This is the Democratic Underground and I'm here to support DEMOCRATS

[LynneSin]

And last time I checked the Green Party was NOT part of our party.

I know my party has corruption, I know my party has sell-outs and I know that there's a good chance that within 24 hours at least 5 different democrats will find 5 different ways to disappointment. But I continue to fight because of people like Paul Wellstone and John Conyers and Barbara Boxer and yes even Russ Feingold (although Russ - you still owe me for the Ashcroft vote you did :grr;). I know my party is flaw and I accepted the day I told a friend a college I'd help her form the Young Democrats on campus back at a time when the Young Republicans were flourishing under Reagan.

And I have argued with just about every one of you over the most inane issues out there but deep down inside I knew that most of you were still on my team and our disagreements is why I believe in the Democratic Party.

But then the Greens showed up and although I had reservations I tried to believe in them too, hell I briefly flirted with even helping one here in Delaware this election knowing that the Republican was pretty much a shoo-in (and a moderate you can almost stomach). I listened to your talks about how the Green Party was such much better than the democratic party because they were void of corruption and compromise in values and somehow you managed to make me feel perhaps I was a bit inferior for defending the party I've supported since I was 10 years old and fell in love with a man who grew the peanuts to make my peanut butter (you figure it out).

I heard the accusers on our side claim that the Greens were the spoilers and the rumors of republican collaboration. I even bit my tongue when you opted to add a candidate to a race that had one of the most progressive democrats up for a tight re-election race (Paul Wellstone). In reality I did my best to co-exist.

So now the scandal broke and someone in the Green Party did something that definitely did not fit the platform of the Greens. A Green party candidate knowingly accepted money from Lobbyists, Anti-Choicers, Homophobes and Oil Execs(Look it up - those were the professions of those who donated) in order to get on the ballot. There was no help with the Libertarian or Constitution candidate whatsoever just the Green party. And the money came from the one person that would best benefit from having that candidate on the ticket.

Now you're gonna argue about how there needs to be a 'choice' candidate, the difficulty of getting candidates on the ballot or perhaps the merits of publican financed elections. You'll probably even post again about how democrats are corrupt and have received money from the same type of questionable persons (which btw, was covered early on in my rant so save your breath).

This is about one thing. About a party and it's people that preached a principle and about a man who ignored that principle just to get on the ballot and without a doubt be used to help the donating party to win. This is about a principle that has been extolled way too many times here at DU as the reasons why the Green Party is better than the democrats. And yes, this is just one candidate - but he is YOUR candidate. I mean I'd like to disown Joe Lieberman but lets face it he is a democrat and part of our baggage too.

And in closing, my final thoughts are this - rule #2 from the DU rules:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
#2) Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

I want greens to be a part of the discussion but they need remember that we're here to elect democrats and when see an obvious case of a Republican buying a Green Party candidate, we see a clear tactics being used to help prevent our democratic candidate, who was elected through a primary system, to win

[Captain Hilts]

1. Interesting point. It's not called "Green Underground." nt

[Phx_Dem]

115. Yeh, it's not called libertarian socialist underground.com either.

[Lithos]

2. Yes!

Can't agree more. Dems are the only alternative right now. For those who say there is no difference, I present 6 years of GW Bush coupled with a Republican controlled Congress as proof otherwise.



Lithos

[Buzz Clik]

3. My Party right or wrong?

There is a world of difference between supporting the Democrats and condemning those who differ with you. You, personally, have crossed that line.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I don't think she's saying "my party right or wrong"

She's saying that one party, the greens, are pretending they are a valid third choice, funded by and promoted by those that desire a third choice. Nothing can be further from the truth. They did this in Seattly in 00. They did it in FLA in 00 and 04.


They did it in California in 03. The LAST political campaign I worked on was the campaign to stop the recall against Gray Davis. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL that there would have been enough signatures to recall Davis but for Peter Camejo getting Greens to go to college campuses and get recall petitions signed. The Greens got almost as many petitions signed as Ted Costa, the Republican lobbyist who spearheaded the campaign to recall Davis.


Their candidate in PA in a tight race against Santorum is funded almost SOLELY by GOP (Santorum) contributors:

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

Ralph Nader in the 04 election used Nathan Sproul and Associates to register voters. This is the same outfit that was throwing Democratic registrations in the trash. He used them in swing states - in Connecticut and in Arizona and Nevada.

It's one thing to be a valid political party...quite another to be a Republican apparatchik.

[madokie]

123. at this point the greens are a tool of the repuke party, imo

[Richard Steele]

13. Yes. When it's RIGHT, we support it; when it's WRONG, we fix it.

And I saw no blanket condemnation in the OP as you claim.

IMO, the only people who have "crossed a line" are those
who use this website to work against Dem candidates.
It is a clear violation of basic DU rules.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Fixing the party includes dissention. Otherwise, we're Republicans.

And if someone here is campaigning against the Democrats, be sure to report them.

[Richard Steele]

30. Indeed it does! I agree with that statement 100%!

I am not an ideologue; I recognize that sometimes our choices
come in dark shades of grey.

Some of us out there are looking at races where the (D) candidate
is just as bad as the (R) candidate, and the ONLY one espousing
any non-fascist ideals is the (G) candidate.

I do not envy any good Democrat who faces such a choice.

[cynatnite]

31. In times like these...

Even if (G) is a far better candidate, I will go with the one more likely to win in order to get the (R) out of office.

That would be (D)

[Richard Steele]

36. And I will respect that choice, should you ever have to make it.

Short of facing another Zell Miller, I would probably do the same.

In "times like these", as you say, we really DO need to do whatever it takes
to get rid of the (R)s...any (R), and every (R).

The neoCon lunatic fringe which has seized control of the Republican
Party is nothing short of a malignant CANCER upon the US body politic.

Non-invasive measures have totally failed to stop it or even slow its growth;
drastic, invasive surgery (with all its inherent risks and side-effects)
is really the only treatment option left to us.

And, as I said, I really don't envy any good Dem who has to make such a choice.
Sometimes life offers us no GOOD choices, and we just have to choose the "least bad".

[cynatnite]

37. Exactly...

What do you do at the ballot box when you're faced with a bad democrat vs. a good republican? :shrug:

[KnaveRupe]

203. Name a good republican.

At this time, there ARE no good republicans. The GW Bush Republican party has virtually destroyed America. Even those republicans who have not been personally hacking away at our Democracy are complicit; they are enablers of the Frists and the Santorums, and the rest of the wingnut psychopaths.

Any "good" Republican would have, by this point, pulled a Jeffords, left the party and caucused with the Democrats.

Even the absolute WORST democratic candidate will still increase our chances of seeing John Conyers as chairman of the House Judiciary committee, or Harry Reid as Majority leader.

In '06, you have only two moral choices: vote Democratic, or if you absolutly CANNOT vote for the Dem, stay home.

[YOY]

216. You might Disagree

But this one's not that bad: Christine Todd Wittman.

Her 'My Party Too' site is a call for real Republicans and real Conservatives to cut the Neocon shit. I personally would like to see more like her. You know, the kind of real conservative you can debate with and not risk being called 'unpatriotic' or told to leave 'their country'.

[nam78_two]

219. Didn't she try to butcher the EPA?

:shrug:
This is not about the Green party but in many years of being an environmentalist, I have never heard one good thing about Whitman from all the lists I am on. And that includes a diverse set from Sierra Club to Greenpeace.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christine_Todd_Whitman
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4745/print
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_255.cfm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E2D81538F937A15754C0A9649C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fS%2fSierra%20Club
and on and on and on...


I don't know about other stuff, but she playes ball beautifully with the Bushies as far as the destruction of the environment goes (and jumped ship just a little bit before this shit pig really started going down in flames). Oh she is a clever one alright...with her faux moderate tone etc.
Makes her more dangerous imo.

I guess she is not as bad as a conservative could be but dunno if thats saying a lot :shrug:

I admit I get a little irritated by seeing her called a moderate, cause on my biggest issue-the environment-she is about as bad as they come. But she could be better on other stuff....No idea.

[YOY]

220. Actually, She was told when assigned to the EPA

That if her party elders heard of her 'doing somthing "good" there' that it would be the end of her political career. She was told what to support and what to do and she did not agree with it. There is a reason why she did not last long there and it had little to do with her trying to 'dismantle the EPA.' The ones trying to dismantle it were well above her.

There are others who have tried to do the same in 'left wing' governmental organizations and stuck around even after their little plans failed.

Take this piece of shit for example:

I've got a little piece of personal grudge against him for trying to sneak in military (and intelligence) folk.

Sorry for not having sources there. Someone who knows her quite well (not a Republican I may add) relayed a personal conversation...not a reporter nor at a party but a personal conversation between people who live near each other.

[nam78_two]

224. hmm interesting

Thanks for the note :hi:

I am not entirely convinced because of some of the lobbies she joined after she left, but I do vaguely seem to remember hearing now that she left the EPA partially because of some problems with the party-I didn't think they were cosncientious objections, but this information certainly lends some credence to that. So yeah, I can see that maybe she is not all that bad...


Who is that in the picture btw :shrug: ?

Am bad with faces....
And yes I agree with you about similar types on the left. I don't like Daniel "I want to drill in the ANWR" Akaka/Inouye....

[YOY]

227. Gaddi Vasquez

Current, Shrub assigned Peace Corps Director. If you don't know him I wouldn't worry about him. Like I said, I have a personal beef with the fucker.

He was part of an act to get the military to be able to spend part of their service in the Peace Corps as volunteers. My problem with that is legion:

1. The Peace Corps volunteers would be infiltrated (further) by members of the intelligence family
2. Members of the military in the PC would make us a target.
3. Volunteers make a hell of alot less than enlisted men, there are no real benefits (like the VA), and we don't get any real perqs...I don't expect any, but if someone is going to spend I can't say it would be very fair.
4. No offense to service men and women, but I highly doubt they could hack it. You need to keep a level head and the degree of freedom and lack of structure in the PC would be a recipe for bad behavior.
5. I have a distinct feeling they would not socialize nor help the other PCs nor understand what the PC's mission is about as it contridicts their own and what they have sworn to do.
6. PCVs are not government employees. We have our own status.

This didn't work. It was stopped by sheer rediculousness of it's nature. It had Neocon written all over it and was even distinctly related to something Anne Coulter said about the PC in terms of warping it's mission and composition (in essence destroying it.)

[KnaveRupe]

235. I must have missed the news the day

CTW called for Bush's impeachment.

At this point in time, the Republican Party NEEDS to be utterly destroyed. The current batch of Christo-fascists, mega-corporatists, and corrupt k-street panhandlers have to be completely eliminated from the political stage.

Hopefully, once they are gone, and neo-conservatism and fundamentalist Christian theocracy have been rightfully consigned to the dustbin of history, CTW will be one of the people that will take the helm at rebuilding that party from the ground up. I'll gladly debate policy differences in a world where both parties are represented by SANE people.

But for now, she's one of the enemy. Sorry if the rhetoric sounds over the top, but we're fighting for our lives here. The cons have made it clear that it's us or them, and if they succeed, it isn't just liberalism that will be destroyed. It's everything America supposedly stands for.

</soapbox>

[YOY]

245. She's not calling for his impeachment, I never said she was

Check out her site (I'm not advertising for her, even if she's a decent 'pub, so just google it on your own.) She wants for them to do a slow transition to keep damage to a minimum.

Whether it's her or our way, I would like to see the Goldwater 'pubs back in competition and Neocons out on the curb in the dustbin of history.

[bigbrother05]

209. Even in the case of Zell,

that D gave us Majority Leader Daschle.

[YOY]

215. Amen, when a Dem does wrong, we must call them on it

Not dig a hole to China using excuses as shovels.

[Lindacooks]

28. EXACTLY!!

That's what the neocon nuts don't do. That drivel about 'my country, right or wrong' is akin to letting an alcoholic relative do whatever the hell he wants because 'you love him'. If it's right, we support it, if it's wrong, we fix it. Perfect saying.

[Robb]

96. Indeed. The entire quote:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." :thumbsup:

[Richard Steele]

98. That's the one! Thanks, Robb! nm

[SammyWinstonJack]

82. If that's what is takes to get the pugs out of power, then yes!

And I won't apologize for it!

[Mr_Spock]

94. I think you are deliberately missing the point

...to make a "point".

This really is not a site for the Green Party to promote it's candidates at the expense of a Democrat.

[Realityhack]

252. I have to agree here.

I have lots of problems with the democratic party and tons with specific democrats. I think its highly in keeping with DU to call any Dem we dissagree with on their mistakes/misdeeds/whatever.

But promoting another party over the dems is NOT what DU is about. If you want to live in some fanatacy land where all the worlds problems are solved by voting for the candidate that you see as most closely matching your POV... fine. But don't advocate their victory over the dem's on DU. IIRC its even against the forum rules.

