeanor and caliber of argument not at all representative of him, but please continue to think since you agree with his book that you are simpatico and he couldn't possibly commune with a solid Democrat.

[MadHound]

116. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what your "friend" would or would not think of this exchange

And the debate, which you so far have refused to address, is whether or not Nader cost Gore a damn thing in '00. It is my contention that no, Nader didn't cost Gore a thing. For this point, I have brought to light articles from Al From, Newsday(who headed the consortium recount), your "friend" Greg Palast" and the fact that the Supreme Court was truly the deciding factor.

You have brought up *bupkus*. Zip, zilch zero, nada. Empty rhetoric concerning forms and functions, strawmen to defend and deflect, but nothing of substance that contradicts what I have stated all along, that Nader was not the deciding factor in Florida. If you wish to actually debate this matter, fine, we can do so. But please, no more empty rhetoric concerning manners and forms. You say that I have been hostile and rude. Well hey, I can say the same about you, especially since your OP is designed to tick people off. And reading through this thread, I'm apparently not alone in this sentiment. So what is it friend, are all of us who are arrayed against you "creep" "rude" "squishy" etc? Or is it possble that we're simply responding to your own rude, demeaning and frankly vulgar method of debate?:think: You don't have to respond to those question, I throw them out there rhetorically, for you to think about. Like I said, I would rather debate substance over style, but you seem to insist on the latter over the former.

Get back to me if you wish to debate the former.

[AtomicKitten]

118. funny, you invoked his name several times

You do protest too much, sir

Later.

[Forkboy]

120. I warned ya

:)

Even with confronted with an entire post of facts they have nothing.Well,maybe some name dropping :eyes:

[ProudDad]

134. Gee, I don't see anything in post 86

to deserve this level of venom... :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

143. did you notice

the pile-on????????????????

[wyldwolf]

162. ... but you seem to inject it when you show up, though

[leftstreet]

71. Excellent response

:thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

163. Excellent response!

:toast:

[mainegreen]

63. Oh god

Nice to see massive sweeping generalizations indicating all the thought you've put into your post.

:eyes:

[depakid]

64. Thanks for learning the lesson

And costing us 6 years of cowardice.

You have Alito and Roberts- and tons of others on your scorecard. I hope you're happy.

Dems will never cement a majority with attitudes like the one expressed in the OP. People will reject them or seek 3rd parties- or simply will not vote. Political science 101. Deal with it- or keep falling down the path toward right wing policies.

[AtomicKitten]

65. to be precise

We have YOU to thank for that. Had a fraction of the 97,000 votes Nader garnered in Florida in 2000 gone Gore's way, none of this would have happened.

I hope YOU are happy; the rest of us certainly are not.

[SOS]

67. Re: Third Party in 2008

Any serious third party run in 2008 will not involve Nader or anyone else to the left of center. Nader got 0.3% in 2004.

McCain has recently been crushed by his own party in Arizona. (see this week's Nation for full story)
He is rapidly losing support among the Republican base, ie primary voters.
But he is man obsessed and won't be denied his last chance to run.

If indeed McCain is denied the nomination, it is a distinct possibility that he will run as a "unity" third party candidate.
Our DU favorite, Joe Lieberman, is rumored to be his "unity" VP pick.
McCain's drive and anger will split the center/right/pro-war vote and hand us the White House on a silver platter.

In 2008, a third party could turn out to be our best friend.

[AtomicKitten]

68. that's a third party endeavor I could get behind

It would be nice for a change to have a third party splitting the GOP vote instead of the other way around.

Funny how the third party types have no problem accepting money from the GOP. Aligning with the opposition like that is the epitome of hypocrisy particularly when espousing such ideological purity. Feh.

[CRH]

69. Your attitude is as unwavering ...

as your unswerving debate stifling non democratic posts. Why are you trying to suppress other view points both pre and post primary? Is there to be no discussion of positions or policies, except those exposed by leading media promoted candidates?

If a person debates a position, policy, or statement of a prominent democrat politician, they are attacking.

If a poster tries to remind another, there used to be a 'New Deal, Great Society, pro labor' direction to this party that is fast fading into history, they dare not do so using a comparison to the actions of a corporate democrat politician of today.

