Page 1 of 1 pages
Please tell Jesse for me: Ok, Jesse: Listen up. It’s easy: Get IRV in and I’ll vote Green #1 & Dem.#2=
(probably). THAT’ll take care of that. EASY! NOW DO IT!!!
John Howes (ex-Democrat/registered Green)
Posted by John Howes on Jun 20, 2003 at 3:47 PM
Jesse, instead of bringing the Greens into the Dem. portion of the military/industrial comp., why not take some of your millions and back the Greens for a truly opposing view of the Reps. in 2004. I vote Nader/Chomsky in 2004.
Posted by R.L. Buss on Jun 21, 2003 at 2:15 PM
Too many people are realizing that the money man has Democrat and Republican leaders in their pocket. Where was Mr. G. and other silent Dem. leaders when the war was going all U.S. way? They may be heard now that wer’e quagmired in daily guerilla attacks, but too late for my vote. I’ll vote GREEN in 2004.
Posted by Joe Impellitier on Jun 21, 2003 at 3:58 PM
cvc
Posted by gee on Jun 21, 2003 at 4:13 PM
This story gives me hope. I am a disenfranchised democrat who is also deeply troubled about who the AFLCIO decides to support and some position statements they make. I believe in the rights of workers to organize and that at bottom the work place is a microcosm for how our country operates and ultimately treats people. I have suffered the lack of leadership in both the union movement and the democratic party. I am fighting against Bush and the neoconservative movement—my hope is perhaps finally leadership is emerging that can succeed in bringing forth a coalition that will succeed. We have a lot of work to do! Sincerely, Marian Gonzales
Posted by marian gonzales on Jun 22, 2003 at 12:29 PM
The CAF should have invited Ralph Nader to speak. Remember he is an independent and is not a member of The Green Party. Jesse Jackson opposed Nader and actively campaigned more against Nader than for Gore, he had the “fear Bush complex.” If we are to be voters of fear rather than conviction, we are in trouble. We must vote the best progressive no matter what party. If Kucinich, Dean or Moseley-Brown don’t end up as the Democratic Nominee, all progressives should be voting Green Party for president. The rest of the Democrats in the running are not progressives, plain and simple. Don’t let them fool you with some temporary progressive rhetoric, that was Gore’s game. the CAF must leave open the possibility of standing up and saying “NO!” to any fake progressive and voting Green for president.
Posted by Jon Barber on Jun 23, 2003 at 4:17 AM
Do you people remember what happened in 2000?? I’m all for a progressive candidate, but for the sake of our country, unless joe lieberman is the democratic candidate, lets vote democrat. Especially check out Kerry and Edwards, two fairly progressive senators who I believe have the charisma and money to defeat Bush and his ilk.
Posted by Justin Wilson on Jun 23, 2003 at 12:33 PM
I’m interested in what progressives think on this question: If you HAD to vote for one of the two, who would you vote for George W. Bush or Joe Lieberman?
The reason I ask is the poster above said the he’d only vote progressive if Lieberman was the candidate, but a vote for a progressive is a vote for Bush, if you think about it.
Posted by Brad on Jun 23, 2003 at 5:01 PM
“A vote for a progressive is a vote for Bush” as Brad states is just the same as saying “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” back in 2000. Sorry, I’m not falling for that one again. If it takes four more years of Bush to get the Democratic leadership to WAKE UP and become an opposition party, then so be it. The DLC is still in the pocket of corporate America, I will NOT back politicians who have their hand in the corporate cookie jar. Let’s hear a Democrat offer a “clean election” proposal in the party platform. Let’s hear about issues like redoing NAFTA and GATT from the Democrats. I don’t hear a whisper except from Kucinich. Nope, for the most part the Democrats are Republicans-lite. They are beholden to the corporate money just as the Republicans are. And the Democrats by trying to play the middle are playing into Bushes reelection. Bush is moving a little more to the middle on enough issues that the middle is his. The real slogan should be “a vote for the middle is a vote for Bush.”
Posted by Jon Barber on Jun 24, 2003 at 12:53 AM
Since this board is pro-dean. How do you feel the events of last weekend (his son being arrested, and the embarassing interview with tim russert). On that interview, he admitted to not knowing the size of the army. He also said that social security would be guarenteed until 2060.
Personally, I don’t think either will effect his already low chances. The things he said were kind of dumb, but our current president was known for that during his first campaign and the arrest of his son, well I think people will forget about that.
