Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Green Party's national meeting in Reading, Pa., highlighted the fact that there are a good many Americans who want an alternative to the often disappointing choices offered them by the Republican and Democratic parties. Featuring major addresses by consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, as well as former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., the annual "Green for a Change" gathering held July 12-15 attracted hundreds of activists from across the country.
Neither Nader or McKinney is running for the presidency now. But their appearances at a meeting that was seen as an opportunity for announced and potential candidates to meet and greet Green activists from around the country was significant.
Many Greens believe that disenchantment with the failure of congressional Democrats to draw down the war in Iraq and hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney to account will provide an opening for a third party of the left in 2008. There are also Greens who believe that a possible independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might free up thinking with regard to the presidential race -- get voters thinking outside the two-party box -- and in so doing create opportunities for a Green presidential candidate to get more attention. (A similar scenario played out in 1980, when the independent candidacy of maverick Republican John Anderson drew attention to Libertarian and Citizen party campaigns.)
To make any kind of breakthrough, however, Greens will need a national ticket that can earn notice from a media that does not treat parties that go by names other than "Democrat" and "Republican seriously.
It is no secret that there are Greens who would like to see a "name" candidate like Nader or McKinney as the party's presidential nominee in 2008, and some who would like to see the two maverick political figures team up as a Nader-McKinney or McKinney-Nader ticket. Even a few of the party's lesser-known contenders are indicating that they would step aside to make way for Nader, McKinney or the both of them. One announced candidate for the Green nomination, veteran New York activist Jerry Kann, released a statement declaring that he was running in hopes that his campaign would lay the groundwork for "individuals of real stature to be the Green Party standard-bearers in 2008."
Said Kann, "The Green Party has a tremendous opportunity this year to step up to the plate and be the independent third party that so many Americans want. And I believe there are two individuals who are far and away the best choices to lead the Green Party in 2008--Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney."
Whether Nader or McKinney run, the Greens will be a presence in 2008. The party, which is now active in 46 states -- thanks to the recent affiliation of the West Virginia Mountain Party, a previously independent third party that always had a green tint – has committed resources to a campaign to obtain ballot status in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by next fall.
That's a tall order. The deck is stacked against small parties that are seeking places on ballots that Democrats and Republicans prefer to keep to themselves. In particular, Democrats who believe that Nader's 2000 candidacy cost them the states of New Hampshire and Florida – and, with those losses, the presidency – have been aggressive about trying to keep the Greens off state ballots.
Nader has made opening up the political process a major focus of his work in recent years. On Saturday, he headlined a "Ballot Access Rally" in Reading.
Nader was brimming with ideas about establishing federal standards for ballot access in order to prevent states from erecting unreasonable barriers. Denouncing what he described as a "two-party dictatorship," Nader sounded like a candidate – or, at the least, like someone who wanted to make sure that American voters would have more than two choices in 2008.
Asked specifically if he plans to run, Nader replied, "It's too early to say. I'll make up my mind before the end of the year." But he did say he has been encouraged to consider another run.
McKinney was similarly circumspect. The former congresswoman's not a candidate yet, she said, but she is talking seriously to a number of Green activists. And, McKinney added, she too is getting plenty of encouragement to make the race.
That was evident in Reading on Sunday, when McKinney's speech was greeted with chants of "Run, Cynthia, run!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
ah, the monkey wrench factor...had not taken that into account.
the greens should concentrate on the house and senate first. if they cant make inroads there i cant see how they expect to do anything other than hand the presidency over to pubs in 08 in a repeat of 00...now to bed...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/15/2007 @ 11:40pm
but why green? Why name yourself after a shade people turn right before they vomit?
Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 11:51pm
dammit...got sucked into a csi episode...
if the green hornets can put the fear into the dems in congress, fine. if the green lantern runs for pres...could be problematic.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 12:00am
but why green? Why name yourself after a shade people turn right before they vomit?
Posted by WILL C. 07/15/2007 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person
Because that they effect they have on thinking people.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 12:23am
Good morning, MASK! I expect you to be busy on this thread! Your favorite target: The Greens! Get ready, set, Go!
Posted by Happy at 07/16/2007 @ 12:26am
Posted by HAPPY 07/16/2007 @ 12:26am
Only one thing to be said, HAPP....
"...and Karl Rove smiled."
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 07:10am
The fact that the Democrats never agitate for any form of runoff voting, instant or otherwise, or abolition of the Electoral College, or any number of other real democratic reforms is proof that their whining and conniptions over Nader are rooted in the fact that they are an antidemocratic party. Of course, the same can be said of the Republicans.
Posted by geezjan at 07/16/2007 @ 08:27am
Status qou good for you, Mask? 2 party dictatorship is a fine way to run the corporatacracy.
Slay the messenger, ignore the message. Classic neo-con tactic.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 08:34am
Don't waste your votes on "R's" or "D's".