[Perky]

102. Damn Straight., MY PARTY RIGHT OR WRONG!

[gully]

165. NO, "My Party and yours isn't perfect so STFU."

Big difference.

[tularetom]

4. I agree - it's why I will support the Dem nominee in 08

even if its HR Clinton. It's why I supported Kerry in 04 and why I would have even supported Joementum had he won the nomination (GodDAMN that's hard to write).

I draw the line at nutty Zell Miller however.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Of course you will.

Likewise, so will those of us who support the existence of the Green Party in Connecticut.

There is no excuse for the intolerance shown in this and similar trends.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Are You Voting Against Lamont In Favor Of A Green? (If Lamont Wins)

I certainly hope not.

[LynneSin]

10. This is the democratic party and we support democratic candidates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

I'm sure there are Green forums where you can support whomever you like but we are here to elect democrats.

Nuff said

[Libby2]

15. Right on!!

[Buzz Clik]

20. No, Not "nuff said".

This is the second time you've mischaracterized my party affiliation. The first time, you accused me of support Santorum. Now you assume I'm a Green. Wrong on both counts.

Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I am neither a robot nor a doormat. Your blasting of the Greens is pure intolerance. You should recognize the situation for what it really is -- a Republican ploy. Instead of assessing blame where it belongs, you hammer a third party that is ideologically close to the Democrats.

You would be wise to abandon your rhetoric and find a way to expand the Democratic tent.

[cynatnite]

22. Green Party candidates are being used by the repugs...

I don't get why more Greens aren't upset about this :shrug: They're doing it so they can siphon more votes off the dems in order to get a repuke in the office.

Can it be any more clearer? Why aren't the Greens screaming their heads off and demanding the money be returned? Where is the outrage?

[Buzz Clik]

23. You're correct, and you're attitude is also correct.

"I don't get why more Greens aren't upset about this." Given the opportunity, I think the Greens would be upset. However, when the prevailing attitude (at least among the most visible and most noisy) is to condemn the Greens as traitors, the natural reaction is to become defensive.

[Bake]

193. Natural reaction, MAYBE. Proper? Hell no.

Hell, we DEMOCRATS here on DU are the FIRST to scream when OUR party does something stupid, or something unprincipled, or something flat-out wrong. We condemned Bill Clinton for his stupidity if not for his libido (but we didn't call for him to be impeached!).

Instead of being defensive, why don't you Greens admit your party, your candidate, FUCKED UP BIG TIME in CT??? This is the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, after all, so don't come in here with a defensive chip on your shoulder.

Your candidate and party fucked up taking money from the Pukes. We're mad as hell about it. If you can't take the heat from that, get the hell outta the kitchen.

Bake

[bvar22]

27. Democratic Party candidates are being used by the Repugs.

Republicans are sending donations to Lieberman.
Young Republicans are actively campaigning for Lieberman, so :shrug:

[cynatnite]

32. I see your point...

But as everyone knows, Lieberman has been in bed with the repubs for some time now. The Greens didn't used to be as far as know. They stood on principle and I admired them for it.

DINO's are a part of of the Democratic Party just as RINO's are a part of the Repubs. I don't know anyone anywhere that's ever denied it.

My perception of the Green Party has been changed because I haven't seen any outrage at all. At least with Lieberman many dems have voiced their feelings on the guy and withheld money for the positions he's taken. Now, it's costing him.

I'm afraid what's happening now will cost the Green Party as well.

[tomp]

87. who are the RINO's (the repubs who vote dem)? nt

[LiberalUprising]

200. The whole game is rigged

all this garbage (dem vs green vs repub) is only a distraction.

Right now YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT. The powers that be are picking the candidates and the winners. You have NOTHING to do with who wins or loses.

Let's cut to the chase and fix the real problem and stop the silly bickering or we will all lose again and again and wonder why again and again.

[creeksneakers2]

228. If the whole game is rigged

and our votes don't count, how do you suggest we "fix the real problem?" If nothing we do matters, why can't I trash the Greens? They bug me.

I know we've lost a presidential race and at least one congressional race in Pennsylvania because Greens have siphoned off votes. I'll do what I can to fix that. The best thing I can think of is to try to pop Green head bubbles.

[LiberalUprising]

233. So, you believe everything you read?

I don't know whether it's true any more than you do but even if it is true.....

So what?

"The best thing I can think of is to try to pop Green head bubbles"

This line of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about, it is part of the problem and in no way is a part of the solution.

"If nothing we do matters, why can't I trash the Greens? They bug me."

I never said nothing we do matters, that is black and white thinking on your part. Sure you can trash whomever you want but what does that solve?

Seems to me that only expands the division and in the ends serves the very people whom you are trying to overcome. There are way more of us than there are of them (the powers that control) and by trashing others you are only helping them.

I don't pretend to know the solution but I think a good start would be to put aside our petty differences and band togather with all people, forget the distractions of lib-con, right-left, dem-repub bullshit designed to divide us and focus as people who believe in freedom from tyranny and political control.

As we wage slaves run the rat race, fighting over the scraps so “charitably” tossed our way in America’s “ownership society”, we claw each others’ eyes out over issues like Evolution, homosexual rights, and abortion, enabling those leading our depraved social and political institutions to plunder the world’s wealth with little or no constraint. Aside from the numerous seductive distractions they provide through television and consumerism, what better way to manipulate the masses than by perpetually thrusting contentious issues into their faces that splinter them into warring factions?

http://sensiblyeclectic.com/news/index.php/mainsite/2006/08/04/an_evolution_that_would_blow_darwin_s_mi

[sandnsea]

26. Greens are not Democrats

Greens are Greens. Greens believe in single payer health, Democrats are willing to look at all options to provide every American with health care. Greens are perfectly willing to sacrifice jobs for the environment, Democrats believe eco-friendly policies can also be economically beneficial to business and business will be more receptive to that. Greens believe in government creating jobs for every citizen, Democrats believe that is too far off the capitalism path and creates more problems than it solves. Greens are against all globalization, Democrats know trade is as old as mankind and free trade between the states has been one of the strengths of the US. Greens almost never, if ever, support war or the military; Democrats believe in a strong defense and US foreign policy leadership.

Greens are not Democrats. There really is no room IN the Democratic tent for them. They need to stand up and be Greens, as strong a group as the Christian right. They can influence the debate and push the agenda and introduce new ideas for change, but they'll never be able to implement them because they do not have the patience and maturity to communicate their ideas to enough people to gain majority support. That's what the Democrats do, or did, until Greens got confused about how they influence change and started telling everybody Democrats were just like Republicans so who cares who you vote for or whether you vote at all.

[mike_c]

33. you've neatly summarized all the reasons why I vote green now...!

Excellent summary! Greens are not ashamed to advance liberal ideals.

[cynatnite]

34. So you agree with this:

They can influence the debate and push the agenda and introduce new ideas for change, but they'll never be able to implement them because they do not have the patience and maturity to communicate their ideas to enough people to gain majority support. That's what the Democrats do, or did, until Greens got confused about how they influence change and started telling everybody Democrats were just like Republicans so who cares who you vote for or whether you vote at all.

Is that what you're saying?

[mike_c]

38. what do you think...?

I agree with THESE statements-- the ones that summarize green party positions, despite sandnsea's attempt to disparage them:

Greens believe in single payer health, Democrats are willing to look at all options to provide every American with health care. Greens are perfectly willing to sacrifice jobs for the environment, Democrats believe eco-friendly policies can also be economically beneficial to business and business will be more receptive to that. Greens believe in government creating jobs for every citizen, Democrats believe that is too far off the capitalism path and creates more problems than it solves. Greens are against all globalization, Democrats know trade is as old as mankind and free trade between the states has been one of the strengths of the US. Greens almost never, if ever, support war or the military; Democrats believe in a strong defense and US foreign policy leadership.

[cynatnite]

41. You didn't say you didn't... I was looking for clarification n/t

[sandnsea]

47. I know!!! You aren't a Democrat!

Why does it not occur to you that one doesn't have to have the most far left solution to advance liberal values???

[mike_c]

49. because most dems actively dispute any identity with liberal values....

They treat "liberal" as a perjorative label. It's not about who is more "far left." Most democrats have disowned the left altogether, and more often than not stumble over themselves to dissociate themselves from any public identity with "liberal values." It's not about party identity either-- I happily vote for liberal dems who aren't ashamed to advance liberal ideals. It's just that nowadays, greens do that more often.

[cynatnite]

50. Question:

Would you vote for a Green candidate who has little to no chance of winning over a Dem who has a very good chance of winning even though his or her ideals may not be as liberal as you'd like?

[mike_c]

52. that depends on the situation-- particularly on the meaning...

...of "not as liberal as you'd like." I've voted for dem candidates since the early 1970s, including many who were not as liberal as I'd like. On the other hand, I'm losing patience with that strategy-- it seems to have resulted in a party that no longer represents my interests in many ways-- so I can't respond in a general sense. It depends on the issues and the candidate's positions. But I HAVE voted exactly as you've described. For example, I voted for David Cobb in the 2004 presidential election because he was unambiguously opposed to the war against Iraq and pledged to end it if elected. The democratic candidate refused to take that stand, so I could not support him.

[cynatnite]

54. So despite that David Cobb had no chance in hell of winning 2004...

you voted for him rather than the guy with a (D) next to his name.

The problem I have with that, is that all those who voted for David Cobb and others who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning is that it helped the criminals stay where they are at.

Mind you, I'm not laying the solitary blame at your feet or anyone else that voted as you did...there's a hell of a lot of that to go around including John Kerry.

While I like and respect Mr. Kerry very much I wish he had handled his campaign better...but you know about hindsight.

With the stakes as high as they are now in the midterms and in 2008 I would rather vote for a less than desirable Democrat who could win rather than sit on my principles and vote for someone who everyone knows won't win. It takes away from the dems and it helps the repubs.

Our country is at stake. Day by day it continually gets worse with lives lost along with civil liberties. The repukes have shit on our constitution and our rights. They have murdered our military and countless innocents. They have broken the law and lied over and over again. They want to shove their theocratic beliefs down our throats, remake the world to their liking and to hell with anyone who believes or wants differently.

I'd rather hold my nose in the voting booth, vote for a (D) who can win in order to get these people out of my government.

[mike_c]

56. one of the pitfalls of democracy is the voters can actually vote...

...for people who represent their interests. If John Kerry had said these things I'd probably have voted for him:

Our country is at stake. Day by day it continually gets worse with lives lost along with civil liberties. The repukes have shit on our constitution and our rights. They have murdered our military and countless innocents. They have broken the law and lied over and over again. They want to shove their theocratic beliefs down our throats, remake the world to their liking and to hell with anyone who believes or wants differently.

I definitely would have voted for him if he had been unambiguous in opposing the war against Iraq and the phoney "war on terror." Instead, he endorsed both.

This has been debated many times. The point is that neither of the two politicians that "had a chance" of being elected represented me-- both represented different flavors of the military industrial complex, the American security state, and the interests of big business. Both sought to pursue an unjust foreign policy.

Then there was the guy who didn't stand a chance, but who actually represented me and my political interests. I voted for the way democracy is SUPPOSED to work.

[cynatnite]

59. And I'll think of what would have happened if Kerry had won...

He had a plan for getting out of Iraq...a common sense one that wouldn't have alienated the rest of the world and still would have helped the country retain its government.

Our country would have been so much better off if Kerry had won even if he wasn't your ideal candidate.

Before bush came to power I voted my conscience...never a straight party ticket. I may never go back to that considering what's happened in the last several years. I'm determined to get these criminals out of office.

Sadly, democracy hasn't been working the way it was designed to by the founding fathers for quite some time. If it did work, bush would have never gotten his way in 2000.

The way I see it, I'll worry about my principles after a Democrat is in office, then he or she can expect to hear from me often when they make the decisions I don't agree with. It'll sure as hell be a damn sight better than what we've got now.

[Mr_Spock]

137. So, you didn't vote for Kerry?

Nice. Now look what we're stuck with :eyes:

[sandnsea]

51. You don't say

Democrats don't publicly identify themselves with "liberal values" like health care, labor and human rights, environment, peace, diplomacy - really?? Well I'll be damned, I wonder how we got all these labor and environmental laws, got Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. What a puzzler.

Again, just because the SOLUTIONS aren't the ones you would choose, does not mean Democrats dissociate themselves from liberal values. And just because this Democrat or that supports single payer doesn't mean their liberal values are any better than another Democrat's.

People are dying while you sit on your thumbs demanding single payer. Democrats are ashamed that people are dying and will do whatever it takes to bring health care to everybody. Greens, they're more concerned with the political rhetoric than the people who are actually suffering. Don't talk to me about shame, Greens are too arrogant to even know that they should be ashamed.