Posted by Brad on Jun 24, 2003 at 10:25 AM
To all Greens who think that voting for Dems is 2004 is a negative thing: Please, please, please take a step back, breath slowly and think about it. Sadly, the Green Party is not yet in a position to win a Presidential race so we must come together and do what is the best for our country and the world at this moment in time. You’re right - the Dems are not being much better, but in the long run we can insist that they do what is right. Our country and this world cannot stand another 4 years of this. We have to vote Democrat in 2004 - it’s as simple as that. If we help give this election to the Dems we will be in a better place to pressure them in to acting responsibly, appointing Greens to cabinet posts, insisting that we have a voice in what they do. Please vote Democrat in 2004 - the people of this world and our ecosystem depend on us.
Posted by S.P. on Jun 27, 2003 at 6:48 AM
One thing that I’m encouraged about is the fact that many people are looking ahead to the 2004 campaign. It seems that people are thinking more seriously about this election than back in 2000, when it was about two jokers, Gush and Bore and a wildcard, Nader. Bush has become a “divider” and a “uniter.” He has united the conservatives and divided the Democrats/Greens into progressives and mainstream. The war had much to do with that, but legislation is a cause as well. At any rate, there is certainly more political talk in this country than before. It is still early though, many issues will arise in the next months, candidates will put their foot in their mouths and make some stirring speeches. Bush will try to not make mistakes, try to bury things like “Iraq has WMDs” or “The average tax cut will be $2,000” (wait until most Americans feel that lie). Bush does have a few things to answer to in a campaign, don’t count him as winning yet. It may just come down to “It’s the economy, blockhead.”
Posted by Jon Barber on Jun 27, 2003 at 8:13 AM
The Democratic Party is awashed with corporate interest money, and is rigged so they will never have a progressive as a candadate, the early primary’s are in the conservative states and the superdelegate are party hacks, I will vote Green
Posted by Val Morgan on Jun 28, 2003 at 6:17 PM
The problem with the Take Back America progressives is that they simply don’t have a majority of the general public behind them. What Jesse Jackson does not realize is for every Green Party member wooed back to the Democratic Party due to a leftward tilt, the Democratic Party itself would lose two members to the Republican Party. The only candidate who has a chance against Bush, albeit a small one, is Sen. Lieberman
Posted by Doug Gibson on Jun 28, 2003 at 6:50 PM
Only Lieberman can win against Bush? In other words, only a Republican can defeat a Republican? What a depressing thought. Excuse me while I go hang myself.
Posted by Eeyore on Jun 28, 2003 at 8:39 PM
After that early Democratic debate, they referred to Lieberman on the Daily Show as the candidate for people who want to vote for Bush, but just don’t think he’s Jewish enough.
Lieberman has no chance.
The only Dem. I find interesting is Kucinich. I am a bit selfish and am seeking lasting social change in my lifetime. I do not care for the slow, and unsteady process of incremental change. One step forward, three steps back.
Today I read Dean’s statement regarding National Security/Foreign Policy. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues_national
This is the kind of thing that makes me leery of Dean. I just don’t think he gets it.
Terrorism is a symptom, not the problem. And if you don’t get that, regardless of whatever else you do, you’re just going to continue down the same path. Personally, I think it is a joke at this point for a “progressive” presidential candidate to refer to Palestinians as terrorists without painting the Israelis and Americans with the same brush.
He says some of the right things, as well as some of the wrong things, but I don’t get the sense that he has much of a plan, or actually understands the depth of what is required to achieve his stated goals. What I see is someone who is throwing things out there that he thinks will get him elected, not someone who recognizes the underlying causes of the problems and who has the fortitude and vision to affect the necessary changes.
We need to change the national agenda. We need to truly succeed in our own country, not push our failing system on others. We need to enact regionalism and fair trade as a cure for the ills of globalization and a sickly world economy resulting from the devaluation of labor. We need to remember that we are all just visitors here on this planet - stopping by for a short stay. We must overcome the utter arrogance that enables us to leave behind a legacy of filth and destruction in the name of our personal greed. We need to grow up as a country and get over this adolescent nationalistic blather, and view ourselves as just one part of the whole. We desperately need to get people thinking about systems and interconnections; where and how they spend their money; what that money funds and supports. If we can get them to start thinking about it on a national level, we can make it work through empowerment on a regional level.
Posted by mike on Jun 30, 2003 at 9:47 AM
I like the idea of a Nader/Chomsky ticket as mentioned by R.L. Buss. I don’t particularly care about party affiliation, and that would be my first choice. Kucinich comes in second. If it goes beyond that, sadly I probably won’t vote.
Posted by mike on Jun 30, 2003 at 9:47 AM
very informative and perceptive… We need a semi-autonomous bunch of progressive clubs in the Dem party like Domhoff has proposed. Probably named after Paul Wellstone.
Posted by Dave Anderson on Jul 2, 2003 at 12:07 PM
To Mike:
You say, “I do not care for the slow, and unsteady process of incremental change. One step forward, three steps back.”