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 08:34am
Time for some comments on Willy Jefferson:
Abramoff Investigation Leads to Another Guilty Plea By Mike Soraghan The Hill
Saturday 14 July 2007
Another Republican environmental activist has pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges uncovered as part of the investigation of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Jared Carpenter was the vice president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), which derived from a group founded by former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and Italia Federici.
Federici pleaded guilty last month to tax evasion and obstruction charges and is to be sentenced Nov. 14.
Carpenter pleaded guilty to one count of income tax evasion on July 6 in a plea that was not publicized by the Justice Department and was first reported Friday by Greenwire.
He must pay $74,241 in back taxes by the date of his sentencing Nov. 1. The crime carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Court documents state that CREA's two staffers didn't separate CREA's finances from their own, simply withdrawing money from the CREA accounts rather than taking a salaries. Carpenter, the documents say, did not file income tax returns for 2001, 2002 or 2003.
During that time, he had an income totaling $236,135 according to court documents. From March 2001 to May 2003 CREA got $723,500.
According to court documents, "Contributors to CREA included, among others, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Native American tribes via Abramoff and the former clients of J. Steven Griles."
Griles, a lobbyist and former deputy secretary of Interior under Norton, was sentenced last month to 10 months in prison for lying to the Senate committee investigating Abramoff.
So far, this has been a REPUBLICAN scandal through and through, contrary to what the right wing pundits would have had us believe in 2005. Wrong again.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 08:48am
Status qou good for you, Mask? ---Posted by CRABWALK 07/16/2007 @ 08:34am
CRAB, only the most idiotic and ideologic "pure progressive" thinks that EVEN WITH HILLARY, that a Dem Administration and Dem Congress in 2009 will be the "status quo".
It won't be your neo-socialist or whatever revolution. We won't become "Sweden" or be driving electric cards by 2010.
But it won't be trillions in new debt, a war without end, and Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito.
That is UNLESS some idiotic left-wing "3rd party alternative" (like Nader in 2000 or Bloomberg in 2008) comes along and undercuts the Democrats and GIVES the election to the Republicans because the Democrats are "just as bad".
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 08:52am
So far, this has been a REPUBLICAN scandal through and through, contrary to what the right wing pundits would have had us believe in 2005. Wrong again.
Posted by CRABWALK 07/16/2007 @ 08:48am
Wait, I thought there was "no difference between Rs and Ds"?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 08:53am
There are also Greens who believe that a possible independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might free up thinking with regard to the presidential race and create opportunities for Green candidates.
Huh?
I don't know any Greens that support a Bloomberg candidacy! Would you care to share who these mysterious Greens are and whether they have "any" influence on other Greens?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 09:46am
Wait, I thought there was "no difference between Rs and Ds"?!?!?!
No difference on foreign policy (Middle East policy) thanks to Rahm Emmanuel and the corrupting influence of his AIPAC money in the Democratic party!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 09:49am
"...and Karl Rove smiled."
Cynthia McKinney should run against Rahm Emmanuel in Illinois and get her fellow Greens to run against the 22 pro-war Democrats that Rahm brought into the Democratic Congress in '06.
This would "force" the Democrats to get back to its progressive roots and force pro-war AIPAC to deal with the Republicans.
It would also make Karl Rove "frown", because a Green-Democrat coalition would still outnumber and out-vote the Republicans on Iraq and Iran.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 09:56am
Nader supports the Green Party only if they nominate HIM. If they nominate somebody else, then they're a "compromise with the bastards". Nader is a backbiter, his 4th party used swift boat tactics against David Cobb in 2004, suggesting he was a pedophile protector. Cobb was Naders campaign manager before Nader declared him part of the problem.
The Democrats are going out of their way to prove how worthless they are, unanimously endorsing Bushs lies that "Iran is killing Americans in Iraq". The Iraqi govt itself is more allied with Iran than with America, and is merely accepting weapons from America as long as its convenient.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 09:59am
A Democratic administration will appoint marginally better judges and justices, as well as decent sorts to the NLRB, OSHA, etc. And we'll have a competently run FEMA again.
However, the Dems, and Clinton in particular, will probably do what only Monica and the idiocy of the Republicans prevented Bill Clinton from doing, privatising Social Security. Just like "Only Nixon can go to China," only a Dem can successfully privatise or gut the social safety net.
Finally, at least five of the current Democratic candidates will keep us in Iraq for years, and probably six of them. Oh, and we'll go back to conducting so-called humanitarian wars. Humanitarian, that is, not in their execution but in their alleged purpose. The "Out of Iraq and Into Darfur" fools will be happy when we start bombing the hell out of Sudan.