[mike_c]

53. please, debate honestly if you're going to debate at all....

The democratic party was much less reticent about supporting liberal solutions in the past, and I was a loyal and stalwart democrat. The party model has shifted far to the right during the last 15 years or so, at least far to the right of its historic support for working people, the poor, etc. At the same time today's democratic party has become increasingly corporatist, anti-worker, and pro-business. Most democrats waffle mightily on important environmental issues, seeming to wish they would just go away and not require strong leadership in directions that are unpopular with big donors. Most of all, most of today's democrats actively support an imperialistic, exploitative, and manifestly nasty foreign policy-- THAT, more than anything else, is the thing that has led me to part company with democrats seeking my vote. I will not support American imperialism.

[sandnsea]

55. It's offering different solutions

Just because the solutions aren't the old ones that move more and more towards socialism, it doesn't mean that Democrats have stopped advocating for libral values that help workers and the poor. A variety of programs were introduced under Clinton from SCHIP to immunization to increased child care and pre-school to roadless areas to new housing programs. Moving towards a social contract of hope through opportunity is not abandoning liberal values, it just isn't. Every thing may not work perfectly, but the old solutions of project housing and the welfare trap didn't work so well either.

[DemonFighterLives]

118. I totally understand what you are saying

but it all boils down to- the Greens can't win. A viable alternative is a great dream as the Dems and pukes have melded.
:dem:

[motocicleta]

214. I will now defer all argument to mike_c, in every area but this one

You always summarize my thoughts far more eloquently than I can. Every time I see you've posted, I know I'm going to love it. And I fully appreciate every one of your posts on this thread, I agree, and yet ... I still vote for anyone with a D next to their name in absolutely any race that is up for grabs. I'll only give the Greens my vote when it's all over but the shouting. I just can't stand the idea of my vote somehow helping the pukes.

Keep up the good work, but please consider voting against the Rs instead of for the idealists when it really counts.

[Mr_Spock]

112. Well, go to a Green website please

You and I know that Dems will get elected and have an open mind about liberal issues. Your philosophy tacitly promotes republican ideals by dividing the Dems. We do not need your purity here on DU at this time where we are in the minority and are struggling to stop the Republican machine from taking even more rights away.

[JNelson6563]

75. Then why are you here

at a board that is for supporting Democrats and the Democratic party? :shrug:

[Mr_Spock]

103. I am wondering the same thing.

What is more dangerous - a Freeper who fires people up to want to support their Dem candidate even more, or a Green who is inticing away Dem votes saying that they are even better than Dems.

This is a very serious problem here.

[Realityhack]

251. Excelent question

he didn't realy answer that part of the post did he?

But then it seems he skiped over the part where the green party often works against its own agenda by failing to reach compromises.

[Mr_Spock]

100. Thanks for dividing our strength and tacitly supporting Republicans

You are NOT helping the team with this attitude and you are breaking the rules here as we are here to support Dems. Winning a majority is WAY more important than hearing soothing rhetoric from a candidate who 1) can't win and 2) is stealing votes from a Dem who may not win without the votes. That is BAD for the Dems I would argue and thus against the mission of DU.

[LynneSin]

69. Why do you assume there is no room in the tent

Personally I'm starting to think the Green Party is a bunch of progressive democrats with no 'set of balls' will to make that fight.

I suppose if it's not handed to you on a silver platter you just take your ball and leave. Personlly your thread disgusts me even more because there ARE democrats out who espouse the exact ideologies that you support and yet they still get shit upon by the Green Party.

One only needs to look back to the Minnesota Senate Race in 2002 when the greens opted to run a candidate in that highly contested race. I ask you this - what was so DINO-like about Paul Wellstone that the Green Party felt they need to hurt his candidacy? :shrug:

Your description of all the things that the Green Party believes in are pretty much what I believe in too and so do many of us democrats out there. At least we are willing to stick with the party and fight to improve it with an organization that can actually fight back against the Republicans and feasibly winds. And if the candidates are bad we should fight to have more primaries. Hopefully we'll do well in Connecticut and it'll be encouragement for more of this in the future

So go find your Green Haven out there because this site is clearly for electing democrats

[sandnsea]

158. I'd bet you're willing to be pragmatic

And that is the line of distinction that I was trying to highlight. I must have done a pretty good job because you clearly picked up the "Greeniness" of it, especially when you told me to go find a Green Haven - when I was actually coming from the Democratic side of the thing. I've supported Greens being Greens for a long time now, they need to stand up on their own right so that their ideas are distinct from the Democratic Party. For instance - Too many people think when Democrats talk about universal health care they mean single payer or nothing, which isn't true and hurts the chances of making progress. Greens are non-compromising and refuse to acknowledge the majority of people that are against that specific solution to health care; they misinterpret polls, misunderstand how fickle people are, and just blame everything on corporations when it isn't that simple and some people think corporations are good on top of it. So not only do they not have the ability to compromise in order to help more people, they also muddy up the opportunity for Democrats to help. That's one reason they should be more definitively Green, so people can learn about the differences and so they understand there really are differences between Democrats and Greens. (And Republians too)

Democrats are not Greens, Greens are not Democrats. There is no room for them IN the Democratic Party, they need to stand up on their own. Although it should be a team, not a sideshow.

[Brazenly Liberal]

201. You forgot the most critical difference

Democrats nominate someone we think can win and will, upon winning, do a good job of running the country. Greens - in a classic example of shooting yourself in the foot - nominate Ralph Nader.

Despite what George Wanker Bush seems to think, the President is not King of Land. He has to work with others to accomplish anything. Ralph Nader, though an admirable crusader for consumer rights and environmental causes, canNOT work with anyone. And nobody was interested in working with him. Even if electing a man based solely on one issue was a wonderful idea, Nader wouldn't even be able to do anything about that one issue. If environmental issues didn't actually get worse with him in office, which is highly likely, they'd at best get no better.

Anyone who's ever had to work with Ralph on anything will tell you that. He is a lone wolf type. A scold. The only way he relates to people is to tell them how badly they're screwing up. He's the kind of guy who went through school bringing home report cards with those checks next to "does not work well with others."

Not to mention Winona LaDuke, their brilliant VP choice - a woman who repeatedly made clear her disdain for the party nominating her and the office she wanted to be one heartbeat away from. A woman who is on record saying things have to get worse before they get better. Strange though some emptyheaded greens might find it, I prefer a public official who goes straight for better without feeling obliged to detour into worse. A woman who had "better things to do" than run for VP. I don't know about you, but while they're running for office and certainly once they're in office, I want my President and VP to be firmly convinced their job is the most important thing on their plates.

Added on edit:
Let us also not forget Ralph Nader has the dubious distinction of having broken his campaign promises before election day. So I really don't want to hear about how freaking noble the Greens are.

[KaptBunnyPants]

213. Wow, maybe I should go green.

I didn't know Democrats were anti-single payer health insurance, and always will be. I didn't know Democrats were unwilling to implement enviromental policies that business groups oppose. I didn't realise there is no room in the tent for people who oppose aggressive wars, and for those who dislike globalization. All this time I thought I was a liberal Democrat, but apparently I should be voting Green.

[Mr_Spock]

97. A party ideologically close to the Dem's is bad for Dem's

...and that is why Republicans are consistently supporting Greens where they need just a small percentage of votes to win. I'm not going to kiss a liberal Green ass just to get their vote. I'm tired of all the power-plays that certain groups use as a weapon to beat the Dem's with. In reality, I think the Greens have weakened the Dem's by dividing them - what do you think of that concept?

[theanarch]

226. No, Democrats have weakened themselves by...

...becoming a corporatist party, and in the process abandoning the New Deal constituancies (e.g. the working class, the working poor, the poor--a plurality, if not majority, of our fellow citizens) that used to provide the rank-and-file strength of the party, and its dominance over the electoral system. If one looks at European politics, there is a kind of bell-curve distrubution from the far left (Communists, Greens, Socialists) through the middle (Social-Democrats/center-left and Christian-Democrats/center-right) to the far right (nationalist/religious). Rarely do the S-D or C-D parties win elections outright, and most often have to form governments in alliance with their "natural" allies...see the Social-Democrat/Green governments of Germany, for example. The problem with the American, winner-take-all system is that it artifically compresses "choice" into an either-or proposition...which is all fine and well, as long as that choice is meaningful, e.g., a "liberal" Democratic Party and a "conservative" GOP. Like it or not, the sad--and dangerous--reallity is that the 'meaningful choice' no longer prevails (at least in 90% of electoral districts, especially at the local level); the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party has been reduced to about ten or fifteen percent of elected officials (using Congress as a model); the rest are centrists who lean more consistantly to the right than the left, especially on economic/environmental issues, and increasingly on social issues as well; and this is a function of taking campaign contributions from corporate special interests.

For all practical purposes, the DLC takeover the DNC initiated a purge, or marginalization, of the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party; and from this void (which politics abhors as much as Mother Nature) arose the Greens. As many Greens (and progressive/left non-Greens) here have stated, had the DP remained true to its liberal (or New Deal) values, they'd still be Democrats, and Democrats would still be the majority in Congress and most state legislatures. The degree to which "the left" has left the DP merely reflects how much the DP has lost touch with its base constituancies. The emotional, Freeper-like denuniciations of Greens (and other progressive/leftists) displayed on this thread (and elsewhere) merely serve to shrink the tent the DP needs to grow in order to reclaim its status as America's majority party. So rant away, all you "My Party, Right or Wrong (but never Left)-ists"...your self-righteous rhetoric is the shovel that is digging your electoral grave. We're here to have an intelligent, constructive dialog with you about your future (and ours); we're very sorry that for too many of you, this is just an occasion for primal scream therapy.

[creeksneakers2]

229. What's all this "corporatist" stuff about?

The Greens whine louder than anybody when corporations move out of America. Why, if corporations and anybody who is associated with them at all are pure evil, do you mind?

[theanarch]

230. It's not the corporations that move...

...the overpaid suits stay in their overpriced suites and export our high-paying jobs to third world sweat shops with no labor laws, no environmental laws, cheaply bribable regulators and pay no taxes on their profits; and import low-wage, no-benefit, union-busting labor from the third world to take the jobs of US citizens under the demonstrably false claim of "labor shortages" in high-tech fields (like engineering). No, the bosses stay comfortably esconsed in their plush offices and buy as many congress-critters (D's as well as R's) with chump-change PAC contributions to legalize the thievery. It's the blue- (and increasingly white-) collar working stiffs who get screwed. I'd be much happier if the bosses moved to Pakistan or Indonesia or Haiti, and left our jobs here. It's called globalization...perhaps you've heard of it.

[savemefromdumbya]

222. ain't got proprtional represention of the vote - 2 party system!

that's the choice for most

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Thank You For Some Sanity On The Topic. It's Refreshing.

Great job on the post. And God bless rule #2.

[onenote]

7. thanks!!

[Robbien]

8. I will support Democrats, but not DINOS

I support those who represent my views, not those who have a D after their name who support warmongering and corporate lobbyist bills.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. You Could Benefit From The Analogy In This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1260199&mesg_id=1260345

We need you to vote for the dem, DINO or not. You need to see the bigger picture and take your blinders off.

[Robbien]

60. The reason DLCers/DINO's cater to the right and spit on the left

is because of Democratic voters who loudly and proudly declare "NO MATTER WHAT I will always and forever vote for a Democrat". These so called Democrat voters ignore that the DLCer/DINO votes with the GOP on warmongering and corporate lobbyist bills.

The Democratic voter who will vote for the worst right winger Democrat just because that Democrat has a D after their name is the reason there is no Democratic party. There is just a GOP party and a bunch of GOP wannabees with a D after their name, all supported by Democratic voters who will hold their nose and always vote for the D.

The only way to get the DLCers/DINOs to stop catering to right wingers is tell the DLCer/DINOs we will NOT vote for them until they support bills which promote the common good and not the corporate lobbyists and warmongers.

But you go ahead and let the DLCers/DINOs keep abusing you and spitting on you and ignoring you, while you cower at their feet saying of course you guys with the D have my vote.

[rpannier]

86. Quick point

Some of those DINO's are extremely popular in the states they represent -- aka Ben Nelson of Nebraska. You can complain all you want, call him a DINO, etc. But the simple fact remains that he represents the people of Nebraska and the majority like the way he represents them. That's the reason why no first string puke would run against him this time around.
The primary job of a representative is to represent their constituency. Ben Nelson does that. He has the highest job approval rate of any Senator (in state by state polls). Whether you or I approve of the job Nelson is doing, he represents the wishes of his constituents.

[tomp]

258. so, we should vote for people who we feel represent us...

...people who we think are doing a good job in congress for us? and if we don't think they're representing us we should vote for someone else, right?

[MrBenchley]

240. The reason the left gets spat upon

is that they earn the derision of the rest of America over and over.