But incremental change is what works. It’s quite steady if you do it right. Look at the conservatives—that’s why it worked for them. They committed to a life-long effort for change, no matter how long it took, and they knew better than to overwhelm people. In fact, one lesson of the ‘60s is that too much change too quickly, at least with too confrontational an attitude, is less likely to “take” in the long run. It doesn’t have to be “one step forward, three steps back”; the fact that liberals, it seems, so readily form such a conception once it becomes apparent that there will occasionally be setbacks is a major part of the problem here.
I think Howard Dean “gets it” to an extent. (After all, symptoms need treating, too.) He certainly gets it more than the Republicans. Dean may not have a plan, but I think he can be “taught.” ;-)
You write: “I think it is a joke at this point for a “progressive” presidential candidate to refer to Palestinians as terrorists without painting the Israelis and Americans with the same brush.” Well, I don’t know about that, but I do know that the alternative is downright counterproductive. Honey and vinegar and all that.
By the way, would you provide an example of a succeeding system?
Posted by Jeff on Jul 3, 2003 at 9:26 AM
RE: “Democrats and Greens meet in Washington to “Take Back America”
I am a Co-Chair of the Green Party of the United States. The Green Party was not invited in any capacity to participate in Take Back America. How cynical to mount a platform to proclaim the need for an open arms policy to the Greens, and then to exclude the Green Party leadership from that very platform.
Posted by Ben Manski on Jul 3, 2003 at 7:44 PM
I would gladly vote and campaign for a democrat/green ticket for president. Kucinich and Nader have my deepest respect. We don’t need someone who will comprise with the republicans anymore. With Nader and Kucinich their history shows that what you see is what you get. History counts more than what they are saying now.
Posted by Linda on Jul 4, 2003 at 10:55 AM
Hi Jeff,
Let’s start with liberal/conservative. I honestly do not know what a liberal is, nor what a conservative is. I know the definition, or rather the similies espoused by the media. (ie, a conservative is someone like George Bush. a liberal is someone like Howard Dean) What was Clinton?
Regardless, I do not care for either as a representative of my ideals. Certainly, I agree that Dean would be an improvement over the current debacle, however I am not willing to simply vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary, and hope for the best.
When we talk about change, I am talking about a shift in culture, an evolutionary (for our culture) advance in our societal conceptualization of our relationship to each other and to the natural world, and in the application of those concepts.
For 10,000 years our culture has been pushing forward, pushing forward. What can we do next? What else can we accomplish? Questions driving us. As our technology has advanced, the speed of the push has increased exponentially. The problem is, we haven’t slowed down enough to discuss and reach agreement on whether these pushes are beneficial to the system as a whole, or how to integrate each new push into the system. I, perhaps naively, thinking this to be a democratic nation, thought that 9/11 might be the event in our lifetimes to create a pause. To enable discourse and consensus. However, those souls have proven to be the hijacked means to political ends.
So, to achieve that type of shift, the majority of work must be done outside of our politcal system, which has become a functioning plutocracy, and does not act in ways that do not benefit the next quarter’s profit margin. If there is a candidate who seems to hold more lofty ideals than economic interests, I readily give them my vote. But if not, I do not vote for the “lesser evil.” I prefer not to participate in the continuation of such a government. I do not wish to give implicit authority to such government. That doesn’t mean the efforts taking place outside of the political arena towards change cease as well.
I understand and respect your position of honey and vinegar, and I think there are times when that is the best solution. However, in this instance, I believe that appeasing the ignorance of some potential voters in order to gain political power is reprehensible for someone who would label themselves “progressive.”
pro?gres?sive
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
Posted by mike on Jul 6, 2003 at 8:38 PM
As for a succeeding system, I cannot claim to have enough intimate knowledge of all the other governmental systems in our culture to make such a judgement. I have not had the necessary education nor travel experience.
I will say that there are succeeding systems outside our culture being destroyed as we speak. Indigineous cultures, much like the ones that once flourshed on the lands we now occupy, that have existed for thousands of years in harmony with the planet are continuously wiped out by our culture. Of course, I guess that means they’re not succeeding either.
As creatures born of this earth, all have an irrefutable right to live in harmony with the natural world. Any culture that takes away that right, as ours has, is seriously and fundamentally flawed. Change can be incremental, but it must start now in a big way, and it cannot afford setbacks or compromises with fear, greed or ignorance.
By the way, I was hoping to make it down to your state this fall - Nov. 21-23, to pay a visit to Columbus. That will be the weekend of protests at Fort Benning against the US Army School of the Americas. The SOA, for those unfamiliar, is a US taxpayer-funded training camp for Latin American terrorists. http://www.soawne.org/articles.html Unfortunately, I have a previous engagement. But maybe you could take my place.