Debate is healthy, change seldom comes without it. After debate, the founding fathers provided citizens the right and freedom of suffrage to express preference of direction, short term and long, that shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Comparing a vote for a third party to be a vote for fascist repub policies or appointments, is fascist new dem, propaganda. It disavows the long term third party influence or pressure to the platforms of the major parties, who have the choice to serve the people instead of their financiers.

It certainly appears from your consistent posting, there is no room for discussion or healthy debate, now or later, that might lead from the stagnating status quo, that has become the corporate funded and sponsored DNC and DLC candidates; anointed with permission of the MSM.

Keep your tail whipping, all who do not conform to your rules of non debate.

[AtomicKitten]

73. the conversation seeks to stifle the fact that

third parties have been taking $$$$ from the GOP all along to defeat the Democrats with no problem whatsoever at the same time lecturing the Democrats on ideological purity. Pahleeeeze.

Debate that and you'll have a conversation. Gloss over it and third parties are pontificating from a soapbox preaching to the choir and nobody else.

[CRH]

88. You have deflected without debating, ...

no further comment is needed and I'll suffer the pontificating soapbox of an obvious agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

92. now you are just being obtuse

If you can't answer the question, there is no debate.

The most telling and truthful thing you copped to is having an obvious agenda. No shit.

We'll miss you when you take your ball and go home. I mean it. Really.

[CRH]

105. Obtuse or matching wits with a person unarmed ...

you have deflected again, my only agenda at DU is collecting and assimilating information to be used in forming a decision of who I will back in 08.

Because in 04 the repubs used this funding strategy with Nader does not support your 'no answer' before, of very large issues of freedom of debate and freedom to exercise leverage through third parties.

How is it you can defend in this and other posts, your consistent attempt to suppress open debate? And please don't use the tired excuse democrats tear apart their own candidates. The repubs know every speech, vote, and action of every candidate and nothing written here at this sight will provide them with anything they don't already have.

You are very fast to twist another's words at and attempt to evade answering to your non democratic methods. If you can't recognize it is your agenda that is exposed in your posting, nothing I or anyone else can say will matter. Enjoy you soap box, but no thank you, I will not take my ball and go home, or return you profanity.

[AtomicKitten]

117. trying to match wits ... and failing miserably

You guys have nothing except being disgruntled. There is no candidate that will suit you in the general. We've played this game before. We've had that circuitous debate many, many times. And, you know what? I will still support the Democrat nominee and your self-righteous allegedly principled but really contemptuous vote, sir, will be tossed into the dustbin of history. You render yourself irrelevant.

you've got nothing.

[MadHound]

70. Hypocrisy, thy name is Atomic Kitten

Loves the third party when you percieve them to work in your favor, ready to shoot them when you percieve them to not work in your favor. Geez, and we get on 'Pugs for their hypocrisy:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

72. hypocrisy thy name is third parties who take $$$ from the GOP

and then spout off about how pure they are.

Pahleeeeeze.

[MadHound]

75. Ooo, nice diversionary tactic there, sorry that it didn't work

Why are you so ecstatic about a third party candidate on right, but not one on the left? Can't have it both ways now, can you?

[AtomicKitten]

76. it not only works --- it is the MONEY point -- 3rd parties take $ from the GOP

And FTR a DU'er presented a hypothetical, the notion of which I said I could get behind considering they have butt-reamed the Dems for years, hardly "ecstatic" but exaggeration seems to be a ploy here at DU used by folks that can't find a decent rebuttal based on facts and reality.

And as long as you continue to shuck and jive and try to the change the subject about the fact that third parties have been taking money from the GOP to defeat Democrats FOR YEARS, then you are spitting in the wind. I thought I had reached the nadir of contempt for the third party types, but you sir have effected a new low.

You have sullied your alleged purity all on your own.

[MadHound]

78. LOL, still not going to examine your own hypocrisy, eh?

That's OK, I understand, if I were trying to juggle those two competing notions in my brain, well my head would probably explode. Perot good, but Greens bad, yet both are thirdy party, yep, my head would explode.

So anyway, let's address your strawman diversionary arguement of GOP funding of third parties. Let's see now, who, exactly did the GOP fund? Nader, that's all. Not the Greens, nor anybody else, just Nader. When did they do this? Yeah, in '04, and only '04. And guess what, Nader brought in what, .4% of the vote. That scary, scary Nader:scared: He obviously has the most scariest superpowers of them all, able to be the Big and Mighty KINGMAKER, all with an ittty bitty vote total:crazy:

Now then, if you have any other evidence that the GOP funds any other third party or independent candidates, please give the names, dates, and a link for verification. Otherwise, your whole premise is full of it.