"the reason there is no Democratic party"
That's rich coming from a Green sympathizer. What was it, $30 worth of support from actual Greens and all the rest Republican dirty trick funds?

[tomp]

259. the problem with "always vote democrat" or the "lesser of evils"...

...strategy is that it never ends. there is never a time to break from the democratic party because there is always a "worse" republican, or a progressive democrat who "has no chance of winning". there are always chairmanships and judicial appointees to think about. always some guilt-trip to arm twist us into enabling the two (read: one) party system.

[LynneSin]

14. Moderate Democrats can and will always be a tough sell

But we are not going to change the party by assuming it all has to be fixed this election or else.

We had primaries and I think the best thing from the Lamont/Lieberman race is we had a lively contested race. However, we need people running for all offices and building themselves up through the democratic party because ultimately it's name recognition that hurt so many of these candidates that go after bit ticket democrats. And if you don't have a sufficient war chest you're not going to make any chance

We need short term and long term goals. Short terms get us the majority, get us committee seats and gives us the flow of legislation but we'll have to tow along some bad democrats along the way. But perhaps that sacrifice in 2006 will start giving us the breating room to build our party for the long run so we're working more races and getting out the worst of the republicans .

It's all a compromise.

I will not support bad democrats with money, campaigning or any other support than to pull the lever at election day. And even that I will do with a smile on my face because it isn't the bad democrat I'm voting for but for a democratic majority and for all the great democrats out there who don't live in my state but could get important positions in key committees and start making a difference

[Robbien]

66. It is not a strategy that works

You encourage the Democratic party to pick DINO's because they feel these DINOs will bring in right wing voters. The Democratic party feels it can ignore you because you will vote for them no matter what, so they go after right wing DINOs to get the right wing vote. Your vote is already in their pocket and they know it. So piss on you, they are going right.

If any Progressive complains, they bring out campaigns such as those committee chairs and threaten Progressives "You are to blame if we don't get these chairs, you HAVE to vote for us". Well I call bullshit. I will vote for them if they pay attention to what I feel is important. If they support right wing programs and corporate lobbyists, they DO NOT have my vote.

[paulk]

185. what you call DINO's appeal to moderate voters, not right

wingers, as you state.

Of course, from where you stand, 98% of the country is to your right, so I can understand your confusion.

[rpannier]

110. Moderate Democrats are vital to the Party

Let's be honest with ourselves...
would a liberal/progressive candidate be viable in Nebraska. I'm not knocking NE, but the pukes asked several A-Team pukies to run against Ben and they all declined. Why? Cuz Nebraskans like Sen Nelson. Now there might be a Schweitzer-like populist who could win, but it would probably be a stretch. As many pundits have pointed out, "The Dems don't have to allocate any money to Sen Nelson's campaign because he's so strong." That frees us DSCC money for other races.

We should support progressives/liberals/leftists in the Party when it's possible -- ie Lamont. But, when it's not, we need to support the people with the D next to their name, like Sen Nelson,

[cynatnite]

19. A DINO will get my vote over a repub n/t

[Robbien]

61. Then a party full of DINOs is exactly what you will get

Why should any politican pay attention to you? They will always have your vote no matter what they do so they can screw you right and left and up and down. They know you are going to vote for them, so why care about you?

[LynneSin]

68. Why do you assume that's what you'll get

Did you just wake up from a year long nap or something? We're about to take down Joe Lieberman.

[Robbien]

72. And over in Hawaii, The DLC is taking down an incumbent Progressive

to put in a conservative DLCer.

You highlight the only race where a Progressive is winning but in other races all over the country the DLC is spending money to pit conservative DLCers against Progressives. They are also pressuring Progressives to step down in primaries because they don't want to have to spend money defending the "more electable" conservative DLCer in a primary.

If anyone is sleeping, it is the "I am going to vote for a Democrat no matter how many times they shit on me and kick me to the curb" bunch of so called Democratic voters.

[leftchick]

76. damn!

:applause:

best post yet!

:applause:

[Perky]

106. In what race??????? But is is ok for Lamont to take down Leiberman?

Cmon. to say one can happen and the other one cab't is a bit disingnuous. Don't ya think the Big Tent can't support diversity?

[Robbien]

122. What big tent?

This big tent (or Unity as they are now calling it) is all about supporting the Democratic party as they go right. If one is a Progressive, one should put aside their disagreement with the rightward policy and vote D.

The big tent/Unity is ignoring all Democrats who say they are going to vote D no matter what and they are pandering to right wing voters. You and people like yourself do not count to the Democratic party because they know they have your vote.

No view counts except the rightward so called "moderate" platform. The big tent/unity slogan is a sham. And people who say "vote D no matter what" are the reason the big tent/unity slogan is a sham. No one is paying attention to you, they don't have to. The Democratic party is not paying attention to you and the Republican party is not paying attention to you. When you tell me "vote D no matter what", why should I pay attention to you?

[creeksneakers2]

231. The Democratic party pays attention to me

and all its supporters. They aren't extremists though.

[creeksneakers2]

232. The DLC has every right to run someone in a primary

I don't like them, but we all have a say in choosing our nominees. I expect that that even the DLC will support whichever Democrat wins in Hawaii. I expect the rest of the party to support the nominee if he turns out to be the DLC guy. I expect the Greens, if they get a chance, to help the Republican.

[Lindacooks]

29. You're forgetting about the committee chairmanships.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1789409

Nothing can happen until the Dems control the House and Senate.

If you don't vote for Dems because of one or two or three issues, you're aiding repukes.

[Robbien]

62. You are blaming me because the DINOs cater to the right?

It is the DINOs fault that they cannot get people enthused about their campaigns because their campaigns are full of GOP talking points. It is not my fault the DINO is a DINO. It is your fault, because you enable the DINO by telling them "You guys have my vote no matter what you do".

It is YOUR fault and the fault of people like you that politicans ignore you and cater to corporate interests.

They have your vote. Definately no matter what, they have your vote.

[LynneSin]

70. Hell I agree with her

To give someone like John Conyers or Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer or Henry Waxman a committee chair is surely worth the price of voting for a moderate democrat if that's what it takes. If having a Judicary Committee that has PROVEN they can bond together and keep activist judges from EVER having to go to the senate floor for comfirmation and thus dealing with 100 votes, then sign me up right here because I'll vote for a moderate democrat.

You have got to stop thinking short-term here. We need to purge the bad democrats from office but that will never happen if we don't start planning long term. And the goal is simple, get control back of Congress for short team and then build your party with the kind of candidates you want to be geting the big ticket elections like Senate or Governor.

You need to start from ground-up if you want to make change. Starting from the top and working down will only cause confusion and probably more republican rule

[Robbien]

78. Voting in Republicans to head up the Democratic party

gives the Republicans more power. Not only do they have the Republican vote, they have the DINO vote.

Notice that the Republicans are getting horrendous bills passed because there are more and more DINO's who are voting with the GOP each and every time. The GOP is smart, they are getting the DLC to support GOP candidates running under a D label.

Each election that goes by the "I will vote D no matter what" group keeps pushing everyone else to stop being short sighted and vote D. This "I will vote D no matter what" group threaten dire consequences if Progressives stand up for Progressive goals and blame Progressives if DINOs don't get elected.

I say no. It is the DINOs fault because they are DINOs and it is the fault of the "I will vote D no matter what" group. Why should anyone listen to your "I will vote D not matter what" group? The Democratic Party doesn't listen to you, they just expect your vote and then cater to the rightwingers. If the Democratic party thinks so little of your group, why should I listen to you?

[LynneSin]

83. Then you want to continue republican rule for the next many decades?

As bad as our party has gotten, we have shining stars that give me hope and encourage me to fight and push for more primaries.

Your option has me abandoning the party and if we all thought like that we will end up with republicans in control for way too long while we progressive sit around and debate ad nauseum on how to fix the party.

In 1972 RoeVwade happened giving women the right to choose and now 34 years later we're damn close to having it overturned (which won't be by senators but by Judges). Do you think I want to wait another 34 years for the opportunity to give choice back again to women? Or should I fight now because perhaps a few bad democrats will get into office but I'll give the Judiciary Committee the power to decide who gets voted on the floor instead of begging 40+ senators to please filibuster.

I will not cede power to the Republicans just so we can make the party more acceptable to you and you're "It's all about me" attitude. I will fight the battles and if we can just have one major victory this year against the bad democrats then it's a start and it's the hope and proof that we can do perhaps two next election or 4 after the next election and so on and so forth. Then we build a party of progressives that we want without giving total control to the Republicans during the building process.

[Robbien]

124. What I am saying is that pushing the meme

"vote D no matter what" helps destroy the Democratic Party. All these daily threads pushing conformity to the rightward move of "moderate" Democrats doesn't help the party, it hurts it.

I am a Progressive and am supporting as many Progressive candidates as I can possibly support. If you want to support the moderate DLC and moderate Democratic candidates, that is your choice. But don't tell me that if I don't do as you are doing I am the one at fault for destroying the Democratic party.

I support the candidates of the party which reflects my views. I give them all the time and money I can. In that way I am working to better the party. But I will never tell a moderate candidate that it is okay for them to be moderate because they have my vote no matter what. That plan of action just encourages them to ignore me and pander to the right.

[LynneSin]

129. So not voting Democrat and helping the republicans helps us HOW?

I mean, I've heard this BULLSHIT now for 6 years at Democratic Underground and I still haven't figured out how our party has improved. SO perhaps it's time for a new plan. If your the coach of a team and you use the same tired tactics year after year don't be surpised when your team fails to win the big games.

So this BULLSHIT theory of not voting for unacceptable democrats (and btw, which DUer has the priveledge of saying their yardstick is the yardstick of choice for deciding who is and isn't a bad democat?) pretty much has done SHIT for us.

WE need to build our party from the GROUND UP not the TOP DOWN. We need a 50-state strategy where we have candidates in every race and as those candidates get better known they grown within the party and move up the ladder. And when dems are unacceptable we have primaries NOT simply choose to not vote for them in Novemeber.

Your policy holds no hope for more republican rule and I'd rather lump a few bad democrats in my party in order to gain control and help good democrats out there, which there are plenty out there.

[Robbien]

135. I don't know what you are talking about. Have you forgotten ABB?

DUers has been pushing the "vote D no matter what" for a long time. Yes, people are allowed to yammer on about Progressive candidates, but the closer an election comes, the louder the "Vote D no matter what" gets.

My lord, during the latter half of '04, anyone who said they don't like Kerry or weren't going to at least vote ABB were pounded into the ground by DUers.

[LynneSin]

138. You know what - this is a site that helps elect democrats

what problem do you have with that? I'm here to help democrats and everything I fight for every day has been to help elect democrats whether it's to gain the democratic majority in 2006, ABB in 2004 or any other concept you'd like to throw at me and think "YES THIS TIME I GOT LYNNESIN IN THE CORNER".

Only problem is you are the one in the corner on this arguement and like anyone backed into a corner you'll grasp at straws to try and prove your point.

There is a basic concept for anyone and everyone who has been trying to move this party to the left

Primary Elections: Get Rid of Bad Democrats
General Elections: Get Rid of REpublicans

If you have a problem with that concept it's NOT MY PROBLEM. But just like anyone who wasn't ABB back in 2004, I'll fight tooth&nail with anyone who thinks there is some reason why, after the primaries are overwith, that they should not vote democrat AND ESPECIALLY try and promote that idea here on democratic underground.

So in 2008 when we come up with a new jingle about why to vote democrat you can be guarenteed I'll be there. Because if in 2006 we just have 1 or 2 really big sucesses like geting Lamont elected or getting rid of a few horrible republicans, then it will strenghten my resolve even more.

So go ahead, what other gutless suggestion do you have for people as to why they should not vote democrat AFTER the primaries are overwith

:shrug:

[Robbien]

141. So now you are back to name calling

First you put the blame of Democratic failures all on Progressives.
Now you are calling Progressives cowards for not saying they "will vote D no matter what".

Usally I hit hide thread on all these threads which demand Democrats "vote D no matter what". Telling Democrats to just suck it up that DLCers are pandering to the right and spitting on the left.

The next threads you start on this subject (and I know there will be many) I will do just that and all you "vote D no matter what" can post amongst yourselves to your hearts content.

I'm done. This was a big waste of time as I knew it would be.

[LynneSin]

143. I'm back to telling you what it is

I'm proud to be a democrat and I will fight for my party through thick or thin.


When my beloved Philadelphia Eagles tanked the 2nd half of the season because of a bad player (Terrell Owens) you didn't see me shopping for a new team to cheer. I stuck with them because I've pledged my support as an Eagle fan.