Not that the Greens offer much of an alternative, going by the record of their co-thinkers who've won governmental office in Europe.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 10:11am
David Cobb was Ralph Naders former campaign manager. Ralph Nader didnt call Cobb "part of the problem" then. Nader waited until David Cobb beat him fair and square in the primary. Nader didnt call the Green Party a "sellout" - not till the Greens had their vote and didnt nominate him. Ralph Nader didnt care for the Green Party's plank on vegetarianism, he said it was "too extreme." Just because it's healthy and ecological doesnt make it right, so, Nader's arguments won in 2000 and the "extremist" Green platform was watered down.
David Cobb is twice the man as Ralph Nader will ever be.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 10:27am
That is UNLESS some idiotic left-wing "3rd party alternative" (like Nader in 2000 or Bloomberg in 2008) comes along and undercuts the Democrats
Bloomberg REALLY IS a Republican and voted for George Bush in 2004! But don't take my word for it, listen to Bloomberg say it in his own words, here [nyc.gov].
Any Democrat would be crazy to vote for Bloomberg since he really supports Bush, especially concerning war in Iraq and an invasion of Iran.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 10:29am
The Democrats are going out of their way to prove how worthless they are, unanimously endorsing Bushs lies that "Iran is killing Americans in Iraq". ----Posted by CONSHAME 07/16/2007 @ 09:59am
Little confused, CS.....you're calling the Dems "worthless", but don't want the Greens running a spoiler for them???
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 10:36am
Little confused, CS.....you're calling the Dems "worthless", but don't want the Greens running a spoiler for them???
Mask,
We don't want the Greens to run a strong "presidential" candidate that can spoil the Democrats, but focusing on the pro-war Democrats that Rahm Emmanuel brought into the Democratic Congress with his AIPAC money would be interesting.
If Mckinney leads the charge by taking Rahm's seat in Illinois, this would be sweet payback for AIPAC unseating her and other anti-war Democrats, and force pro-war AIPAC to join the Republicans where they belong!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 10:45am
Mask, I hope for a day when your thinking is archaic, that one more party than China is acceptable. A candidate can only be "spoiled" if that candidate does not do the job.
Clinton got in because Bush the Elder failed as a conservative candidate, not because Perot spoiled it for Bush. Bush spoiled it for Bush.
Chimpy McFlightsuit got in because Gore failed to draw a distinction, not because Nader spoiled it for gore. Gore spoiled it for Gore.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 10:50am
One comment to start that, I suspect, most of you agree with. The D Congress is not terrific. They are timid on very important things, like repealing the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006; they are slow in ending the Iraq occupation; and they are not stopping the Iran "drumbeat" for war of the Neocon traitors.
That said, however, let me join others and say the Nation should be discouraging third parties from fielding candidates in 2008. Let's not self-destruct, yet again. As MASK stated in one of his posts, one has to be really foolish to think that, even with the most conservative D candidate (Hillary) we aren't a lot better off with a D president than another R -- even when along considering SCOTUS appointments. Moreover, while I understand the frustration of many with some D congressmen (such as my high school classmate Rahm mentioned above), the only thing accomplished by running strong Green or other Left of Center candidates against D congressmen is to elect more Rs. How on Earth is that a good thing?
Posted by trabaris at 07/16/2007 @ 10:52am
I don't have much hope for the Green Party as a whole. Last I checked, which was a while ago, they were calling for the dissolution of the entire banking system in the US. That is not sane.
What we need is a true independent candidate.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 10:53am
Mask, I strongly disagree with attacking Iran, for many reasons. It is immoral, it is a potential quagmire. You can't just non-chalantly drop some bombs on Iran, when you have boots on the ground in Iraq. The Democrats just voted unanimously to approve a resolution which stated that it is a fact that Iran is at war with America in Iraq - nothing could be further from the truth. The Iraqi government has closer ties to Iran than to America, and they are merely smiling at us while we give them weapons as long as its convenient. One day the new Iraqi govt will be the "new Iran".
Ralph Nader used the Green Party. He brought his group of followers, he won the nomination once. The Greens felt that being seen as a spoiler party was not the way to build a movement - they voted on this issue, and Ralph Nader lost and left taking his band of followers with him and becoming their enemy - now he wants to come back. The Green Party voted for Naders former manager, David Cobb. The Green Party is a movement, movements want to be built - not be used and dumped.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 10:55am
How on Earth is that a good thing?
Posted by TRABARIS 07/16/2007 @ 10:52am
Because it gets more voices involved. There are more than 2 sides to most issues.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 10:56am
Crabwalk has expressed the true feeling Naderites have for the Green Party - ungrateful contempt.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 11:07am
Crabwalk supports the entire banking system of the US.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 11:11am
"Democrats who believe that Nader's 2000 candidacy cost them the states of New Hampshire and Florida – and, with those losses, the presidency..."
No, the Dems lost all on their own.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 11:12am
The Green Party is not sane. The entire banking system of the US is sane.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 11:13am
Greenspan's personal printing press, now that's sane.