Now that I've addressed your strawman and made you happy, care to explain your hypocrisy in claiming how some third parties are good, while others are bad. Oh, yeah, that's right, you're trying to keep your head from exploding:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

80. you first ..... third parties take money from the GOP

You WISH it was a strawman point, in reality it is something you are trying desperately to duck because you know it completely defuses your argument and your relevance to the political scene.

Third parties have gladly accepted money from the GOP, given and accepted with the hope and full knowledge it was meant as a SPOILER to a pivotal, high/er level election. And you seem perfectly fine with that, either that or in complete denial.

Third parties have never had the common sense to build a party from the ground up. They choose to keep throwing themselves at the top job, making asses of themselves every step of the way, failing miserably because all they've got - all you've got - is an attitude with NOTHING to back it up, no integrity, no real conviction, just a lot of bellyaching and a big mouth.

Repeat after me: Third parties take money from the GOP. The truth shall set you free.

[MadHound]

87. Prove it! Other than Nader in '04 show me when, where, and how

Put up or shut up pal. Give some links, a book, some reliable source somewhere to back up your happy ass. Otherwise all you're doing is blowing smoke.

[AtomicKitten]

90. here's a start -- then you can do your own homework

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php

GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive

OK, we've done it. We've nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.

The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.

Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001247.php

Republicans Sponsor Green Candidate in PA Senate Race

It's worse than we knew. Is the Green Party candidacy in the race for Rick Santorum's seat a wholly Republican sponsored affair?

As reported today by the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Green Party managed to get their candidate Carl Romanelli on the ballot with a costly petition drive, which was mostly funded by contributors who had also given to Rick Santorum's campaign. The party raised $66,000 for the effort, all of which they spent on a private company to collect signatures. TPMmuckraker was able to establish that at least $55,000 of that came from conservatives.

Virginia Davis, Santorum's spokeswoman, told the Inquirer that their office had encouraged the contributions. Why? Because a challenge from the left is seen as a liability for the Dem candidate, Bob Casey.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/19/104142/52

"Iraq mercenaries supporting political mercenaries: More on the appalling sell-out of the Pennsylvania Green Party

"...Blackwater USA is the shadowy, Virginia-based soldier-for-hire company with roots in the U.S. military intelligence community. It has reaped untold millions in Pentagon and Homeland Security contracts since the advent of the Bush administration ...founder and owner of Blackwater USA, Erik Prince, and his wife donated $10,000 -- the legal maximum -- on July 21 to the once obscure Green Party of Luzerne County, the group that apparently spent well over $100,000 in a now all-but-failed bid to get its U.S. Senate candidate, Carl Romanelli, onto the November ballot."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/25/1422233
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/news_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_359_4915011,00.html
http://www.chlorophyll.us/node/367
our own http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zcflint09/1

[MadHound]

95. Ooo, congratulations, you found One(1)

One that was denounced and disowned by the Greens for his actions. <http://www.greenpartypa.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=57&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0>
I seriously doubt that you will find anymore examples though, and yes indeed, it is up to you to do so. Impossible for me to prove a negative, thus the burden is on you to prove your assertions. Ooo, I do know one case however where a third party candidate, for president even, benefitted from money from one of the two major parties. Can you say Perot?

Which brings me back around to this, if you are finally through playing strawman games and are willing to answer my question. How can you be so hypocritical to support only a certain segment of third party candidates, and yet not support the rest? Is that not hypocrisy? Undemocratic? Mind blowing, and not in a good way? C'mon now, I've played your little strawman game, yet you are absolutely refusing to answer this question that I posted long ago. I would appreciate an answer though.

[AtomicKitten]

97. so the ONE example you accept proves you wrong

Now listen up here oh fractious one, here's my post in its entirety:

that's a third party endeavor I could get behind

It would be nice for a change to have a third party splitting the GOP vote instead of the other way around.

Funny how the third party types have no problem accepting money from the GOP. Aligning with the opposition like that is the epitome of hypocrisy particularly when espousing such ideological purity. Feh.

now your question:

How can you be so hypocritical to support only a certain segment of third party candidates, and yet not support the rest?