Bandwagoners can go find someone else cart to jump on and off - I'm here to work and hope that others will work with me to build this party up from the inside

[creeksneakers2]

234. You are having the opposite affect

Since most Democrats can't get elected on anything close to a Green platform, they must make up the votes lost to Greens somewhere else. The obvious place is in the center. So you are forcing the party to move to the center to make up the votes you take away from it.

[Lindacooks]

202. Thanks, Lynne- you and I are right.

This idealistic crap that 'a candidate has to agree with me on every issue before I vote for them' is what has caused the Dems to lose many races; most of those lost by splitting the vote with Greens or Independents, so the repuke wins.

Not any more.

[Lindacooks]

204. BS. And how dare you?

No politician ignores me, and I don't ignore politicians.

But at least my reasoning is based in reality.

It is YOUR fault and the fault of people like you that repukes have control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, Presidency, and many governorships and those who control the vote count around this country.

And now you're on ignore.

[gully]

174. What about "GINO'S?"

eom

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Thank you! It's been looking like GreenUnderground lately.

I believe in what the Green party stands for, but they're just not viable and the Greens need to focus on getting the GOP out of office. Gah!

[omega minimo]

149. More like DU drove drunk: "Greens caused all the wars in the world!!!"

"Blah!" :puke:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

196. Sure, okay.

[cynatnite]

17. Absolutely!

I'm a democrat until the day I die. There was a time, before bush, that I would vote whoever I thought would best do the job...now it's a straight party ticket.

Even with all the Hillary bashing that goes on here, Lieberman being called to task for his collusion and back-room dealing Dems have done in the past, I will vote Democrat every single time.

I am here because I am a Democrat.

[mmonk]

18. I support and vote for dem candidates. My qualifier is

I stuck up for the Greens who were slammed because their candidate took money from republicans. I don't think its fair to slam them the way the current system enforces a two party system and they don't have enough money to get their message out. Their candidates weren't or aren't corrupted by the money that was given to them and it's unfair to insinuate such even though Greens running may frustrate you. I say instead of insulting them (Green voters), our party should give them valid reasons to vote for our candidate.

[LynneSin]

77. Why? I don't get to pick and choose which democrats I'm responsible for

Democrats get slammed here everyday for all the problems that our party has caused for the last couple of centries. People slam Joe Lieberman but I have no right to say "Oh he's a democrat but not one of us so stop bitching about it"

Carl Romanelli is part of the Green Party. I go to their website and he's listed as a candidate and there is no denouncement of his actions. This is their party and if they aren't going to say something to stop this collaboration with the republican party then as far as I'm concern they are a part of it too.

When one democrat does bad we all get get blamed, why should the Greens have different standards?

[mmonk]

244. Because right or wrong is not determined by label but what one

stands for and does. And sorry, but everyone does have a choice. I'm a progressive democrat and can stand so and make my arguments and vote how I want to.

[mike_c]

24. sorry, my alliegence is to LIBERALS and PROGRESSIVES...

...not to parties. I was a loyal democrat for thirty years. I paid my dues to the democratic party and what did it get me? A party whose membership is mostly ashamed to be labeled "liberal." Thanks, but no thanks. I vote for liberal dems or for greens, whomever is most forthright about liberal issues.

[LynneSin]

84. There are websites for you then

Here we support democrats and how to build our party

[Lilith Velkor]

140. By alienating unaffiliated progressives

It worked so well in the last 2 elections, y'know. :eyes:

[LynneSin]

154. How many elections have the Greens won

I have no problem with it - they party is as corrupt as the rest of them. I'd rather fight within my on party to change it

[Lilith Velkor]

160. Change it to what, a party with no liberals?

Good luck w/that....

[LynneSin]

170. At least I'm not the party of clueless people who ignore the corruption

I know where the corruption is in my party and I fight to get rid of it. Sometimes not sucessfully but perhaps in 5 days we'll have our first major sucess in Connecticut. I'd rather be a part of that then a party that preaches political superiority because of a so-called clean campaigning but takes backdoor donations from corrupt republicans to achieve their goal.

If you refuse to see the flaws then I feel sorry for you and anyone else like you. At least I'm fighting for change although I do not expect it to happen over night. How long will Greens continue to have their campaigns financed by republicans?

[Lilith Velkor]

206. Until the Dems grow some fucking balls

Tossing Lieberdouche is a good step in that direction. :)

[guinivere]

263. How can we build the Dem party if others are told to get out.

We need votes. We need to change minds or at least plant a seed.

Alienating people does nothing.

[Lorien]

95. Amen mike_c

Those with a (D) behind their name today often don't resemble the Democrats of 30 years ago. Being pro megacorporation over being pro labor, consumer, and environment doesn't make someone a Democrat in my book, (D) label or not. Supporting a war of choice that is bankrupting the nation, destabilizing a large portion of the world and killing thousands of innocents doesn't make a person a Democrat either. There are quite a few "Democrats" who are as faithful to Democratic ideals as Bush is to Christian ideals; actions, not labels, show us their true qualities.

[greendog]

25. Democrats have not only knowingly taken contributions...

...from bad sources, once elected they've done favors for those contributors that have been detrimental to "we the people".

NAFTA, GATT/WTO, Telecom Deregulation, Welfare Reform.

If the Democratic Party opposed corporate influence in our government the Green Party wouldn't exist.

[LynneSin]

85. But the thing is democrats never had policy saying they wouldn't take them

A Green Candidate on a party that states they are above the corruption of campaign contribution knowingly took money from an Anti-choice Advocate, a Halliburton Lobbyist, a Chevron Oil Exectutive and a an organizer to ban gay marriages from the constitution.

Never once in any post that I have done over and over again have I ever EVER said that "Democrats Don't Do that" because I know damn well they do and even the party knows it.

But time and time again Greens have looked down snootily at us democrats thinking that somehow they were better because they were devoid of this corruption.

You are clearly not. And the thing is this is not the only example of Green/Republican collaboration - there have been plenty of other people on this post talking about examples in Seattle, Michigan and elsewhere where the same thing may have happened. But this time we got the proof.

So if you want to continue to be the party above the corruption then you and the leaders of the Green Party need to step in there and clean it up. Your refusual means that your party is basically as corrupt as the rest of them

[greendog]

108. Wait a minute!

How has the receipt of this money corrupted this particular candidate? Has he become more anti-choice, pro-war, or anti-gay as a result of taking money from these contributors?