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 11:24am
The 2000 debate over the Green Party platform plank, was the closest the issues about vegetarianism ever got to the light of day. Nader argued against it, calling it extreme.
The Green Party absolutely should challenge the printing presses of the Bush Government. The Green Party, as a real movement, SHOULD, put forth un-compromising positions on issues of controversy and importance, revealing the liberal genius that happens to be RIGHT.
Conservatives: WRONG on Iraq, WRONG on Bush, WRONG on ____
(and America cant afford to find out what ____ is)
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 11:28am
greenies...i like you guys...a lot...but...
stay away from the presidency in 08. this election is extremely important, more so than in many years past. whatever you feel about sellout dems, one needs to be elected pres in 08 or the supreme court will be stacked til doomsday.
please, however, devote resources to the house and senate. light a fire under spotty dems asses, and perhaps take a few seats. there is real potential here, since the war will still be spurting blood and money. with a few members of congress, you can start pontificating, getting some exposure, pushing for reforms.
but if a pub gets to be king again, sad days for whats left of the republic.
or...at some point infest the democratic party the way the fundyvangelists infested the pubs...yet still maintain green identity...that way once you get enough followers, you can always threaten to haul ass, abandon ship...because until we get a runoff or ordinal voting system (which, along with any other meaningful reform, won't happen until we have real campaign finance reform), this country's system is only compatible with TWO PARTIES.
with three, 33.4% takes all. with four, 25.1% wins...
infest the dems, or concentrate on a few congressionl seats, then infest the dems without giving up your identity. once inside, you could easily pick up the symbionese liberation army types over at kos, and such, and who know?
campaign finance reform
campaign finance reform
campaign finance reform
campaign finance reform
the gateless gate to all other reforms...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 11:57am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
It's up to the Dems. If they want my vote, they are gonna have to earn it. I know longer vote for the lesser of two evils, or because of the appointment of judges. Give us something to vote for, rather than voting against someone.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 12:05pm
"no longer"
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 12:06pm
also, greenies, consider doubling as an advocacy group, advocating, agitating for, and educating about reforms. look to setting yourself up as the umbrella coordinating entity of progressivism, and then, without eschewing your seperate identity, INFESTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY the way the fundyvangelists infested the pubs...
oh and please, dont give me that whiney old bullshit line about how the dems are just the same, boohoo, everything sux, boohoo, we wont "sell out" boohoo...
if "sell out" means "take responsibility and become relevant" then sell out. i think "sell out" could just as easily mean "cynically bitch from the cold wildrness because you fear real power and responsibility"...but i impute strange definitions onto words, i know...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 12:05pm
i understand and respect. believe me, i have carped and petulantly demanded politicos kiss my ass as well. feels good, til they ignore you.
i think we true progressives (which the greens are) need to infest the dems like the fundies did the pubs...
i'm volunteering for one of the dems. if i cant decide soon, i'll roll a dice and go with it. cause i love that dem? doubt itr seriously.
cause i want to take over the party eventually. not me, personally. but like minded progressives who will shake things up and kick the ass in the ass...
it is do-able.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 12:14pm
I'm not asking anybody to kiss my ass. Give my interests a little more than simple lip service is not asking for someone to kiss my ass. Asking the Dems to represent more than their corporate sponsors is not asking them to kiss my ass. Asking Dems to do more than wave social issues that appeal to me, while continuing to heed the selfish needs of their corporate sponsors is not asking them to kiss my ass.
Both parties intentionally divide the electorate with the many cleavages afflicting the United States, all the while serving their corporate sponsors. How many millionaires are in the House, Senate, and running for the Presidency?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 12:20pm
Well, at least I wasn't the first one to bring up Al Gore. He did get a majority of the pop vote last time he ran for office though...
In any case once he is in the running a lot of this third party stuff will fly out the window as the BS about the candidates being the same were as wrong as wrong could be across the board. Wanna make that mistake again? 'Uh, well do ya, punk?' Make a new cons day.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/16/2007 @ 12:29pm
DON'T GET ME STARTED...
The major problem with the Greens as with all "extreme" left-wing parties is their insistence on ideological purity. If you don't agree with their platform, then the hell with you. The basic problem with this approach to politics is that it simply doesn't work AS POLITICS. It is also inherently fascistic in a sneaky kind of way and represents what I like to call "the fascism of the left." (It was, indeed, essentially this KIND of attitude on the part of leftists that originally led to the establishment of the Soviet Union and Mao's Red Brigades.)
Don't get me wrong. I am nothing if not your basic "tree hugger" (even literally, I must confess). I just get tired of the same old same old futility of far left "politics."
So long, and don't forget to SMASH THE STATE!
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/16/2007 @ 12:41pm
***DOGMATIC*** INSISTENCE ON IDEOLOGICAL PURITY...
That should read.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/16/2007 @ 12:48pm
(It was, indeed, essentially this KIND of attitude on the part of leftists that originally led to the establishment of the Soviet Union and Mao's Red Brigades.)