ANSWER:
I don't. Never said I did. "That's a third party endeavor I could get behind" is an idea, a notion, an endeavor I could get behind; the idea that we could split the GOP for a change was a novel idea.

As I posted elsewhere on this thread:

I have worked with the Green Party locally and absolutely believe in building third parties from the ground up. That would create a party of substance and sustainability, a viable option, and not merely a fly in the ointment just cuz.

Now I realize I perhaps assume too much when I expect people to have the skills to understand what they are reading. But your post is disagreeable seemingly just to be contrary for no particular reason, not even a strawman argument you seem so fond of - did you just learn that word today? because I don't think you really know what it means. Either that or you are just hanging on too tight trying to grasp onto anything to win.

Not being one to deprive folks of things they clearly are jonesing for, very well, you win, whatever that means. Happy? Good. Now we can get on with our lives.

Yikes.

[MadHound]

101. I don't care about "winning" or "losing" on an anonymous internet chat board

Whatever that concept is:eyes: What I'm more concerned about is the hypocrisy that you exhibit, rooting for a third party to split the 'Pugs(and hey, we got that in the relatively recent past, or have you forgotten Perot's aiding of Clinton), yet not wishing for third parties on the left, yet you yourself have worked for the Greens(accept my apology for taking that statement with a huge grain of salt). You don't see the hypocrisy of these positions of yours? Wow:wow:

But my overarching concern, and what drew me into this thread, is how Dems are continually bashing third parties, mindlessly, endlessly, senselessly, all at the expense of the Democratic party that you are supposedly so concerned about. If you will look back upthread, this is what my first post was about.

Fucking forget third parties! Get it? Just forget about them, for the problems that the Democratic party has internally have and will cause more harm to the party than any third party challenge can for the next one hundred years. The enormous influence corporate money has on the party is a good place to start, how the Democratic soul has been traded for thirty pieces of corporate silver. You want to help the party? That's a good problem to start with, and the solution is publicly financed elections(of course, if your are as you say you are, a Green, then you should already know about this).

But instead, you insist on railing on about third parties. Thanks, you've proven one of my original points, in my original post, many times over. Good job there:thumbsup::eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

113. you obviously do care

more than you can stand or you wouldn't be knocking yourself on the thread I started ...

Thank you for reminding us what epic bungholes third party types can be; when time elapses between presidential elections, the edge on the contempt many feel for your caliber of diatribe wears off. Well done.

[MadHound]

119. Again, you are addressing style over substance

Is this the only lameass tactic that you have? No wonder you harangue on third parties, you don't have the sand to actually try and solve the myriad of *real* problems that the Democratic party faces.

Well, that's OK, you just keep on tilting at those windmills now. It will keep you out of the way and out of trouble as the rest of actually try and do something meaningful for the party

[Le Taz Hot]

150. Interesting perspective.

Funny how that third-party sword can cut both ways. Thanks for your post.

[Hosnon]

79. I voted third party in 2000. Although I regret that vote, I will still vote third party

when appropriate.

However, I have learned that it is rarely, if ever, appropriate to vote third party in a Presidential election (and possibly a federal Senatorial election).

But, when it comes to the federal House and most offices on the state and local level (excepting, perhaps Governor and state Senators) I try to vote for the individual.

[AtomicKitten]

81. you get it

I have worked with the Green Party locally and absolutely believe in building third parties from the ground up. That would create a party of substance and sustainability, a viable option, and not merely a fly in the ointment just cuz.

[Hosnon]

82. I operate under the assumption that a vote should depend less upon

the person and more upon the party as the level of the office increases. And, of course, the inverse of that means that I have no problem voting for Joe "Random Third Made Up Party" locally (so long as I agree with him more than any of the other candidates).

Edit: My assumption does not mean that I would vote for Hitler if he were the Democratic candidate. :) The quality of the person certainly matters...a lot. It simply matters less at the national level.

[AtomicKitten]

83. indeed

Voting matters and can be strategic as you have so aptly stated.

Thanks for your input. It is reasonable and not scorched earth like so much of the bellicose conversations here.

[Hosnon]

84. Yeah, well...

I'm sure you've been around long enough to know what is a land mine around this joint.

I would love it if any conversation about anything could be civil...imagine!