Posted by mike on Jul 6, 2003 at 8:38 PM
The more I find out about Dean, the more I realize he is NOT a progressive. He is in favor of the death penalty, he is in favor of expanding our military. The Brady Center/Million Mom March is going to actively campaign against him because of his stance on guns. He is against legalizing marijuana (I know a small issue, but it is a part of the drug war that must be stopped). I’m sure my list will grow as Dean will probably start moving even more center as he tries to win primaries in half a year. He is NOT the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, a line he stole from Paul Wellstone. Dean is an opportunist, trying to use the hate of Bush as his campaign. Dean NEVER talks about corporate power, NEVER talks about the corruption in politics. Dean is a fake, just as Gore was.
Posted by Jon Barber on Jul 8, 2003 at 1:54 PM
You get what you settle for.
Heavily Jetlagged, I was fortunate enough to catch Ralph Naders presidential nomination acceptance speech (broadcast at the deathly timeslot of 4am on PBS in Chicago mid 2000).
Damn me if it wasn’t the most inspirational and moving political speech I’d ever heard (perhaps with the exception of MLKs ‘I have a dream’ speech).
Ralph carefully explained that his most realistic and practicable objective was to gain the 5% share of the vote required to participate in the presidential debates, where he would be in a position to confront the mainstream head-on and raise issues which the ‘dependent’ media would have to broadcast.
Historically, meaningful social change seems to require lots of time, or lots of death.
Ralphs ‘edge of the wedge’ approach appears to be a rather sane strategy for increasing the influence of progressive thinking in mainstream consciousness.
The world can take 4 more years of pretty much anything. But can we sustain _another_ 30 years of the Status Quo?
Posted by Matt Quinn on Jul 9, 2003 at 7:27 AM
I don’t think the Democratic Party can kiss my ass enough to earn my vote after all the times it’s stabbed me in the back. Unless it nominates and FULLY BACKS a Kucinich and Sharpton ticket, it might as well get ready for a rerun of 2000. Oh, well.
Posted by Saab Lofton on Jul 11, 2003 at 3:53 PM
TO: CLEVELAND
Do you work for the DLC or the RNC? You travel all over posting the link to your site of misinformation. What is it about Kucinich you fear?
===========
To Everyone Else:
I pretty much gave up on the Dems but then I heard Kucinich speak. Support Kyoto, Water as a Human Right, Scrap NAFTA and WTO and come up with something that works, Universal Health Care. . .
Yep, this is a man with a chance and who is also singing my song. As long as he is in the race, I’m going to chop his wood and carry his water.
http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm
Posted by CLS on Jul 13, 2003 at 10:47 PM
We want Kucinich for 2004!!!
Posted by Kevin Ronkko on Jul 14, 2003 at 11:40 AM
“I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Hey, wait a minute—there’s one guy holding up both puppets. Shut up. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here’s Love Connection—watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you f**king morons.”
-Bill Hicks
Posted by frank on Jul 20, 2003 at 1:32 AM
I voted green last time. I would like to vote green again - if I’m allowed to. That’s why I"ll hold my nose and vote for WHOMEVER the Dems put up! Folks, folks, let’s not get bogged down rearranging those well known deck chairs!
Posted by Tim Snyder on Jul 21, 2003 at 2:11 PM
I live in Australia, where there’s a preferential voting system. I can well afford to vote Green here, and I do. But in the US, in a presidential election? You’d have to be mad. Why vote for someone you know can’t win - and no one except a Republican or a Dem can win - when it just takes away votes from the candidate you would PREFER to win - and who just possibly could win, if he had your vote? The realities of the electoral situation in the US are such that a vote for a Green candidate achieves nothing except that it punishes the Dems.
On the other hand, I would be extremely sympathetic to a third party campaign against a Republican! Let’s face it, with rigged voting and so on, the only way Bush could lose in 2004 is if there’s a conservative spoiler candidate. Could Nader possibly be persuaded to run as a disaffected conservative, perhaps?
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jul 22, 2003 at 7:24 PM
Second thoughts:
Maybe Greens should draw a lesson from the way the conservative movement took over the Republican party. Conservatives shifted the GOP to the right by threatening to support a third party, e.g., when they touted John Ashbrook as an alternative to a ‘too liberal’ Nixon in 1972, but they never actually did field their own candidate in a presidential election. The threat was enough to push the GOP to the right, because it couldn’t risk losing the votes of the party’s conservatives. If the conservatives had not worked through the GOP they would have got precisely nowhere.
By analogy, the best thing Greens can do is ally with progressives and left liberals to take the Democratic party over from the inside - threatening to wreck the party’s chances of electoral success if suitably progressive candidates are not selected. If Greens and progressives followed this strategy, they would put an end to DLC domination of the Democratic party and make people like Kucinich electable.