In the unlikely event that he was elected does anyone believe he'd actually go to work for these contributors?

~~~

Lynne, I don't understand your hysteria over this candidate. If he needs help from Republicans it means there's not much interest from progressives for his candidacy. It's really not very likely that he'll be a factor in this race. Now, if progressives were out working for him, raising money for him, and polling showed that there was interest in him maybe you'd have a reason to be bothered.

I think maybe you need a new hobby. :-)

[LynneSin]

128. When the intent of the sole contributors is to use said candidate

to help their prefer candidate to win.

Too many articles have been written that Carl Romanelli did not have any money coming in from the Green party to help get the signature outside $30 he donated. So when the sole source of money to gather the signatures come from anti-choice, anti-gay, oil execs who helped no other 3rd party candidate except the one party that could pull votes away from their main contributor then yes - a vote for Carl would be a vote for not just anti-choice, but also everything else corrupt the republican party stands for.

Because if Carl was a true green whose intents were to push the Green platform he would have refused those contributions on principle. And even Carl admits he got the money.

And sweetie, it has NEVER EVER EVER been about this candidate and how he will affect the race (which is highly unlikely). Obviously you're just like every other Green sympathizer out there with your head up your ass refusing to see the big picture - THE GREEN PARTY IS FULL OF CORRUPT CANDIDATES JUST LIKE MINE. So as far as I'm concern, I refuse to put up with any Green bullshit about this party purity of the GReen refusing corrupt campaign money. They did it and still they whine, complain and deny.

Carl help Santorum in Pennsylvania - highly doubtful. Geez, clearly you have no clue about me and my knowledge of Pennsylvania politics. Spent 30 years in that state.

Perhaps you need a new hobby - liking being able to see the big picture. Clearly you have no concept in that.

[greendog]

142. So who's going to vote for Carl Romanelli ?

Are the people who contributed to his campaign, the anti-choice, anti-gay, oil execs types going to vote for him? Are the people who didn't contribute to him, the Greens and progressives going to vote for him? After all, apparently the only Green money he got was $30.00 from his own pocket. How's he doing in the polls?

In our last election the Green Party had a candidate for Governor(MT) who was, believe it or not, anti-choice. He didn't get my vote. I don't think he got many votes at all....in the State where Nader got his highest percentage in 2000.

I think the type of voter who "might" consider voting Green is generally pretty well informed and fully capable of making the appropriate choice. I doubt Carl Romanelli will attract the support of very many Greens or Progressives in Pennsylvania.

[LynneSin]

150. Are you actually listening to me? Seriously - YOU'RE NOT

This isn't about the concept that Romanelli could spoil the election which about 10000 times I've said just that. Hell, I've spent decades working Pennsylvania politics and know very well how Bob Casey's stance on choice and a Green Party candidate will have little outcome that could hurt Casey.

This is about a party that demeans my democratic party as corrupt (which yes, we have a problem - no denying here) and then turns around and does the same things they accuse me of wrongdoing.

Here's a clear example.

EVeryone knows I'm an anti-smoker. My father died of lung cancer and I can't be around the stuff for long periods of time. With that history I have been known to get in plenty of tirades with smokers about their habit, how disgusting it is and my rights as a non-smoker. ENough people in DU can attest to that.

So, how do you think those smokers here at DU, some of them who have butted heads with me, would feel if they found out I actually was smoking? Maybe not a 2-pack a day habit but perhaps I was hanging with some DUers at a party, got a little trashed and figured I'd light up a smoke so I could be accepted by them.

Sure I could argue back that it was an isolated incident and some how justify that hey, I'm a non-smoker most of the time so you better still listen to my tirades.

Well the Green Party is just like that - preaching to democrats about how corrupt we are but then sneaking around and doing the one thing they SWORE they were not - corrupt dealings with dirty campaign contributions. They are the non-smoker who gets all snippy in the face of smokers and yet thinks it's no big deal when they get a bit drunk and light up a ciggie.

You cannot have it both ways - either your party upholds the tenants it's preaches or it accepts the criticisms from those who have had dealing with the brunt of their tirades for year after year.

Which is it?

[greendog]

159. Are we talking about Greens or are we talking about...

...one candidate for office, Carl Romanelli? You're going on a tirade about a guy who seemingly has little or no support from Greens or progressives and then...somehow have the audacity to blame US for what he's done. I'd say, if he's not receiving support or votes from US, then WE'VE rejected him. That's how it works. I really don't see what your problem is. :-)

[LynneSin]

171. We're talking about the Greens

Are you foolish to think this is the first time it has ever happened?

I don't have time to pull the research links now (I have them on my home computer - but several have posted them in other links) - this has been going on for years with notable examples in Washington State and Michigan (and no, I do not count Nadar 2004 campaign - he wasn't green then).

How long will you be willing to support a party that claims it's free of corruption while being financed by the Republican party? By ignoring it it just puts a real black cloud over your party. You'll find that myself and hundreds of other democrats are VERY aware of the corruption in the elections and we try every year to make changes. And hopefully our first victory will be next Tuesday

[greendog]

194. I think we have a misunderstanding

:-)

I don't support ANY Party. I'm an independent progressive. I like the stated values of the Green Party but I'm not a member.

I usually vote in the Democratic Primary, though in *special circumstances I'm willing to vote in the Republican primary if it means pre-em-ting a particularly extreme candidate...and if the Democratic ballot is pretty well settled anyway. (*our County Commissioner races are critical in a County that leans Republican with a land area twice the size of Delaware)

In our Democratic Senate Primary I happily voted for Jon Tester over the DLC preferred candidate, John Morrison. Plenty of other Democrats did too, and the result is: We're going to replace Conrad Burns with a progressive populist Democrat...and organic farmer this November.

In the '04 Presidential Election I voted for David Cobb. Personally, I disliked Kerry because of his support for the corporate written trade deals, telecom deregulation, and welfare reform. A lot Montanans weren't exited by Kerry because he seems a lot like a smilin', two faced East Coast elitist snob. (there's a particular distaste for rich folks around here on account of their effect on real estate prices) I think Kerry ended up losing by 20 points in an election that otherwise went spectacularly to the Democrats.

Once again: If there was ACTUAL SUPPORT by progressives for these Green Party candidates who are taking Republican cash I'd tend to agree you have something to cry about. But there isn't. It's a non-issue.

And hey, it's been fun conversing with you but it's a beautiful day and I really shouldn't spend any more time inside in front of the computer. I think I still have enough time to hike up to Avalanche Lake (if I can get a parking space this late in the day:-)).


Avalanche Creek

[LynneSin]

197. Misunderstanding cleared but you still suck.....

....I want to go outside but have another 2 hours of work

:pals:

I want to change the democratic party and I want to work with progressive democrats and even just progressive thinkers regardless of party in order to move our party more to the left.

Have a good hike!

[creeksneakers2]

236. Santorum is picking up steam

Early polls showed numbers like Casey=52% and Santorum=34%. That sounded great, but as more polls have come out, none show Casey far from 50%, sometimes below. That left a sizable undecided vote that could go to Santorum.

Santorum is running a very effective ad campaign. He's mostly running warm fuzzy ads aimed at appealing to moderates. One shows Santorum getting $100 million to support to coal waste to petroleum plant in PA. That ad paints Santorum as an environmentalist, a fighter for lower fuel costs, somebody who's doing something that weakens Arabs, somebody who is working for energy independence, and a guy who can deliver dollars from Washington to the state. All this in 60 seconds. Santorum has other ads showing him taking moderate positions. His ads are on all the time.

Polls now still put Casey in the 50% or slightly less range with Santorum up to 41% or so. Its a race now. I've only seen a couple of Casey ads on TV.

If Casey can't get well above 50% then its going to come down to a close race. The Greens could peel off a sizable vote because Casey is pro-life. Its very possible that the Greens will hand this race to Santorum.

[ruggerson]

35. Thank you

This ain't Green Underground.

[upi402]

39. X-zacktly!!!

'cept DINO's are not Democrats of course

[w8liftinglady]

40. can we agree to support Dinos now,and regain the majority-

[mike_c]

42. the problem is that dems ask the left to do that EVERY ELECTION...

...but they are NEVER willing to return the favor. Where are all the dems supporting green candidates in 2006 in return for green support for Kerry in 2004? The green party undermined its own state organizations in many states, and likely will need to organize petition drives to recover lost ballot slots in 2008 because of it's support for Kerry despite there being a green candidate in the race. In other words, greens deserted their own candidate en masse to help elect Kerry. When will dems do the same for green candidates?

Unfortunately, the refrain from the mainstream democratic party has ALWAYS been "but this election is too important to support liberals/progressives etc." Maybe next time. But next time NEVER comes. I've seen that happen for 30 years.

[w8liftinglady]

43. while I agree with you in principle-I'm thinking more towards 2008

we really DO need a Dem majority in this election..to steer people towards voting that way in the Presidential election

[mike_c]

44. same as it ever was....

eom

[w8liftinglady]

45. of course...a moot point in my district...Joe barton is a shoo-in.

[LynneSin]

71. Sweetie, you do know this is a website that supports DEMOCRATIC candidates

Is there some confusion in the rules that you're unclear about? I'm not trying to be pissy about the fact that you're a green supporter but if this is a democratic website that is there to support democratic candidates and we poster of the democratic party want to try and grab that majority while we have a chance and then build our party up with more races like the Lieberman/Lamont - then why are you so critical?

If you have a problem with the moderate democrats than perhaps you should have been fighting more back during the primaries. And finally, stop assuming every democrat thinks the same way we do here on DU. THere's a whole world of voters out there that use their computers for nothing more than Weather Reports, Sports Scores, Music Downloading and Porn. And those people crazily outnumber us. Democrats are not cut-cutter candidates but fit the needs of the state they are representing. This is why I love this party because of the diversity and because of the willingness to fight from the ground up from so many who do want to make the change

[mmonk]

256. We did last time.

Last time I checked, we still aren't a majority and this country is going further down the toilet. Thank goodness my dem rep in the House is progressive. I don't see how voting for dems that let the republicans crush the judiciary and get by with the things they do that are generationally significant does any good. I don't see the reasoning in staying silent. I can't fault the Greens for any of that. If dems did what they should, the existence of the Greens wouldn't be any sort of problem because they would have far less support and wouldn't hurt dem chances.

[opihimoimoi]

46. Yup, Dem all the way cept for a couple of scarey Dino's

[EFerrari]

48. Let me get this straight, Lynne.

You want to verbally attack Green DUers who collaborate with you Dems and then, you want us to work to elect your candidates?

lol

I'm so glad I know better representatives of the Democratic Party than you have been in this forum this week. Than many of you have been.

Just amazing, really.

lol

[LynneSin]

73. I'm not really sure how you're benefitting us

You're taking the money to be a tool for Rick Santorum and then you whine about it when we complain. I'm posting at a site for democratic candidates so if you're here to help get democrats elected, even improve the stance of the democratic party by fighting for better candidates - then I'm on board with you.

If you're here to get Greens elected then I have no use for the Green Party. They have proven time and again that they WILL play the spoiler and I'm not talking Pennsylvania where the Green vote probably won't amount to much anyways. I'm talking Minnesota 2002 where we had the most progressive democrat out there and the greens still choose to shit on our party.

And as you would say

Just amazing, really.

lol

[IndependentVoice]

162. Wow for a democrat

You are acting very intolerant and close-minded

[EFerrari]

211. If? Lynne, I've been here since Nov 22 2004.

And I have to wonder how you managed to miss the actions and campaigns I've worked on with Democrats. The only campaign I'm working on right now is a Democrat's -- a lovely, progressive Democrat on our Board of Supervisors.

And you know, I've never been to Minnesota or Pennsylvania.

So, your rage needs to find a more appropriate and useful target if you really want to zing someone who upset you.

And your "if" is totally bogus because you or anyone here knows damn well that Greens don't come here to promote Green candidates. Unless there are whole threads that I've managed to miss. It just doesn't happen. We follow the rules, and find ways to work with you on progressive issues.

Maybe that isn't a good idea, after all, if we can be vilified with that mouth that you presumably use to kiss your mother.

You'd be really surprised at how hurtful what you are doing really is to those of us who are here to contribute. Or, maybe not. 100 days out of a midterm, maybe this is a good way for you to go.

After listening to you, I'm very seriously thinking that DU doesn't welcome progressives who promote Democratic candidates. I'll have to reflect on that.

But, by all means, rage away if that's what you need to do. It will sort itself out.

[Rex]

57. I'm here to find out the Truth.

If Democrats support the Truth, then they get my vote. I'd never vote third party, because it enables the BFEE to make it easier to cheat. Maybe in thirty years I will, if it is big actually I'd like to see us like Germany with many parties. Two party systems have huge flaws, just look at Iraq.

[MarkDevin]

58. Does that mean I have to support Lieberman?!

I'd rather support Lamont, if that's OK with you, Lynne. :hi:

[B Calm]

63. You live in Connecticut ??

[kick_them_hard]

64. Last I check Lamont is a Dem

and Im so glad to see this discussion because DU has become somewhat of a bashing blog than anything else. Sometimes I just cringe what I read on here. It hurts our party!~ THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! Comeon peeps, get with it. Is this a Dem blog or what?? Sometimes I think there are repubs in dems clothing hanging out here trying to stir up trouble. Bash Bash Bash!! BLAHBLABLAHH

[LynneSin]

74. Wait, did Lamont just switch to the Green Party overnight?

I never said anything about supporting the incumbant democrat in the elections. That's why we have primaries and I have to admit I was a doubt-thomas when Lamont first threw his hat into ring. I'm am impressed with the grass roots movement there and hope that it encourages more stuff like this in future elections. I would want you to support Lamont.

[WilliamPitt]

81. Clue: Lamont is a Democrat

K?

K.

[IronLionZion]

132. "Democratic Primary" has got to be a clue

:hi:

[deutsey]

65. Might as well call it "Whig Underground"...The Dems will be joining

that party in the dustbin of history if they don't unite and fight the Right.

[Hubert Flottz]

67. "and to support Democratic candidates for political office"

Read our lips Joe-Ho. If Joe loses his job in the senate, it won't be so bad, because the Marines are looking for some "Good Men" to spread good cheer in the GREEN zone! He likes the war and it looks like he'll be free to go win it in person.

If you're lokkking for R-A-L-P-H, he's probably with the GREEN guy up in Pa. looking for some hand-outs(GREEN)from the GOP, the party with the GREEN teeth.

[rosesaylavee]

79. I have to say I don't understand this

Green stance - "Democrats are just like Republicans so who cares who you vote
for..." This angle has been used against us in several elections and we need to work to correct this misconception, if it remains, NOW.

I understand that part of the problem with the Greens is that they have no national organization defining them. And that's a problem when you have some individuals behaving with no integrity and who then get national attention for their bad behavior because there can be no national response or defense of the whole.

I enjoy reading and have learned from many DUers on this site who are of the Green persuasion. I think their viewpoint does contribute to discussions on the environment and will hopefully continue to be tolerated as we are the only big tent party. And its probably because of Dems wide tolerance of all ideas that Greens are welcome on this site.

BUT, that said, it's NOT ok to support a Green Candidate over a Dem candidate by taking $$ from the rethuglicans. And I would hope that Greens who frequent this site will step up and state publicly that they don't support this sort of underhanded politics.