[mainegreen]

93. You should have included the content of this post in you're main post

Totally changes what you are saying and how you come across.

[AtomicKitten]

94. probably

Or maybe it would have been construed as pandering; I have the typical free-flowing thought processes typical of females. As they say, I yam what I yam.

Thanks for the tip for future reference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. You do realize that if Nader had not run

most of the people who voted for him woudl have stayed home.

Also you realize that GORE WON, and it was the SUPREME COURT OF THE US who installed this nightmare by ordering the stopping of vote counting in the state

And if you have paid attention to Gore, he said recently that after the USSC decision there was only one choice left, and it was not a route he was willing to go down

Beating on Nader votes, who I repeat, would not have voted anyway, is not helping

[leftstreet]

104. DING DING DING DING

You're absolutely right!

[Sterling]

96. Very few things make Dem's look more pathetic than this kind of denial

I wont soil myself with this old played out excuse for a discussion. My advice to Dem's. focus on what we need to do to fix this party and stop finding scapegoats for our failures. Blaming Ralph is something I would be too ashamed for a variety of reasons to do among anyone whose opinion I respect. If Ralph is that big of a problem for the Dem's we just don't deserve to win, period.

[AtomicKitten]

100. there is nothing more pathetic than a squishy Democrat

getting all self-righteous in defense of third parties and poo-poo'ing the notion of cooperation and compromise ... you've already soiled yourself, sir.

[Sterling]

107. Defense of third parties?

Your chasing some serious windmills. You are obviously looking to fight with people we are supposed to be trying to convince we can represent in office. It's really immature. That has nothing to do with my opinion of third parties, just my opinion of your tactics.

Why don't you just throw your garbage over your fence into your neighbors yard? It just as good of a way to make friends and convince people you are right. By all means keep up your incredibly productive use of time and energy.

[AtomicKitten]

109. really?

Let me pull up a chair for your lecture on third parties since you clearly thinking you have something germane to offer to my OP. Until then, there are swell sites on AOL where you can make some friends. This place is for political debate and when you have some, please get back to me.

[MadHound]

112. Now you say you want debate,

Yet you are refusing to debate the substance of my posts above, instead you are only addressing matters of form instead, or simply setting up strawmen to deflect attacks.

Please, if you want debate, address my issues of substance. Really, truly. Or will you simply respond with another insult or protest of innocence? Poor pitiful you, it must suck to try and defend a position as intellectually void and morally bankrupt as yours.

[AtomicKitten]

114. you've got nothing

I gave you every opporutnity, and now you are just boring me.

Funny stuff, though.

Thanks for playing. Drive through.

[MadHound]

108. Great advice, some that I and others have tried to give before in this thread

Sadly though, it seems as though the OP doesn't want to "get it", instead, as you see, throwing out baseless charges of being "squishy" or defending third parties somehow. Sadly, the OP doesn't get your point, no matter how many different times and ways it is stated. A pity really. If she would devote as much energy to helping solve the party's internal problems as she does to attacking third parties, then the party wouldn't have to worry at all about attacks from leftist third parties.

But alas, this point seems to go right over her head, doing a double back flip along the way.

But you are indeed correct in your reasoning, something that I've been preaching forever around here. Once in awhile it gets me labeled as a heretical Democrat, or *gasp* a Green, or some such. But despite the OP, people are starting to realize that the Democratic party has many problems to fix, none of which can be blamed on the Greens or any other third party.

[AtomicKitten]

111. we'll miss you guys when you take your ball and go home

Because the Democrats couldn't possibly fulfill the wish list of you needy types, and since you clearly are repulsed by the idea of compromise, we will set our watches for your vomiting on these boards with your disgust at the candidate that is chosen in the primary and await your departure, either voluntarily or by ejection, when you can't contain your self-righteous harangue against the Democratic Party.

Ah, good times.

[LoZoccolo]

115. What else will happen is that they will take NO RESPONSIBILITY as happened the last six years.

Every time I mention stuff like the right-wing Supreme Court justices that have already been appointed by Bush* and how it's connected to Nader's 2000 run, all I hear is "why are you bringing up things from years ago". NO RESPONSIBILITY.