Just a thought!
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jul 23, 2003 at 8:34 PM
Just the read the section of the article that describes the “appearances” of the Presidential candidates.
It tells you all you need to know.
No policy concessions to the left, even on issues that are popular with the general public, and an attempt to intimidate people into voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate, no matter how unacceptable on policy issues, by scapegoating them as responsible for Republican victories.
You’d think that the party would have learned that this is a losing strategy in 2000 and 2002, but it hasn’t yet.
Fortunately, it’s 2003, not 2004. I’m not expecting it, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I’d certainly love the opportunity to vote for a Democratic candidate who stands for more than just villifying the Republicans.
If not, expect one of the most acrimonious Democratic conventions since 1968, and abysmal voter turnout in the fall.
—Richard Estes
Posted by Richard Estes on Jul 25, 2003 at 5:19 PM
Friends,
Democrats? Forget it! I’d rather vote Rebublican, at least they believe in something. I’ll vote Green once again with a good conscience.
Tom Warren
Posted by Tom Warren on Jul 31, 2003 at 5:31 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Please tell Jesse for me: Ok, Jesse: Listen up. It’s easy: Get IRV in and I’ll vote Green #1 & Dem.#2=
(probably). THAT’ll take care of that. EASY! NOW DO IT!!!
John Howes (ex-Democrat/registered Green)
Jesse, instead of bringing the Greens into the Dem. portion of the military/industrial comp., why not take some of your millions and back the Greens for a truly opposing view of the Reps. in 2004. I vote Nader/Chomsky in 2004.
Too many people are realizing that the money man has Democrat and Republican leaders in their pocket. Where was Mr. G. and other silent Dem. leaders when the war was going all U.S. way? They may be heard now that wer’e quagmired in daily guerilla attacks, but too late for my vote. I’ll vote GREEN in 2004.
WWW.KUCINICH.COM
cvc
This story gives me hope. I am a disenfranchised democrat who is also deeply troubled about who the AFLCIO decides to support and some position statements they make. I believe in the rights of workers to organize and that at bottom the work place is a microcosm for how our country operates and ultimately treats people. I have suffered the lack of leadership in both the union movement and the democratic party. I am fighting against Bush and the neoconservative movement—my hope is perhaps finally leadership is emerging that can succeed in bringing forth a coalition that will succeed. We have a lot of work to do! Sincerely, Marian Gonzales
The CAF should have invited Ralph Nader to speak. Remember he is an independent and is not a member of The Green Party. Jesse Jackson opposed Nader and actively campaigned more against Nader than for Gore, he had the “fear Bush complex.” If we are to be voters of fear rather than conviction, we are in trouble. We must vote the best progressive no matter what party. If Kucinich, Dean or Moseley-Brown don’t end up as the Democratic Nominee, all progressives should be voting Green Party for president. The rest of the Democrats in the running are not progressives, plain and simple. Don’t let them fool you with some temporary progressive rhetoric, that was Gore’s game. the CAF must leave open the possibility of standing up and saying “NO!” to any fake progressive and voting Green for president.
Do you people remember what happened in 2000?? I’m all for a progressive candidate, but for the sake of our country, unless joe lieberman is the democratic candidate, lets vote democrat. Especially check out Kerry and Edwards, two fairly progressive senators who I believe have the charisma and money to defeat Bush and his ilk.
I’m interested in what progressives think on this question: If you HAD to vote for one of the two, who would you vote for George W. Bush or Joe Lieberman?
The reason I ask is the poster above said the he’d only vote progressive if Lieberman was the candidate, but a vote for a progressive is a vote for Bush, if you think about it.
“A vote for a progressive is a vote for Bush” as Brad states is just the same as saying “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” back in 2000. Sorry, I’m not falling for that one again. If it takes four more years of Bush to get the Democratic leadership to WAKE UP and become an opposition party, then so be it. The DLC is still in the pocket of corporate America, I will NOT back politicians who have their hand in the corporate cookie jar. Let’s hear a Democrat offer a “clean election” proposal in the party platform. Let’s hear about issues like redoing NAFTA and GATT from the Democrats. I don’t hear a whisper except from Kucinich. Nope, for the most part the Democrats are Republicans-lite. They are beholden to the corporate money just as the Republicans are. And the Democrats by trying to play the middle are playing into Bushes reelection. Bush is moving a little more to the middle on enough issues that the middle is his. The real slogan should be “a vote for the middle is a vote for Bush.”
Since this board is pro-dean. How do you feel the events of last weekend (his son being arrested, and the embarassing interview with tim russert). On that interview, he admitted to not knowing the size of the army. He also said that social security would be guarenteed until 2060.