SMASH THE STATE!
Pathetic smear tactics. The failure of a system to address the interests, needs of a large portion of it's society leads to radicalization. Asking the Dems to represent the working and middle class in America is not asking for too much.
There is not representation for the "far left" (or even what can really be called the left) in this country; yet the Repubs, especially this administration, is radically right wing, and for some reason the press fails to point this out.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 12:49pm
Well, first...
"The 2000 debate over the Green Party platform plank, was the closest the issues about vegetarianism ever got to the light of day. Nader argued against it, calling it extreme." ----Posted by CONSHAME 07/16/2007 @ 11:28am
"vegetarianism"?!?!?!?
Next....
Posted by CRABWALK 07/16/2007 @ 10:50am
Nader got 95,000 votes in Florida. If ONLY 600 of them (less than 1%) had decided that "maybe it's not worth the risk" and voted for Gore....He'd have won 2000. That's a fact.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
Exactly. The Hard Left may have "principles" but they're stupid. Can you see the Religious Right (even when they dissed by the GOP back in the 60s and 70s) breaking off and forming the "Christian Party"? No...they played the game and eventually took over.
Even now, LVLIB said he'd vote for Giuliani (because "it's that important for our safety, despite his view on abortions or gays" (paraphrased)).....while we've got guys like ZERO and Empty Spence on the Left who say "I'll NEVER vote for Hillary, even if it does pack the Supreme Court with right-wingers for the next 20 years!"
Maybe the answer is...there AREN'T that many "pure progressives"? Not enough to "infiltrate" the DNC and wrest power from the "evil centrists"?
Nawwwwwww...it COULDN'T be that. They KNOW they're the "true majority"!.....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 12:2
unless you are there, getting involved at the precinct level, all your (and my) carping is so much white noise. the high politicos dont know what to make of voter behavior. at this point many democratic party machines around the country are still manned by the blessed elderly and vague anti-republicans who are fishing for favors. in the 80's, much to the horror of the country clubbers, the fundvangelists infested the republican party and got things done. the greens can do the same to the dems.
and dont get me wrong, the SLA'ers from kos and their lefty ideologue types do indeed often elicit a serious gag reflex in me, but unfortunately such ideologues are needed to do what must be done.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/16/2007 @ 12:29pm
Sorry, HSUB, didn't want to forget you.
That would be interesting to see. IF Gore gets into it, and wins the nomination....how quickly he's denounced as a "sell-out" or worse "lesser of two evils" by guys like ZERO and Empty Spence!
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by MASK 07/16/2007 @ 12:50pm |
BING BING BING BING!
no offense spence...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 12:55pm
"Centrists"? You still don't get it, false face. Throwing a bone my way with judges that will uphold my right to do this or that is not sufficient when the economic policies of the two parties are little different and nothing more than the wish of their corporate sponsors. It's great to have rights on paper, but with such disparity in the distribution of wealth, those rights often end up being worth less than the paper they're printed on. Being free to sleep under a bridge is not something to celebrate.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 12:58pm
plus - the democratic party wrks best when there IS raucus tension and debate - nice contrast to lockstep rebublicanism
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 1:00pm
The comparison of the fundamentalist zealots and left activists is misleading. The fundamentalists are simpletons, concerned only with limited goals that do not involve the capitalist system in the country. They are an unthinking bunch, led like sheep, easily duped. The left, on the other hand (and I'm not talking of "bleeding heart liberal types") is very much interested in addressing the economic sphere, as well as social issues. The left understands that it is all about money, that it is all connected to economic factors. The corporate sponsors of the Dems are not keen on allowing these people to interrupt their picnic. (And those that have allowed the fundamentalists to gain so much influence in the Repub Party are playing with fire, as this administration clearly demonstrates.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 1:07pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 1:07pm
You notice apart from "We are smart, they are dumb"...and his usual "anarcho-communist who likes balance" stuff....he didn't really offer much difference.
There isn't much. Both are "true believers". Both believe "the Other Guy" is "evil" (RRs see the "immoral liberals", Pure Progressives see anybody to the Right of Norman Thomas a "corporatist"). Both have their "exclusivity" egos ("We're SO much better than the average person because....A. God is on our side; B. Social revolutionary history is on our side").
Both have their never-wrong leadership with a cult-like following (Pat Robertson or Noam Chomsky).
Yet one is SMART enough to know that it would be powerless outside of the two-party system and got itself first ingratiated and then TOOK OVER one of the parties.
While the other SUPPOSEDLY smarter group keeps talking about they "won't play the game"...isolates themselves into minor 3rd parties...or in the most self-absorbed way, keeps sitting out the elections so as not to "legitimize them" and renders themselves powerless....
all the while claiming that THEY (like the other group) represent "the Way, and the Truth, and the Light!"
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by MASK
Yes, false face, you wanna be the alpha female so bad.