[election_2004]

122. Arrogant and irresponsible comments from you

We all pretty much know and have made up our minds, individually, about what we will do if Candidate X, Candidate Y, Candidate Z, and so on, becomes the Democratic nominee. Most at DU will vote for the Dem nominee, some will vote for an Indepedent. There's no changing anyone's minds here.

So your post is, quite frankly, pointless and gratuitous. It makes you sound like a party hack, and turns off potential Democratic-leaning voters who don't identify with the party establishment.

[AtomicKitten]

124. we'll miss you when you take your ball and go home in a huff

I mean it. Really.

[election_2004]

128. Oh, I'm sure you will

That still doesn't change the short-sightedness and closed-mindedness of your OP.

The Democratic Party will not endear itself well to the public by adopting the "You're either with us or against us" meme. Look at how well that's worked out for the GOP. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

131. telling it like it is

particularly about the Supreme Court is the opposite of short-sighted. And ironically it is your closed-mindedness that cannot acknowledge it.

I would say, sir, you are suffering from a classic case of projection.

[election_2004]

152. I never said the Supreme Court wasn't important

It absolutely is.

But I seriously doubt any of the Republicans in the field could pull off an Electoral College win in November 2008. The odds are just against them, and the Dem nominee would have to make a GIGANTIC blunder.

So my only real concern for the future of SCOTUS is if something terrible happens to Stevens or Ginsburg before Bush leaves office.

[Le Taz Hot]

127. Damn! Aren't we lucky to have you

on DU to explain to us hayseeds how the process works. Wish we were all smart as you. Seriously, hon, you're now at joke status.

[AtomicKitten]

130. the funny part about your comment

is that "a joke" is precisely the term most Democrats apply to your ilk.

[Forkboy]

136. "you're now at joke status."

And quickly rocketing past into irrelevancy,hopefully pulling Clinton down with her.So far I've already talked to a lot of people who see the Hillary supporters here as a major turn off,and thankfully that reflects on Hillary.

It's so good I've been directing people on the fence about her to come to DU and read this stuff from "Team Browbeat".So far I've gotten three to rethink voting for her and are looking into Obama,Richardson and Obama.Three in less than a week,and I have almost eighteen more months,at least,of turning hearts and minds away from Clinton by using her supporters own posts against her.

So I'm glad we have people like the Op here.They help us against Hillary.They're hurting her more than any third party boogiemen that scare them so shitless they have forehead veins popping.

[AtomicKitten]

141. I don't even know who you are.

Yet you have taken it upon yourself to follow me around DU for the sole purpose of lobbing insults at me. Stalking is against DU rules.

And thanks for this:

They help us against Hillary.

*snip*

So far I've gotten three to rethink voting for her and are looking into Obama,Richardson and Obama.Three in less than a week,and I have almost eighteen more months,at least,of turning hearts and minds away from Clinton by using her supporters own posts against her.

Precisely the data (identification of your proclivities and agenda) that is relevant to a political project I'm working on. The funny part is you still don't have a clue where I'm coming from.

I support Al Gore and Barack Obama, but pay no attention to that inconvenient truth. It's fun watching you bloviate about things you know nothing about.

[Forkboy]

145. Stalking is against DU rules.

I would suppose it is.But I read a lot of threads and post where I like.

Deal.

[ulysses]

129. look, this is pretty simple.

Either a progressive third party candidacy is going to attract enough votes to matter, in which case it seems to me that Democrats are better off trying to *court* those voters than denouncing them, or it won't attract enough votes to matter, in which case...it won't matter. But it can't be both.

Either way, the ball is in our court, as a party. The continued denunciation of Nader and those who won't rule out voting third party makes us look weak. Put another way, if you're going to go "third way", then by all means go. Just quit whining when not everyone follows you.

[KoKo]

132. Posting about Third Party here on DU is against the Rules...why are you

doing this? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

135. no it isn't. SUPPORTING third parties is against the rules

[DancingBear]

149. Really?

What about if they are a thousand times more progressives then any of the shills the DLC perpetually props up?

I mean, suppose one of them, you know, actually wanted to END the war, or actually thought that Iran was just ANOTHER lie?

And had never been invited to Bilderberg, or wasn't refusing to turn over contributor lists?

And didn't go through life with his/her political finger squarely in the wind?

Boy, I better look into this...

[wyldwolf]

155. yes, really, regardless of your faulty reasoning

[DancingBear]

158. I never expect much from your responses,

and you never disappoint.