Personally, I don’t think either will effect his already low chances. The things he said were kind of dumb, but our current president was known for that during his first campaign and the arrest of his son, well I think people will forget about that.
To all Greens who think that voting for Dems is 2004 is a negative thing: Please, please, please take a step back, breath slowly and think about it. Sadly, the Green Party is not yet in a position to win a Presidential race so we must come together and do what is the best for our country and the world at this moment in time. You’re right - the Dems are not being much better, but in the long run we can insist that they do what is right. Our country and this world cannot stand another 4 years of this. We have to vote Democrat in 2004 - it’s as simple as that. If we help give this election to the Dems we will be in a better place to pressure them in to acting responsibly, appointing Greens to cabinet posts, insisting that we have a voice in what they do. Please vote Democrat in 2004 - the people of this world and our ecosystem depend on us.
One thing that I’m encouraged about is the fact that many people are looking ahead to the 2004 campaign. It seems that people are thinking more seriously about this election than back in 2000, when it was about two jokers, Gush and Bore and a wildcard, Nader. Bush has become a “divider” and a “uniter.” He has united the conservatives and divided the Democrats/Greens into progressives and mainstream. The war had much to do with that, but legislation is a cause as well. At any rate, there is certainly more political talk in this country than before. It is still early though, many issues will arise in the next months, candidates will put their foot in their mouths and make some stirring speeches. Bush will try to not make mistakes, try to bury things like “Iraq has WMDs” or “The average tax cut will be $2,000” (wait until most Americans feel that lie). Bush does have a few things to answer to in a campaign, don’t count him as winning yet. It may just come down to “It’s the economy, blockhead.”
The Democratic Party is awashed with corporate interest money, and is rigged so they will never have a progressive as a candadate, the early primary’s are in the conservative states and the superdelegate are party hacks, I will vote Green
The problem with the Take Back America progressives is that they simply don’t have a majority of the general public behind them. What Jesse Jackson does not realize is for every Green Party member wooed back to the Democratic Party due to a leftward tilt, the Democratic Party itself would lose two members to the Republican Party. The only candidate who has a chance against Bush, albeit a small one, is Sen. Lieberman
Only Lieberman can win against Bush? In other words, only a Republican can defeat a Republican? What a depressing thought. Excuse me while I go hang myself.
After that early Democratic debate, they referred to Lieberman on the Daily Show as the candidate for people who want to vote for Bush, but just don’t think he’s Jewish enough.
Lieberman has no chance.
The only Dem. I find interesting is Kucinich. I am a bit selfish and am seeking lasting social change in my lifetime. I do not care for the slow, and unsteady process of incremental change. One step forward, three steps back.
Today I read Dean’s statement regarding National Security/Foreign Policy. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues_national
This is the kind of thing that makes me leery of Dean. I just don’t think he gets it.
Terrorism is a symptom, not the problem. And if you don’t get that, regardless of whatever else you do, you’re just going to continue down the same path. Personally, I think it is a joke at this point for a “progressive” presidential candidate to refer to Palestinians as terrorists without painting the Israelis and Americans with the same brush.
He says some of the right things, as well as some of the wrong things, but I don’t get the sense that he has much of a plan, or actually understands the depth of what is required to achieve his stated goals. What I see is someone who is throwing things out there that he thinks will get him elected, not someone who recognizes the underlying causes of the problems and who has the fortitude and vision to affect the necessary changes.
We need to change the national agenda. We need to truly succeed in our own country, not push our failing system on others. We need to enact regionalism and fair trade as a cure for the ills of globalization and a sickly world economy resulting from the devaluation of labor. We need to remember that we are all just visitors here on this planet - stopping by for a short stay. We must overcome the utter arrogance that enables us to leave behind a legacy of filth and destruction in the name of our personal greed. We need to grow up as a country and get over this adolescent nationalistic blather, and view ourselves as just one part of the whole. We desperately need to get people thinking about systems and interconnections; where and how they spend their money; what that money funds and supports. If we can get them to start thinking about it on a national level, we can make it work through empowerment on a regional level.
I like the idea of a Nader/Chomsky ticket as mentioned by R.L. Buss. I don’t particularly care about party affiliation, and that would be my first choice. Kucinich comes in second. If it goes beyond that, sadly I probably won’t vote.
very informative and perceptive… We need a semi-autonomous bunch of progressive clubs in the Dem party like Domhoff has proposed. Probably named after Paul Wellstone.
To Mike:
You say, “I do not care for the slow, and unsteady process of incremental change. One step forward, three steps back.”
