"Kerry, Nader and the Greens Need to Kill the Circular Firing Squad"

[GreenPartyVoter]

"From the Liberty and Free Soil Parties through Lincoln's Republicans, the Greenbackers, Populists, Socialists, Progressives, Dixiecrats, Peace and Freedom Parties, Peronista/Reform Party, and Buchananites, third parties have been part of American presidential campaigns more often than not. Those who have accommodated and co-opted them rather than attacking them have been the ones to win the White House. Gore's polls ran consistently higher when he adopted the pro-peace, environmental and social justice stands Nader and the Greens have demanded. Rather than attacking Nader now, Kerry's Democrats should be adopting Green positions."

<snip>

"Franklin Roosevelt, against whom the Socialist Norman Thomas ran four times, honored him in the Oval Office for being the principled gentleman he was. FDR's victories were based in part on his co-option of key parts of the Socialist platforms, which Thomas graciously welcomed.

It's a time-honored model. Kerry, Nader and the Greens could all win if they follow it. It's unlikely democracy or our planet will survive if they don't."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-02.htm

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Jeez--cool by me.

I've always felt that the Greens express many of my views, and I'd love to see some progressivism in America again.

[FlashHarry]

2. If Nader gave a rat's ass about progressivism, he'd drop out NOW.

That self-aggrandizing prick needs to stop taking GOP money and realize that now is not the time to pull this shit. Maybe '96 was a good time. Maybe '08 will be a good time. But now, we're presented with two stark alternatives--a crossroads in the history of this planet akin to the fall of Rome or the Norman conquest.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush--pure and simple.

I agree with a lot of Green planks. But I know that this world cannot withstand four more years of BushCo™--especially considering he won't be running for reelection and will veer even more to the right. The Supreme Court can't take it, either. Now is not the time.

[Green Lantern]

10. Interesting point you raise

about the Supreme Court. I seem to recall that we all feared Bush would be appointing a couple of new Justices. hasn't happened, and yet I recall that Sandra, at least, said she wouldn't retire during Clinton's administration. here we are at the end of Chapter 1 of the Bushwa Chronicles, and none of the Supremes have stepped down. Do you think they realize the mistake they made and don't want Bushwa naming their successor?

Hmmmm. Food for thought certainly.

I continue to believe that Nader is not the big problem you paint him. The DP lost 8 million Reagan Dems to Bush in 2000. Doesn't that mean anything to the DP? Let's see-Nader-total of about 3 million votes, vs 8 million.

I think that is a far larger problem-the DP needs to get some of those folks back. (BTW that is a loss of about 11 million potential Dem voters in the last few years.)
Could that loss explain 1994 or 2002? Or even 2000? The DP claimed it couldn't win with liberals/liberal positions, or with labor. 11 million voters. Hmmm. About 20 times the number of votes Gore won the popular vote with.

The DP should be seeking out the Greens and other Progressives and creating alliances. Offer them something tangible, like no nore gerrymandering Greens out of their districts, just fair and open elections. The DP candidates should be going around the country whenever possible by bus or train, and see the reality of the damage the national policies of the last 25 years have done to the working and middle class families. They should see the decay, the rot. They should be trying to figure out how to get these folks back to voting their interests instead of repug hot button issues. The repugs, (and to a large extent the DP) have shifted the discussion from national governance to an electoral process about moral values. The values are important, but they do not put supper on the table. The DP has forgotten this. Ross Perot knew, remember that sucking sound? He was right. The new economics have created a marginal, survival class in the US. It is creating desparation, hopelessness. The candidates should be addressing these issues, and NOT making them lip service campaign issues. They should have teeth, like tax equity-propose it, and follow through when elected, to partially cut and re-allocate the tax cuts for a couple of years, to the lower classes. Re-establish workers rights and benefits. Protect retirement pensions for real. Put Soc Sec in a lock box and mean it this time. Break the power of the corporations-if they flee overseas then cut out their ability to do business in the US. If a rich witch repudiates US citizenship, then enforce the law and wave bye bye to them-they go away and stay away. If a company shifts plants overseas, put a special tax on their products to pay for re-training and un- employment benefits. Repair the damage to bankruptcy laws. Make money available-grants, not loans, for college tuition.
So much more that could be done. Bring allies into Iraq and allow true self determination and get out. Recover the peace diviidend and re-allocate it into education and our infrastructure. Stop the damnable corporate welfare.Get into real issues, that have meaning in people's lives, and let them determine the moral issues on a state or local level.
Sorry about the book but I am cranked up-I want Bushwa out, I want the fascisti doing a perp walk. The DP can do it if they return to their base. The idea that you can't win with liberal views is false. You can't run with corporate money with liberal views. That is the reality. Remember-the DP has lost at least 11 million voters to other parties. This was their answer to the DLC question "Where else are they going to go?" Guess the DP is finding out. Forget the Nader BS and focus on 2004 or you woll lose again.

[amber dog democrat]

3. Maybe so

Personally I don't trust Nader to have good political jusgement, though I respect him for his past accomplishments. I kinda see him like an American Leon Trotsky of the progressive movements.

BUT

The biggest fear the corporate owned House, Senate and White House can have, their biggest nightmare is if
these groups begin talking more to each other and finding common ground.

That's when stuff starts to happen.

[leftistagitator]

4. The Party does need to adopt some of the Green platform.

It's the best way to deal with an insurgant 3rd Party. Universal health coverage, stronger enviromental regulations, stronger regulations on corporations, prison reform, and drug law reform would all be excellent places to start.