Carry on!

[wyldwolf]

159. ah, does dancingbear need it to be explained like he's a four year old?

From the DU rules:

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates.

Is that clear enough?

[DancingBear]

161. Oh no - what WILL I do?

Will I have to become a paid political shill like you, or will I be allowed to form my own opinions?

Oh, and could you tell me please who exactly my "other" party is?

I'll be quite upset if all that work in the sub-zero NH cold and the whole MoveOn precinct captain thing in Ohio was for naught.

BTW, isn't it time for your nap?

[wyldwolf]

164. perhaps take a reading course?

Will I have to become a paid political shill like you

Nah. I'm not one and you're not qualified to be one.

[Forkboy]

137. Campaigning for Hillary

And this is the best they can do.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

133. You are accusing fellow DU'ers of slinging garbage and supporting Third Parties?

Whoa...what are you reading here. I haven't seen any of that and i'm here alot. :shrug:

[Forkboy]

138. You've been here long enough to know how this works

You dont have to actually priase or push any third party here.All you have to do is say you don't like Hillary,and in pure Rush-like fashion "Team Browbeat" will try to bully not only those that say they wont vote for her,but even those who aren't enthusiastic and feverish enough in their support.

[MadHound]

139. "Team Browbeat" LOL!

Nice tag:rofl:. And utterly. And it's still over a year to the primaries:puke: Utterly, absolutely, determined to hammer Hillary into the nomination whether the people want her or not. Hmmm, that seems strangely familiar somehow.

[election_2004]

153. "Hillaristas" has a better ring to it

And James Carville is their head kool-aid chef.

[AtomicKitten]

140. here's a poll I took for my research group

Empirical proof that 29% at DU constitute the "third party types" I address in my OP which, since they are in the minority here at DU, just have big mouths. We used HRC as the subject because she was deemed provocative enough to elicit a genuine response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3082057

[MadHound]

146. Highly unscientific polling friend

By the by, the twenty nine percent didn't say that they would vote third party, they just said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. High probability that they would simply stay at home on election day and vote for no party:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

147. same difference for this poll

The poll asked if HRC (again, HRC specifically chosen as the subject to invoke the most visceral response) gets the nod in the primary becoming the Democratic nominee, would you vote for her in the general. No need for separate choices of voting third party or staying home because, for the purposes of this internet poll for this particular website, they are in effect one in the same.

[MadHound]

148. LOL, the very definition of a push poll

Still as unscientific, still as biased, still as invalid. And in the real world, there's a huge difference between staying home and voting third party. If a voter stays at home, they don't for any local or state candidates, whereas if they're going to vote, they will:shrug:

You are simply putting up push polls, and interpreting definitions as narrowly as possible to fit your own personal agenda. Much like that other Clinton did, Bill, with his tactic of asking what is is.

Until you start using statisticly valid methods, your polls are meaningless, mere constructs to prevent you from seeing the reality of the world about you. And if you are basing your opinions on this material, then your opinions are as suspect as your polls and definitions are.

It really is better to live in the reality based world.

[Greyhound]

151. I thought the argument of "team browbeat" (LOL) was that it was all Nader's fault.

If that is the case, couldn't this same "poll" be used to make the argument that, should the re:puke: win in '08, it will all be the fault of HRC? After all, any candidate that is so divisive she causes 30% of Democrats to vote for someone else or stay home or not vote for President or whatever, guarantee the victory for the bad guys?

[Evilismdestroyer07]

154. Its not practical

Government is about getting things done. If you want to vote for a third party you need to help reforms happen so you/they even have a chance (changing the election system). Theres no point until after that. Becuase that is exactly, practicly what happens.

[Greyhound]

160. Absolutely irrelevant to my point. n/t

[joshcryer]

157. I'm pretty sure AtomicKitten is addressing those at DU.

Repeated polls, even if they're "push polls" with similar results would seem to imply a trend. Of course more sampling would need to be done, but it can be quite scientific if you wanted it to be. If the trend continues then AtomicKitten's comments do apply to this website.

[joshcryer]

156. Actual 'ode' to Third Party Types (sung to Joyful, Joyful)...

Ode to Third Parties
We implore thee
To please quit and let us be

You will not bring us down
Lest we run you out of town

Ode to Third Parties
You must leave
Please be quiet and let us be