What do you proffer? More of the same.
And, as usual, you attack my convictions rather than my ideas. I advocate a balance between the opposing interests, not too far one way or the other, but an equilibrium, which all functioning systems demand. Pooh pooh that all you want, but it is the only rational approach. And I am afraid that things will have to get worse before they get better, unfortunately. That, however, is not guaranteed. It could easily just get worse and worse. And that is the fault of individuals like you.
There are those in the electorate that were more than bright enough to recognize the danger in moving farther and farther to the right over the past thirty or more years, but they benefited financially from this drift. Well, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You want someone to blame? It's not me and those that refuse to play the same old game; it is you. So stop whining and accept your fate. You deserve as much. You want to retain the rights that were won on the backs of the working class, the more progressive, advanced sectors of society, then you better start making a lot more money, because these rights are soon to become the priviledges of the wealthy.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
What do you think of Thompson's young wife, liberty liar? How does that fit into your inbred, fundamentalist, hick ideology?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 2:31pm
And, as usual, you attack my convictions rather than my ideas.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
Your ideas HAVE no convictions, my Texan Trotskyite.
You claim you're an "anarcho-communist" at heart, but "know that won't work so you favor 'balance'".
You bemoan people like LVLIB for being failing to vote for Kerry over Bush ("a war dodging coward that used his father's influence to escape danger rather than a man that went to Vietnam and fought"---Where is the Anger? thread)....
but then YOU don't vote so as to "not legitimize the system".
Then you attack "people like me who make things worse"...but as a NON-entity (electorally...since you don't vote and have no time, given your "working class" status, to organize) you don't do ANYTHING to improve things.
Not to mention your claim to be a purer-than-pure "progressive"....who throws around homophobic slurs with more ease than RIO BRAVO or LVLIBERTY EVER would, because he's "not afraid of the speech police".
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 3:04pm
Not to mention your claim to be a purer-than-pure "progressive"....who throws around homophobic slurs with more ease than RIO BRAVO or LVLIBERTY EVER would, because he's "not afraid of the speech police".
Posted by MASK
Yes, you're right. I can see how calling you a cock sucker would offend a male homosexual. A comparison of you to any group would be an offense to said group.
I've done my share of civil disobedience.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:24pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
It's the age of his wife that I thought such a religious person as yourself would object to. A trophy wife is okay with you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:25pm
You bemoan people like LVLIB for being failing to vote for Kerry over Bush ("a war dodging coward that used his father's influence to escape danger rather than a man that went to Vietnam and fought"---Where is the Anger? thread)....
but then YOU don't vote so as to "not legitimize the system".
Are you truly too dense to discern the difference, false face? Does everything have to be completely spelled out for you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:34pm
You claim you're an "anarcho-communist" at heart, but "know that won't work so you favor 'balance'".
I detest the thought of an individual or a group having power over another. Power corrupts and is always abused, rather it is an individual, corporation, union; that is why I favor a "balance" between the competing interests of our society.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:49pm
I've done my share of civil disobedience.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:24pm
Was that the 5 years you did in prison for liberating a capitalist exploiter of wealth stolen from the proletariat?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:01pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:25pm
Now, I forget Empty....are you a Dennis Kucinich fan or not?
Reason I ask (trick revealed before it's played) is....Elizabeth Harper, Dennis' THIRD wife, is 30...while Denny is 60.
And was just curious as to what you think of the "trophy'ness" of that?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:04pm
I'm not a religious fanatic, false face. Can you figure it out on your own or do I have to write it all out for you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:08pm
I'm not a religious fanatic, false face. Can you figure it out on your own or do I have to write it all out for you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:09pm
Can you figure it out on your own or do I have to write it all out for you?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:09pm
Actually both are usually accomplished. I figure out from your writings that you're a hypocrite.
Gotta go after Thompson for a trophy wife...but ignore Kucinich's.
Use homophobic slurs....but claim that Ann Coulter using them is worse.
And did I read back on that other thread where you called Barack Obama ...."colored"?!?!? Oh, but it was to "make a point", so that's okay....sorry.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:18pm
Try reading it again, false face.
And, yes, I suppose it must be all spelled out you because you obviously are without the ability to consider context. Poor false face, so lacking in so many ways. And she wants so desperately to be the alpha female here at The Nation.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:22pm
And did I read back on that other thread where you called Barack Obama ...."colored"?!?!? Oh, but it was to "make a point", so that's okay....sorry.
Posted by MASK
And, of course, you're not man enough to admit you were wrong and issue an apology. (Of course, it wasn't just a simple mistake, was it, false face?)
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:36pm
The major problem with the Greens as with all "extreme" left-wing parties is their insistence on ideological purity. If you don't agree with their platform, then the hell with you.
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/16/2007 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person
The Greens are "'extreme' left-wing"? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. The Greens insist on "ideological purity"? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. This is a joke, right?