But incremental change is what works. It’s quite steady if you do it right. Look at the conservatives—that’s why it worked for them. They committed to a life-long effort for change, no matter how long it took, and they knew better than to overwhelm people. In fact, one lesson of the ‘60s is that too much change too quickly, at least with too confrontational an attitude, is less likely to “take” in the long run. It doesn’t have to be “one step forward, three steps back”; the fact that liberals, it seems, so readily form such a conception once it becomes apparent that there will occasionally be setbacks is a major part of the problem here.
I think Howard Dean “gets it” to an extent. (After all, symptoms need treating, too.) He certainly gets it more than the Republicans. Dean may not have a plan, but I think he can be “taught.” ;-)
You write: “I think it is a joke at this point for a “progressive” presidential candidate to refer to Palestinians as terrorists without painting the Israelis and Americans with the same brush.” Well, I don’t know about that, but I do know that the alternative is downright counterproductive. Honey and vinegar and all that.
By the way, would you provide an example of a succeeding system?
http://www.deanforamerica.com
RE: “Democrats and Greens meet in Washington to “Take Back America”
I am a Co-Chair of the Green Party of the United States. The Green Party was not invited in any capacity to participate in Take Back America. How cynical to mount a platform to proclaim the need for an open arms policy to the Greens, and then to exclude the Green Party leadership from that very platform.
I would gladly vote and campaign for a democrat/green ticket for president. Kucinich and Nader have my deepest respect. We don’t need someone who will comprise with the republicans anymore. With Nader and Kucinich their history shows that what you see is what you get. History counts more than what they are saying now.
Hi Jeff,
Let’s start with liberal/conservative. I honestly do not know what a liberal is, nor what a conservative is. I know the definition, or rather the similies espoused by the media. (ie, a conservative is someone like George Bush. a liberal is someone like Howard Dean) What was Clinton?
Regardless, I do not care for either as a representative of my ideals. Certainly, I agree that Dean would be an improvement over the current debacle, however I am not willing to simply vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary, and hope for the best.
When we talk about change, I am talking about a shift in culture, an evolutionary (for our culture) advance in our societal conceptualization of our relationship to each other and to the natural world, and in the application of those concepts.
For 10,000 years our culture has been pushing forward, pushing forward. What can we do next? What else can we accomplish? Questions driving us. As our technology has advanced, the speed of the push has increased exponentially. The problem is, we haven’t slowed down enough to discuss and reach agreement on whether these pushes are beneficial to the system as a whole, or how to integrate each new push into the system. I, perhaps naively, thinking this to be a democratic nation, thought that 9/11 might be the event in our lifetimes to create a pause. To enable discourse and consensus. However, those souls have proven to be the hijacked means to political ends.
So, to achieve that type of shift, the majority of work must be done outside of our politcal system, which has become a functioning plutocracy, and does not act in ways that do not benefit the next quarter’s profit margin. If there is a candidate who seems to hold more lofty ideals than economic interests, I readily give them my vote. But if not, I do not vote for the “lesser evil.” I prefer not to participate in the continuation of such a government. I do not wish to give implicit authority to such government. That doesn’t mean the efforts taking place outside of the political arena towards change cease as well.
I understand and respect your position of honey and vinegar, and I think there are times when that is the best solution. However, in this instance, I believe that appeasing the ignorance of some potential voters in order to gain political power is reprehensible for someone who would label themselves “progressive.”
pro?gres?sive
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
As for a succeeding system, I cannot claim to have enough intimate knowledge of all the other governmental systems in our culture to make such a judgement. I have not had the necessary education nor travel experience.
I will say that there are succeeding systems outside our culture being destroyed as we speak. Indigineous cultures, much like the ones that once flourshed on the lands we now occupy, that have existed for thousands of years in harmony with the planet are continuously wiped out by our culture. Of course, I guess that means they’re not succeeding either.
As creatures born of this earth, all have an irrefutable right to live in harmony with the natural world. Any culture that takes away that right, as ours has, is seriously and fundamentally flawed. Change can be incremental, but it must start now in a big way, and it cannot afford setbacks or compromises with fear, greed or ignorance.
By the way, I was hoping to make it down to your state this fall - Nov. 21-23, to pay a visit to Columbus. That will be the weekend of protests at Fort Benning against the US Army School of the Americas. The SOA, for those unfamiliar, is a US taxpayer-funded training camp for Latin American terrorists. http://www.soawne.org/articles.html Unfortunately, I have a previous engagement. But maybe you could take my place.
The more I find out about Dean, the more I realize he is NOT a progressive. He is in favor of the death penalty, he is in favor of expanding our military. The Brady Center/Million Mom March is going to actively campaign against him because of his stance on guns. He is against legalizing marijuana (I know a small issue, but it is a part of the drug war that must be stopped). I’m sure my list will grow as Dean will probably start moving even more center as he tries to win primaries in half a year. He is NOT the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, a line he stole from Paul Wellstone. Dean is an opportunist, trying to use the hate of Bush as his campaign. Dean NEVER talks about corporate power, NEVER talks about the corruption in politics. Dean is a fake, just as Gore was.