[rpannier]

88. Well of course the Democrats and the pukes are exactly alike...

You should know quite well seeing as you have a Gore picture up there.
You remember in 2000 Gore was pushing "faith based initiatives" "prayer in the public schools" "tax cuts for the rich" "spending the surplus" "weakening environmental standards" --
Oh wait...I'm sorry. That's right. He took the opposite position on all those issues. (I hope my sarcasm comes out as well on a blog as it does when I say it)

On note: When people tell me Dems and pukes are the same, these are some of my talking points.

[LynneSin]

92. I hope so too

My lack of respect for the Green party is that most of them find no problem with the Romanelli/Santorum situation or simply assume "he's just a rogue in our party". Yet when Lieberman or any other democrat votes or acts against what we would prefer it's not like we can just walk away from him and say "he's jsut a rogue in our party". Lieberman is just as much of the democratic party as Russ Feingold and when either of them that does something not very progressive it's a mark on our party, not something we can sweep under the rug and ignore.

But there have been several Greens who have come out against this and have wished that their party leaders stand up and say something to denounce them - those are Greens I have respect for and I've even Pm'd some of them to let them know it was great to see them do that!

[cgrindley]

80. If a Democrat congressperson supports Lieberman as an Independent

after Lieberman loses the primary, I will certainly NOT support that candidate.

This is a fight for the soul of the Democrat Party. Lieberman and his kind have to go. We have to reclaim pride in Liberalism and purge those bastards who have moved the party so far to the right.

Do you realize that the American Democratic party is still to the right of the Canadian Conservative party? It's frightening.

[LynneSin]

89. I have to say I will agree with you on this much

Because even though the person in question is a democrat, they are going against what I stand for which is supporting democrats.

But mind you that is AFTER the primaries if Lamont is the democrat and Lieberman goes independant. Beforehand I see no problem - there are some longtime friendships built by Lieberman with democrats from all reaches of the political spectrum. But those democrats need to respect the fact that if the people of Connecticut want Lamont as their democratic nominee then that is who we will support

[MrBenchley]

241. Bear in mind

that a lot of the same people demanding unbending party loyalty for Lamont are the ones who spit on the concept everywhere else.

You might recall that before the Unknown Millionaire was dredged out of obscurity, they were furiously beatring the drums for independent (and GOP stalking horse) Lowell Weicker.

[rpannier]

91. If a Dem candidate supports the "independent" challenge by LieBerman

then they've betrayed the Party and have abdicated all rights to be supported by the members of the Party.

[LynneSin]

93. Absol-fucking-lutely

To me that is the biggest act of betrayal by any democrat.

This isn't Bernie Sanders where polls overwhelmingly show that he is unbeatable (democrats including the DSCC are in support of Sanders, who is an independant running for US Senate in Vermont and will probably win). This is a democrat who had a primary challenger and lost. If Lieberman goes independant that as far as I'm concern - any democrat who opts to support him should just go independant too since they are not supporting the democratic party

[Perky]

104. I agree. I support the nominee no matter who wins even if he sux

[im10ashus]

90. Go on girl!!!

Sing it!!!

K&R!!!

:kick:

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. I'm a Democrat but I don't owe allegience to any party.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” - Thomas Jefferson

Democrats take money from Republicans all the time. Just look at the list of donors to any major Democratic candidate.

The difference being that the Greens aren't beholden to the Republicans, unlike the Dem politicians who dance to the tune of the corporations that back them.

Hell, if the Dems are so upset about it, let them cough up some dough to the Greens to even things out.

[Perky]

105. Then you are an Independent not a Democrat.

[LostinVA]

109. Beat me to it...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. I've been a registered Democrat since 1965

How about you?

[cgrindley]

125. No member "owes" any allegiance to a party, it's the other way around

Jesus, this is so the problem with the party. Its members don't owe it jack shit. It owes the members. It's supposed to be a one-side equation. The party should represent the will of its members, not the other way around. It's about time that it woke the fuck up and understood this simple truth.

[Mr_Spock]

107. This isn't an ideological web site - it's DEMOCRATIC Underground

If Greens are getting support from Republicans who want to see the vote divided so they can win, then that Green candidate is not part of the Democratic team trying to remove the Republicans who are far far worse than Dem's or Greens and who must be removed from office before we have no right to vote.

Ideology is great, but if we are not here to win, then we are simply philosophers with NO representation in our government.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. Greens are supposed to be part of the "Democratic team"?

What a novel perspective you have of politics.

[Mr_Spock]

116. Apparently you agree that Greens are dividing us then

Since we are here to support Democrats and Democrats only.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Who's "we"?

I support progressive politicians, whether Democrat, Green, Socialist. And, I have no problem in voting for the best candidate. Saves wear and tear ont he nose.

Not to mention that the OP, and others, aren't exactly trying to bring the Greens into the fold with their "love it or leave it" posts.

[Mr_Spock]

121. I have better things to do that kiss a Green ass for votes

If you need to be convinced by people on the DU - a very liberal website - to vote for a Democrat (the mission of DU is to support Dem's), then perhaps you got lost at Albuquerque.

Love it or leave it. We have enough problems with Freeper invasions - we need to face down the real enemy here, not pander to a splinter group. We are not the candidates here - we simply support them - capice?

[cgrindley]

127. Did you just type "love it or leave it"?

Because, Christ.

[Mr_Spock]

131. You like that huh?

It's not my favorite way of driving home a point (though I was just retyping it), but we really need to focus on the prize this fall and infighting (outfighting? - liberal Dem versus liberal Green) is not in our best interest at the present time. One step at a time...

[cgrindley]

134. I think we do need a big infight

Obviously, the old way hasn't been working very well. The party needs to be re-invigorated, and now is a lot better of a time than in October.

[Mr_Spock]

136. You think a big infight will look good as elections loom?

I'm thinking we might want to focus on winning for now.

[bling bling]

218. Damn!

Heard that! You're just tellin it like it is, and the truth hurts sometimes.

That was a truly satisfying post to read.

In my own experience, I am so tired of all the thousands of posts on this board a week declaring that we shouldn't vote for Democrats if they don't support "X". I feel, lately, like this is the anti-Democratic Underground. And people here try to make me feel bad or ashamed for supporting Dem candidates that they disagree with on one or two issues. Those people, like you said, are splinters. It's counter-productive and it's hurting the Democratic Party. And people who intentionally engage in activities that hurt the Democratic party are enemies to the party right now, IMO.

[Perky]

101. Absa-dang-lutely K&R

People on here kvetch about the DLC, hut I think it important to remember that the DLC has always attempted to work within the party to change it.

THEY ARE STILL DEMOCRATS!!!

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BEWTEEN AN INSURGENCY AND BEING ATTACKED BY OUTSIDERS AND THEIR GOP PUPPETMASTERS.

[LostinVA]

113. I am not a Democrat, but I agree with Lynne completely

I'm a Democratic Socialist, and I'll support a Dem every time, even though sometime certain candidates sicken me. It is the ONLY way we can regain all we have lost and move forward: SOLIDARITY!

[Mr_Spock]

119. Until we have a voice in government again

...people who insist on attacking Dems during perhaps the most important political season in my life are not what we need here on DU.

I admire your pragmatism. One step at a time...

[LostinVA]

120. What else can we do? I refuse to give up

[IndependentVoice]

145. Ah I get it we can attack everyone we dont agree with BUT dem's ok n/t

[LostinVA]

152. It appears you don't get it n/t

[IndependentVoice]

156. What? because I refuse to blindly follow the democrats?

Lets be clear I agree with them on 90-95% of the issues, but when you start to tow the party line and go with everything say and take every explination they make, then you my friend have stoped thinking for yourself.

[Mr_Spock]

199. You couldn't possibly miss the point more.

Winning supersedes everything at this point - unless you would prefer that the best on the Republican side get to make policy while we argue ad-nauseum about who's more liberal...

[Mr_Spock]

195. It is against the rules

If you don't like the rules, don't complain to us.

[IronLionZion]

126. You can attract more bugs with honey than with vinegar

We need the Greens and progressive independents with us, not against us. The Dems are not challenging Bernie Sanders and rightfully so. He will be a great progressive independent Senator who caucuses with the Dems. Whenever we need a senator to do something dangerously liberal, Bernie is our man.

I know you want Casey to win and so do I. I didn't know this Green character was even in the race or that he was financed entirely by supporters of Rick Santorum until you told us. Thank you for that. But do you really think hostility to the entire Green Party and their supporters is the best way to go?

Casey can win this on his own merits, without any dirty tricks because he is a better person with a more sensible platform than sick ricky. PA voters know better than to repeat the tragedy that put Bush in office.

[creeksneakers2]

238. Shaming Greens worked

In 2000 the mainstream Democrats tried everything they could think of win the Greens back. It was impossible to convince the Greens about anything. The Greens just repeated nonsense slogans and lies about Democrats being the same as Republicans. Al Gore was a fine liberal candidate and the Greens had no excuse for all the terrible things they said about Gore. I, and I think many others, got the impression that since valid arguments had nothing to do with the Green vote, that they were all raising a fuss just to get attention. The Green vote was what, 3%in 2000?

I, and many others, concluded that being nasty to Greens was the best way to deal with them. In 2004 mainstream Democrats shamed Greens whenever they encountered them. In 2004, Greens only got less than 1% of the vote, and their party split from all the people who said they regretted voting for Nader. Shaming Greens, rather than patronizing them worked.

[DemonFighterLives]

130. My take

Maybe I am a little naive, but I assumed that most Greens are closely related to Dems.
They should vote by default for the Dems. when any race is close.
It is a shame that this isn't happening. The republicans have infiltrated all parties by throwing money around.

I still enjoy Green party members take on issues, but not voting for the Dems in tough races is unforgivable.
:dem:

[jsamuel]

133. While this website was created to support Democratic candidates there has

never been a requirement that one be a Democrat in order to accomplish that goal. While I understand you concern that there are people here who support the Green Party more than the Democratic Party, that is not really what this site is about. In the recent case in Pennsylvania, that is exactly the case where people need to support the Democratic candidate, especially when the Green candidate has been funded 99.9% by Republicans trying to keep their seat. However, outside of this site, Democrats have to be aware that the more conservative issues that a candidate supports, the more likely a Green running could hurt their chances.

[LynneSin]

144. So what reasons did the Greens have to run for Senate in 2002 in Minnesota

What conservative values about Paul Wellstone were so offensive that the Greens felt they needed their own candidate on the ticket to uphold their values?

I respect what you say; however, the greens have no policy when it comes to stepping in when there isn't a suitable democrat to vote for.

Honestly, instead of wasting time on a 3rd party, I'd rather take those 3rd party values and fight from within my own party. No one said this was going to be an instaneous fix - it's like losing weight, you didn't gain the weight over night and surely you're not going to lose it overnight.

I just hope that the Lamont/Lieberman primary is a wake-up call to all democrats that we will fight to move our party to the left. Perhaps there won't be as many victories towards the top tier, but maybe what we need to do is analyze our smaller races and find where we can move in more progressive dems and then build those democrats so we can move them up to the bigger races.

Without a doubt the democratic party is flawed - but not hopeless!

[IndependentVoice]

139. I got attacked for being an idependet and not a dem on here before

Read under the discussion rules #2 where it say a site for democrats and other progressives which greens and independents are. It also says GENERALLY supportive of PROGRESSIVE IDEALS and support democratic candidates. We are generally supportive of you. Almost always are. So please back off me and others because we don't tow your party line. We are, according to the rules, within our rights to be here.

[omega minimo]

146. Strengthening Democrats means including Progressives

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1804944&mesg_id=1815896

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

210. It Includes Democratic Progressives. Fuck The Green Ones.

Please stop acting like all progressives are greens, as that's a ridiculously false implication. I've seen you post several instances of treating progressives and greens as if they're one and the same. Reality check for ya: They're not.

[4_TN_TITANS]

147. what LynneSin said.....

go dems.... :kick:

[IndependentVoice]

148. ATTENTION EVERYONE

Guess what? Democrats are not always right and not above being criticized, lest you become the republican fascists you fear so much.

[Buzz Clik]

151. Correct.

[omega minimo]

153. Any room here for Progressives who get smacked w/ the GreenHate brush?

:yoiks: :shrug:

[LynneSin]

155. ATTENTION EVERYONE: NEITHER ARE THE GREENS

As I've pointed out now like 101 times - I know our party has problems with corruption. I'm just tired of Greens thinking that their party is somehow so much superior to ours because they are devoid of corruption.

Guess what - they aren't. THey are no better than democrats or republicans in my book. They took the money in PA and I've heard similiar stories in Washington State and Michigan.

Rick Santorum & his friends did not give money to help the COnstitition or LIbertarian Parties - he gave to the Greens and Romanelli even admits he knew where it was coming from.

[IndependentVoice]

157. Wow lack of thinking involved

Lets look at a simple fact, why do people join the party they do? because they think it is the best one. They are being attacked for what the minority of them on this site have said, stop thinking the rest of us non dems have the same brain and agree with eachother. No two people in the WORLD would agree on all the issues there are, so stop thinking we all agree with eachother also.

[LynneSin]

169. Do people seriously NOT get this

It's about a Green party, it's members and sympathizers giving us democrats a load of shit for god knows how long at how they are politically superior to the democrats because the democrats have corruption in the party.

And for years we democrats took that shit because we knew our party was corrupt but still believed in the party.

WE WILL NOT TAKE GREEN SHIT ANYMORE. Your party is now just as corrupt as republicans and democrats - you knowingly took money to get on the ballot in PA even though all of that money was from Republican sources who not only did not support ANY of your stances but probably couldn't even vote for you either since they weren't in PA.

And trust me, this is not the first time that it has happened, there have been rumors, stories and other questionable greens doing the same thing in Washington State and Michigan.

So I'm pointing out the obvious - the Green Party isn't this party of purity free of Corruption so stop getting all high & mightly about how great your party is and how better it is that democrats.

YOu either need to clean this shit up or create a new platform. And since I see no officals in the Green Party doing anything to stop this practice my guess is this party platform will now allow corrupt money to fund their campaigns.

You can't have it both ways. At least we democrats KNOW we're flawed!

[IndependentVoice]

172. No one in this thread is saying greens are not flawed

Our problem is you targeting a whole group of people and attacking them, when its a small minority who is opposing you, leave the greens alone or stop attacking the whole party and attack the PEOPLE in the party who are doing this, and I am not condoning the greens either, yes they are just as bad, but that doesn't mean they all are, or everyone on this site who is a green.

[LynneSin]

176. And how is that different from the Greens who have done that to us

:shrug:

For 6 years greens have been complaining about the democrats and why they abandoned the party of corruption. I just want to know when the Greens are going to clean up their party of corruption. Romanelli was not an isolated incident. When Greens fail to recognize this problem but then make snide remarks at how corrupt our party is, I get pissed.