I'm guessing that most Greens see the Democratic Party as dominated by Capital, as hopelessly compromised and as wimps who the Republicans have been rolling over for the better part of 30 years. Is any of that untrue? Yet, the Greens don't offer a revolutionary program and have opened their arms to progressive Democrats and even someone like Nader, who for most of his career tried to present himself as a man above partisan politics. If the Greens are dogmatic ideologues, then is there anyone you would not call dogmatic and ideological purists for organizing outside of the Democratic Party and to its left? If Bill Bradley had run as a centrist independent, would he qualify as a slave to dogma, or are centrists immune from that charge?
The working class needs political independence from the capitalist class. That is not just my opinion but a matter of fundamental principle. The Democratic Party is one of the two major parties of Capital in this country, specifically representing its more liberal wing. Depending on the tenor of the times, some decent reforms are possible, whether the Repubs (the EPA, the Americans With Disabilities Act and more) or the Dems (Civil and Voting Rights Acts + some appointments) are in power. But those reforms are never safe, from either side of the Capitalist plug nickel. PATCO, NAFTA, the "End of Welfare" and Social Security privatization all have Democratic and Republican parentage, to one degree or the other.
Does that mean one can't make an objective observation that one administration is worse than the other? No, from a left-wing standpoint, Carter and Reagan were clearly worse than Nixon; you can have a fair argument over who was worse, Clinton or Bush I; and the Bush II Admin is singular for its overall religious and political fanaticism, stupidity and incompetence. But that doesn't mean I'm going to vote or work for a party that is a trap for the working class, the oppressed and the left. One's principles should be firm, even as your strategies and tactics may be flexible.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 4:45pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:36pm
Sure I will.
Just tell us what you said...just to get everything straight.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:47pm
Both are "true believers". Both believe "the Other Guy" is "evil" (RRs see the "immoral liberals", Pure Progressives see anybody to the Right of Norman Thomas a "corporatist"). Both have their "exclusivity" egos ("We're SO much better than the average person because....A. God is on our side; B. Social revolutionary history is on our side").
Both have their never-wrong leadership with a cult-like following (Pat Robertson or Noam Chomsky).
Yet one is SMART enough to know that it would be powerless outside of the two-party system and got itself first ingratiated and then TOOK OVER one of the parties.
While the other SUPPOSEDLY smarter group keeps talking about they "won't play the game"...isolates themselves into minor 3rd parties...or in the most self-absorbed way, keeps sitting out the elections so as not to "legitimize them" and renders themselves powerless....
all the while claiming that THEY (like the other group) represent "the Way, and the Truth, and the Light!"
Posted by MASK 07/16/2007 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person
Here you go again, creating strawmen from only a smidgen of reality to tear others down again.
Yes, there's too much stereotyping of "all Republicans are this or that," but you engage in the same practice, except your targets are religous fundamentalists and the left. Being able to differentiate among one's political opponents is generally a sign of political maturity. Feel free to grow up.
To most of the left, Noam Chomsky is never wrong? Where is the polling data to back that statment up? I've seen anarchists and socialists criticize Chomsky, never mind all of the progressive pundits and journalists who don't agree with everything he says and are about as well known and popular.
The New Right could take over the GOP because it did not have a fundamental problem with Capital. If anything, it could present itself as capitalism's #1 defender. And it united the most conservative elements in both the Republican and Democratic parties. If you think a left with severe criticisms, at least, of capitalism would ever be allowed to take over one of the twin parties of Capital, you are fooling yourself.
Isolation is not a good thing, nor is hyper-sectarianism. I think most Trotskyists in this country should be in one party rather than a bunch of parties and groups, for instance. But there are matters of both political principals and hard, on the ground facts. The left, as long as it retains any vestige of anti-capitalism, even if it's just a preference for heavy regulation as opposed to actually doing away with the system, will never be allowed to take over the Democratic Party. It is too valuable as a tool to control the working class.
Finally, as I've said before, Centrists can be just as dogmatic as right- and left-wingers, Joe Klein, Michael Tomasky and MASK being examples of the "Third" way, truth and light-bearing breed.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 5:05pm
Speaking of distractions...
MT, please can the damned homophobia and sexism, e.g., Mask wanting to be the "alpha female." Jesus, you bring this crap on yourself, and it is offensive to some of us here who have far more in common with your politics than Mask's. Hell, "False Face" may not be sophisticated, but at least it is not some kind of slur based on race, gender or sexual orientation!
Give us ALL a break.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 5:11pm
Sure I will.
Just tell us what you said...just to get everything straight.
Posted by MASK
You're the one that misquoted me, false face. Try and act like a man and do the right thing.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:12pm
Give us ALL a break.
Posted by CKA2ND
You don't speak for "All."