You get what you settle for.
Heavily Jetlagged, I was fortunate enough to catch Ralph Naders presidential nomination acceptance speech (broadcast at the deathly timeslot of 4am on PBS in Chicago mid 2000).
Damn me if it wasn’t the most inspirational and moving political speech I’d ever heard (perhaps with the exception of MLKs ‘I have a dream’ speech).
Ralph carefully explained that his most realistic and practicable objective was to gain the 5% share of the vote required to participate in the presidential debates, where he would be in a position to confront the mainstream head-on and raise issues which the ‘dependent’ media would have to broadcast.
Historically, meaningful social change seems to require lots of time, or lots of death.
Ralphs ‘edge of the wedge’ approach appears to be a rather sane strategy for increasing the influence of progressive thinking in mainstream consciousness.
The world can take 4 more years of pretty much anything. But can we sustain _another_ 30 years of the Status Quo?
I don’t think the Democratic Party can kiss my ass enough to earn my vote after all the times it’s stabbed me in the back. Unless it nominates and FULLY BACKS a Kucinich and Sharpton ticket, it might as well get ready for a rerun of 2000. Oh, well.
TO: CLEVELAND
Do you work for the DLC or the RNC? You travel all over posting the link to your site of misinformation. What is it about Kucinich you fear?
===========
To Everyone Else:
I pretty much gave up on the Dems but then I heard Kucinich speak. Support Kyoto, Water as a Human Right, Scrap NAFTA and WTO and come up with something that works, Universal Health Care. . .
Yep, this is a man with a chance and who is also singing my song. As long as he is in the race, I’m going to chop his wood and carry his water.
http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm
We want Kucinich for 2004!!!
“I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Hey, wait a minute—there’s one guy holding up both puppets. Shut up. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here’s Love Connection—watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you f**king morons.”
-Bill Hicks
I voted green last time. I would like to vote green again - if I’m allowed to. That’s why I"ll hold my nose and vote for WHOMEVER the Dems put up! Folks, folks, let’s not get bogged down rearranging those well known deck chairs!
I live in Australia, where there’s a preferential voting system. I can well afford to vote Green here, and I do. But in the US, in a presidential election? You’d have to be mad. Why vote for someone you know can’t win - and no one except a Republican or a Dem can win - when it just takes away votes from the candidate you would PREFER to win - and who just possibly could win, if he had your vote? The realities of the electoral situation in the US are such that a vote for a Green candidate achieves nothing except that it punishes the Dems.
On the other hand, I would be extremely sympathetic to a third party campaign against a Republican! Let’s face it, with rigged voting and so on, the only way Bush could lose in 2004 is if there’s a conservative spoiler candidate. Could Nader possibly be persuaded to run as a disaffected conservative, perhaps?
Second thoughts:
Maybe Greens should draw a lesson from the way the conservative movement took over the Republican party. Conservatives shifted the GOP to the right by threatening to support a third party, e.g., when they touted John Ashbrook as an alternative to a ‘too liberal’ Nixon in 1972, but they never actually did field their own candidate in a presidential election. The threat was enough to push the GOP to the right, because it couldn’t risk losing the votes of the party’s conservatives. If the conservatives had not worked through the GOP they would have got precisely nowhere.
By analogy, the best thing Greens can do is ally with progressives and left liberals to take the Democratic party over from the inside - threatening to wreck the party’s chances of electoral success if suitably progressive candidates are not selected. If Greens and progressives followed this strategy, they would put an end to DLC domination of the Democratic party and make people like Kucinich electable.
Just a thought!
Just the read the section of the article that describes the “appearances” of the Presidential candidates.
It tells you all you need to know.
No policy concessions to the left, even on issues that are popular with the general public, and an attempt to intimidate people into voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate, no matter how unacceptable on policy issues, by scapegoating them as responsible for Republican victories.
You’d think that the party would have learned that this is a losing strategy in 2000 and 2002, but it hasn’t yet.
Fortunately, it’s 2003, not 2004. I’m not expecting it, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I’d certainly love the opportunity to vote for a Democratic candidate who stands for more than just villifying the Republicans.
If not, expect one of the most acrimonious Democratic conventions since 1968, and abysmal voter turnout in the fall.
—Richard Estes
Friends,
Democrats? Forget it! I’d rather vote Rebublican, at least they believe in something. I’ll vote Green once again with a good conscience.
Tom Warren
register a new account »Posting Security