But a few greens have understood what the problem is here and have posted such. If you don't get it and you are a Green/Green sympathizer, then I have no use for anyone like that. I don't want them preaching to me how flawed my party is when they refuse to accept their party is getting financed by republicans to be used as a tool to help them win. (and yes I know - Green probably wont' make a difference in PA. It about the fact that the Greens ARE doing it!)

[IndependentVoice]

184. I am so tired of this site I am about to leave

Did I not just acknowledge there was a problem with the greens? All anyone ever does here anymore is go on rants while everyone applauds the next guy who is more liberal in his/her rants then the last. You target large groups when there are only a few among that group who you have the real problem with. The tolerance is starting to run very low with the rest of you who are broad brushing groups but your own, this is one of the reasons the George Washington didn't want to be in a party, he saw how much it divided people, and made them turn on each other. I know a lot of smart good greens and even more republicans. There are good ones out there to be found, more than you would think. If you would take the time to look instead of immediately labeling them republican idiots and having nothing to do with them other than trash talk them behind their backs. Its a sad thing when such a good site starts going bad.

Peace I'm done with this place

[LynneSin]

186. What doesn't kill us will only make us stronger

I'm here to get democrats elected and hopefully move my party, the democrats, to the left - I hope you can help with that cause if not :shrug:

[IndependentVoice]

191. I try to look past the party system and pick the right person

I dont give a damn about the party, so long as they are doing what I think is right, thats what being an independent is, finding the best man/woman for the job, and it forces you to be open minded and not tow a party line, try not to alieate one of your biggest allies when you only have a few enemies among them its a great tactic for showing liberal eleitism and tolerance to people and groups. And with that I'm going into lurking until you people stop ranting and actually propose to do something instead of complaine. Not once have I ever heard someone give an idea of how to actually fix a problem, just complain. The only thing you have done to try and fix things is to get lieberman out, thats it. Instead of targeting all greens and ranting, maybe you should spend your time on a problem you can actually fix, which I will believe when I see.

[LynneSin]

192. I pick a team and I fight for that team kinda like football

Except unlike football, if my team loses it's not like the other team is going to go about doing world domination and destruction

This is a website to help elect democratic candidates. Not sure how your policy will help. And it's not like I have no options about my choices - it's called a primary and we're starting to get them and they're starting to work.

I use to say that the on a republicans very best day and a democrats absolutely worst day, that the democrat would still be the better choice. I'm starting to think that about Greens too.

[Hugin]

175. "doing the same thing in Washington State and Michigan"

They've been doing it everywhere they've ever appeared.

Really.

[gully]

179. Agreed, nothing new - it's just becoming public as of late.

eom

[gully]

161. You mean "the greens" are corporate tools? Tweedledum?

Republican light?

Say it ain't so!

"This is about one thing. About a party and it's people that preached a principle and about a man who ignored that principle just to get on the ballot and without a doubt be used to help the donating party to win. This is about a principle that has been extolled way too many times here at DU as the reasons why the Green Party is better than the democrats. And yes, this is just one candidate - but he is YOUR candidate. I mean I'd like to disown Joe Lieberman but lets face it he is a democrat and part of our baggage too."

Also note that their Presidential candidate did the same thing in 2004. The perfect progressive guy they ran in 2000 took money from Republicans such as the swift boat vets to hurt progressive causes. And, lest we not forget when they critique they use language such as "the Democrats are X" without singling out those who deserve our support/accolades. I, in turn, plan to use that same language.

Great post Lynnesin

[LynneSin]

188. Thank you

I get so pre-occupied with the people still in denial that I forget that there are so many in agreeance with me.

I'm not here to destroy the Green party nor chase them out. I'm here to get Democrats elected and perhaps improve my party along the way. If Greens and Green sympathizers want to help us with our struggle then welcome aboard. But I find little to learn from people who run away from the problem.

:shrug:

[gully]

190. Absolutely!

:yourock: LynneSin

[wryter2000]

163. Thanks

I'm pretty sick of hearing how the Democratic Party is corrupt on Democratic Underground. Some individual dems need to get smacked around, and almost all need to get smacked around for some of what they do. But to insist they're no better than Republicans is a flat out lie, and to put that forth is dishonest. :mad:

[DancingBear]

164. Yawn

Same old, same old.

I can hardly wait for your next "stupid Republicans, they'll vote for ANYONE just because he/she has an (R) next to his/her name" rant.

The irony will be quite the sight.

Sorry that I'll probably miss it, but I'll bet it'll be a doozy!!!

[IndependentVoice]

166. thats almost all you ever see on this site anymore, its a pity really...

[pacalo]

167. I wonder if Paul Krugman may have been inspired by your great post!

From NYTimes, the day after your commentary:

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

Centrism Is for Suckers

It is the ruthless partisanship of the Republican party that has set the tone of the day: Get rid of the DINO's in primaries & vote strictly for Democrats in the elections; it's the difference between tyrannical rule of the Republicans or democratic rule consisting of healthy debate & good old checks & balances with Democratic chairmanships during a Republican dictatorship.

[nolabels]

168. The joke is on you

That is why we all get to vote individually and PARTIES do not get to hold our support or our vote for their choosing.

You know you can blame whoever you want for all your life's troubles but that alone will solve none of them. As for what or who is best one might just remember that often the ones who make the fewest mistakes are often the ones that are doing the least

The parade of party luminary campaigning for Joe Lieberman and it not having the desired effect should tell you the real power of is in Democratic grass roots not in any dress-right-dress of order from on high.

Please help the rest of us by letting us make our own choices and leaving the dictates alone so they can dictate to themselves

[gully]

173. So it's about "individuals" when it comes to voting, but the entire

Democratic Party when it comes to smearing? Interesting.

The parade of party luminary campaigning for Joe Lieberman and it not having the desired effect should tell you the real power of is in Democratic grass roots not in any dress-right-dress of order from on high.

And, the fact that Lieberman is about to lose the race in CN, should tell YOU that we can kick our own ass as needed, from WITHIN.

Please help the rest of us by letting us make our own choices and leaving the dictates alone so they can dictate to themselves.

This board is for those who CHOOSE to support Democrats, so I would ask that YOU let US make our own choices and find a discussion place that supports yours.

[IndependentVoice]

177. No its not its for those who support progressive ideals n/t

[gully]

178. No, it's for progressives who support Democrats come election time.

Read the user rules. They are in the OP and are as follows:

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[IndependentVoice]

180. Notice the word gernerally is in front of that n/t

[gully]

181. "Generally" refers to being supportive of progressive ideals.

There is no "general" in terms of supporing Democratic candidates.

Here, read it aloud: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Pretty clear.

[nolabels]

239. The point I was trying to make was how much or little we support..........

could be hinged on how it or someone attacks us or befriends us while we are participating in it. We are all individuals that need to plan are own way to make it from point 'a' to point 'b' as best as possible. If we all reach the same ideals and or share the same perspective on things getting to them points individually (as much as practical), then we all will be stronger individually and as group.

This discussion place suits me just fine and I have been here for years. I have supported it the best I could and also supported the democratic party and individuals as much as possible. I did not seem to think I was smearing anybody. I was making the case everybody needs their own space to reason.

Btw, the title to my first post does seem a little inflammatory me ponders but having others dictate what will be or not is why I come here to this refuge. In earlier times here a person could post what they see and feel and not have to spend too much time defending it. Thanks again

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

182. Actually the joke has been on all of us for the past five years

To think you can divide liberals and still have any progressive agenda at all in a two party system and a constitution that CATERS to a two party system is certain death.

[gully]

183. And the joke is on the children of the middleast and those who suffered

when bush dropped the ball on 911. Ha ha, now that's some funny shit huh?!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

187. I was responding to the poster's rhetoric.

I agree - not funny

[gully]

189. I know, I was adding to your reply.

I agree with you, pathetic that people would STILL promote the "no difference" agenda. Sorry if my post to you was confusing.

[Ignis]

198. "Love it or leave it!"

How chilling.

[blossomstar]

205. Thank you for setting me straight as to where I belong.

Every now and then I become exasperated with some of our dems (Lieberman mostly) and just want to get out! You are so right about the Green party being a "help" to Repugs... and I do believe it is deliberate to split up potential votes for dems... spearheaded by repugs behind the scenes. Nothing is perfect and the democratic party is certainly not; but it does have the values that I believe in at its core. THANK YOU for setting me straight! If we are to get rid of the repug thugs that are currently in office, we have to UNITE once and for all!

[EstimatedProphet]

207. Isn't this Skinner's decision?

Isn't he and the admins the one who has the final say as to who should be supported here?

Support Democrats all you want. I do too. I also think there's room for other voices, but it doesn't matter what I think, or you think, or anyone else here thinks - except the admins. They're the ones making the rules and providing the space, and it isn't for anyone else to decide what groups should be allowed here.

[KaptBunnyPants]

208. I sure hope that second rule is enforced come Wednesday...

Oh, to be rid of the Liebersquad.

[Dover]

212. The Dems are very busy trying to co-opt the Green Party platform

so it works both ways. Perhaps they were impressed with Gore's ability to inspire and unite this sizable segment of the population with a friendly rogue-Dem face. Clinton sure seems to have become very green lately, himself...and is quick to praise Gore.

Because there is a vacuum of strong leadership in the Green Party I'm guessing that they'll either fall under the leadership of a Progressive Dem that crosses over or the Dem Platform will become so green that it will entice the Green Party to join them.

[citizen snips]

217. I agree

there is no need to support candidates that can't win.

[savemefromdumbya]

221. OK what about the Socialist Party or Socialist Worker, Commies

are they allowed too? It's not just about Greens and the Democratic Party?

[QuestionAll...]

223. I don't see many real democrats like Wellstone lately.

few and far between.

and I don't see supporting a dreamy idea tagged with a label name has anything to do with democracy.

[nam78_two]

225. I knew some Greens in 2004 who were fine with Repugs

collecting signatures for Nader (yeah-he wasn't even running as a Green-they were mad at David Cobb and the Green Party for endorsing Kerry instead of Nader)....

This attitude BAFFLED me....

And honestly (and this is just some of the more nutty ones I knew-I wouldn't like to tar all Greens-about 80% of the Greens, that I knew personally, voted for Kerry in 2004-they only support Greens at the local level now if they have a chance if winning and wouldn't participate in this Santorum type crap).
there were some that just seemed to be doing it out of spite. :wtf:

I was amazed that people who avowedly "vote their conscience" could have such a narrow, petty, spiteful attitude and basically rather have a more progressive candidate lose, just so they could be holier than thou with the dems....

Most bizarre....

[flaminbats]

237. thankfully the Green Party isn't on the ballot where I live..

If Democrats paid a little more attention to issues being addressed by the Greens, that party would quickly dissolve. Unfortunately it's people like Joe Lieberman who are fueling support for the Green Party!

Lieberman isn't likely to win the primaries, but if he does..allot of Democrats will be voting for the Green party candidate in November. By announcing that he'll run as an independent if he loses the primary..Lieberman is essentially telling Democratic voters that he doesn't trust us! So why should we trust him and who can blame Democrats for not being suckers for Lieberman in the primary or in November? If Democrats don't win the Senate this year, what will stop Senator Lieberman from switching parties after the election?

Greens aren't easily found. Nader won close to 3% of the vote against Gore, but IMO that happened because of Gore's weak position that year on healthcare reform. But Gore still won more popular votes in November, including mine! In the last election Greens got less than a third of 1% of the vote. To put it simply, we decide how much of a problem Greens will be in future elections.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

[MrBenchley]

242. How sad that there's anybody arguing AGAINST your post

And you'll notice there aren't any moderates doing so.

But then when you see these "We must have a partywide purge" posts, it's never from moderates.

When we get these "I'll never give a dime to the Democrats again" threads, it's never from moderates.

[mmonk]

243. That's because right and wrong do exist.

This damn war crap is wrong and so are the dems that support it. The dems that let this rightwing court sit are wrong. Therefore, I support progressive dems and not rightwing ones. And it's why some people vote Green, unfortunately, but it's their right.

[MrBenchley]

246. No, monk, it's because some people

are self-righteous buffoons who refuse to live in the real world.

"And it's why some people vote Green, unfortunately, but it's their right."
True--there's no law against being stupid. Or against substituting high-sounding blah for results.

[mmonk]

255. Define self-righteous and how you are using it here.

This damn illegal war is real world. Those damn radical rightwing judges that have no respect for the constitution or Bill of Rights are real world. Screw any dem that won't fight that as far as I am concerned because that's too damn real world for me.

[MrBenchley]

260. What do I look like, Noah Webster?

So in other words, you want someone like Mean Jean Schmidt or Ann Coulter, only breathing leftist cliches.

[mmonk]

261. You made the charges. I needed clarification.

No, I want someone honest and someone that thinks full spectrum dominance is probably a bad course to take and would let the public in on what it would entail. I want someone who loves the constitution over their job or ideology. I want someone that will protect checks and balances and not compromize with people set on destroying them. As far as looking like Webster, I haven't seen you or Webster and cannot comment.;-)

[theophilus]

247. I vote Democratic and am proud of Leaders such as Barbara Boxer,

Russ Feingold and Al Gore. The Democratic Party needs to become THE party for the environment. If we vote Democratic and the Democrats don't lead the way to stop greenhouse gas production and save our nation and world from greedy corporations we're just going to be corpses that voted Democratic. Change WILL happen.

[LynneSin]

249. It's people like them that make me fight for the democratic majority

And although Al Gore is no longer in the Senate - I want to give people like Russ, Barbara, Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy and the other progressive democrats control so they can start fixing what's going wrong with this country.

They will probably not be sucessful all the time, but even if they only succeed just 10% of the time, that's 10% more than before.

[roseBudd]

248. I'dl vote for a rock if it is a D, in team sports you need a full roster

[NC_Nurse]

250. Great post.

Just sayin'. I got no wisdom to impart. I get frustrated with ALL politicians.

[boolean]

253. YEAH! GO ZELL MILLER!!!

He's a Democrat after all!

Some Democrats are faking it. Accept this.

[Truthiness Inspector]

254. K & R

Well said.

We also should not throw a candidate under the bus just because he or she disagrees on certain issues, opposing what WE, as personal individuals, would like them to do. If we do that, there is no one left and the pukes win.

On edit: I could only K and not R, since this was started over 24 hours ago, lol.

[mmonk]

257. This is the Democratic Underground and I'm here to support

progressive democrats. A democracy is a terrible thing to waste.

[sueragingroz]

262. I must have misunderstood.

I thought that the Democratic Underground was meant to label a movement that supported democracy but was forced underground by the current administration. I didn't interpret it to align itself with any one party...

[Blue-Jay]

264. You didn't read the following, I'm assuming:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html