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:18pm
I don't see why Greens wouldn't want to vote for Gore since he's been right on just about every issue and Nader did just recently give Gore the nod as true blue progressive and somebody he's ok with being president, maybe:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ8xOOm7aRg
AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned Al Gore. He's seen as the major voice now on the environment. I don't know if it's exactly on taking on the corporations, but he was in power for eight years. So what is your assessment of a Gore candidate for president?
RALPH NADER: Gore has been environmentally reborn. He is experiencing a important redemption. He is doing something very important. He is now basically a full-time citizen alerting the world to the peril of global warming and getting some pretty muscular forces behind them, behind his efforts. Maybe he'll be restrained in terms of what needs to be done, in terms of the democratization of technology and the expansion of solar energy. I stood in line waiting for, you know, the book signing, when he came here in Washington. There were 300 people at a bookstore, and I just stood in line and finally got up to his desk, and he was very cordial. Anybody who thinks that the Greens cost Gore the election should ask Gore. He not only won the election, he knows how it was stolen from him. He knows he made some very serious failures himself, including not winning his own state of Tennessee, which would have put him in the White House. But he was very cordial, and I said to him, "Al," -- because I've known him since years ago -- I said, "Al, how does it feel to be liberated?" He said, "Very good." And that's really the description of his present state. It's quite the testimony. When he had real power, he couldn't deploy it.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/131226
On the night before he was elected president in 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking on the floor of the Boston Garden, said "I do not run for the office of the Presidency after fourteen years in the Congress with any expectation that it is an empty or easy job. I run for the Presidency of the United States because it is the center of action. … The kind of society we build, the kind of power we generate, the kind of enthusiasm that we incite, all this will tell whether, in the long run, darkness or light overtakes the world."
Is there any political figure in America today who can better restore our faith in the light than Al Gore? Is there anyone who would better pursue not just American national interests but also common human interests, who would call upon not just our national patriotism but also our planetary patriotism, who might deliver a speech from the floor of the Congress not on the "State of the Union" but on the "State of the Earth?" Is there any better way the forces of peace and justice and hope can evoke the better angels of our nature than to mobilize, now, together, to demand an Al Gore candidacy?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2177/
He sees a clear connection between the administration's approach to Iraq and to climate change. "What the invasion of Iraq has in common with the climate crisis is that in both cases the best evidence was ignored. In both cases there was more than sufficient evidence to convince any reasonable person that the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic mistake, and the failure to begin sharply reducing CO2 was an even worse mistake," he says. .
We talked about Hillary Clinton's recent admission that she had not read the intelligence brief on Iraq before voting for war against Saddam Hussein, but he believes blaming individuals is not the answer.
"The individuals that failed to discharge their responsibilities as elected officials to master their briefs is important, but to me, the more important question is how the United States of America could have been so vulnerable to such crass manipulation. Many of them were afraid of being branded unpatriotic, sure, and many journalists were, as many have since acknowledged, and that is unhealthy in a democracy," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2093814,00.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/16/2007 @ 5:24pm
Nader got 95,000 votes in Florida. If ONLY 600 of them (less than 1%) had decided that "maybe it's not worth the risk" and voted for Gore....He'd have won 2000. That's a fact.MASK
So, all Gore had to do was get 600 more. If he was a good candidate, 600 is easy. There were more than 1 "third party" candidates on that ballot. That's a fact.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/16/2007 @ 6:40pm
Posted by CRABWALK 07/16/2007 @ 6:40pm
lets not forget the vote stealing...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 8:38pm
Posted by CKA2ND 07/16/2007 @ 5:05pm
Re-read "The Vital Center" by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., CKA.
Us "middle of the road" guys did pretty well in the 20th Century keeping the best of capitalism AND growing a middle class, without top-down socialism and the IWW.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 9:08pm
Posted by CRABWALK 07/16/2007 @ 6:40pm
OR...if Nader had dropped out after making his point, that it would have taken ONLY 0.75% of those Florida Nader voters to "begrudingly still go to the polls, despite Ralph not being in it anymore, and vote for Gore".
600 Nader supporters...all it would have taken and....
No billions in deficits, no trillions in debt, no thousands of dead Iraqis (rivalling Saddam), and no 3500+ (and destined to climb) dead American GIs.
And I'm a universal sufferage kind of guy...but any MORON (Left or Right) who says that "Al Gore probably would have invaded Iraq too, so what difference would it have made"...doesn't get to vote anymore in my book.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 9:39pm
Mask: The "Vital Center" was responsible for the organizing of the manufacturing sector? I don't think so; that was the Left. And the rise of unions in the 30's and 40's was the single greatest cause for the growth of the "middle" class in American history.
MT: No, I don't speak for "All," but you've heard from a number of people, left, center and right, who are offended by your repeaded use of homophobic and sexist language. How about acting your age, cleaning up your act and showing a little consideration for your fellow posters, whether you like them or not? It's just basic manners, for Christ's sake!!!!!
Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2007 @ 2:25pm