[library_max]

5. But that trick never works.

Running left assures defeat. Every Democrat who has won the Presidency (in the last 50 years anyway) has run to center. Every one that has run left has lost.

[leftistagitator]

6. LBJ had the War on Poverty.

Kennedy had the Civil Rights movement. Clinton ran pledging massive reform, at least the first time around, and although he was intentionally vague, he did promise to defeat free trade. Everyone runs as a "centrist", the good politicians do so by moving the center. Was FDR a left wing loonie? Repugs may call him so, and he did rip many of his best ideas from the socialists, but these ideas are now considered mainsteam. We wouldn't have social security or medicare if it wasn't for the socialists, now if you run opposing them you are a right wing extremist. What you say is simply not true, you don't have to stick to the status quo to win, you only have to present an attactive vision of the future and convince people you can accomplish it.

[library_max]

8. You're talking about stuff they did in office,

not issues they ran on. LBJ ran on not being Barry Goldwater. JFK courted center so assiduously that the left of his time couldn't tell his debate responses from Richard Nixon's (let me repeat that - Richard Nixon's). Who around here are you going to convince that Clinton ran a leftist campaign in 1992? Didn't he practically invent the DLC? As for FDR, when he ran the first time he ran on balancing the budget and shoring up the nation's banks. That's how he got elected.

[leftistagitator]

14. Bill ran to the center in '94.

When the Party was collapsing. He ran on vaguely Leftist campaign in '92. He pledged massive healthcare reform, he pledged to oppose free trade unless it had all sorts of regulations, he railed against Paul Tsonga's pro-business policies, he wanted to drastically raise taxes on the rich, and he was a 60's kid who protested Vietnam. That was why so many felt betrayed by Clinton, he didn't run as far to the right he governed. Of course he didn't really have much choice in the matter after we lost both houses and his approval rating plummeted, so I don't blame him too much.

LBJ never shied away from his commitment to the American poor, even during his campaign. Read his acceptance speech, not one word of Goldwater, but a lot of stuff about ending poverty and bring prosperity to all Americans. JFK was strongly supported by leaders of the Civil Rights movement, which was controversial enough. He didn't need to be anymore aggressive than that, the Party was splitting in two over the issue and it wasn't time to announce some grand new mission before the old one had run it's course.

As for FDR, while he did initially run on banking reform and fixing the economy, that's because those were the biggest issues during the Great Depression. Banks were folding left and right, people couldn't trust them anymore. Few had jobs, and fewer still had ones that were acceptable. Soon after that Huey Long and socialist activists began pushing for social reforms, and FDR was in real political trouble. He co-opted the most feasible of their agenda, and many of those issues are the ones he's best remembered for. The fact that he did this while in office rather than before hand is unsuprising, as the political strength of socialism grew as the Depression went on, so FDR had to address their concerns.

I'm just saying the Party should proactively deal with the general disatisfaction with the direction of the Party. They don't necessarily have to do it now, but they should do it soon before the Bush* shock wears off. Besides, if Bush* proved anything it's that you don't have to govern as you campaigned.

http://www.geocities.com/rickmatlick/nomalbj.htm

[depakid]

7. What do you mean by "running left"

sounds like a label to me- what policies on the left do you think are losers compared with policies on the right?

[Green Lantern]

12. I think

that is a good way back. But remember that the Greens in my state have grown by more than 20% since the 2002 election, while the DP enrollment has dropped. Something is going on and the DP is missing the bus.

[library_max]

13. So, there are six of them now? /nt

[Green Lantern]

15. Yeah

Six or so-second largest number of registered Greens in the US. And we will soon outnumber the Dems-only need 8 or 10 more.

[Zynx]

9. Nader is not a "principled gentleman". He is a shrill, unprincipled liar.

[jpgray]

11. Norman Thomas was a class act (nt)

[mzmolly]

16. Kucinich had Nader's platform before he did and he did not get the nom.

I agree with this important part of the article:

It's time for the Kerry, Nader and Green campaigns to get locked in a room until they disarm the circular firing squad and focus on the real enemy, George W. Bush.

Especially in swing states like ours, the endless wrangling and rancor must stop. Every boring, suicidal attack harms our ability to beat Bush.

Kerry and the Greens have come to agreement on this, Nader is the only narcissistic fool holding out.

This portion of the article seems ridiculous.

If Al Gore had met and worked with Nader in 2000 instead of attacking him, we might have been spared the horrors of these past four years. It's inaccurate, unwise and self-destructive to continually blame Ralph for the Democrats' "loss" when in fact Gore won the election. We are glad Kerry has had the good sense to meet with Ralph, and to refrain from attacking the Greens. :eyes:

So were to pander to Nader's ego in order to spare us his leftist horror show? Gimme a break. Where was Naders responsibility in all this. He insulted and lied about Gore, yet Gore was supposed to meet with him?! How bout this:

If Nader had NOT lied about Gore, and worked with him in 2000 instead of attacking him, we might have been spared the horrors of these past four years. It's innacurate, unwise and self-destructive for the left to continually blame the victim and excuse Nader of any responsibility for helping Bush. We are glad Kerry has the "good sense" :eyes: to meet with Ralph ... but as you can see it hasn't gotten us anywhere.

Sorry, but I tire of pandering to Nader. He alone needs to be held accountable for his decisions and their potential impact on electing Bush.