So long as we have the winner take all system of elections, the Greens and Democrats will be at each other. The Greens appeal to a lot of voters who would not otherwise vote Democratic: those who are down with their issues, those who reject the two dominant parties. But in order to grow, the Greens are going to have to poach voters who are now voting Democratic. This means that the two parties are not going to be buddies and that Greens will most often be pointing out the short-comings of the Democrats (the unsuitability of Republicans being so manifestly evident).
That said, this year is certainly one of those moments when we all ought to be reaching out. The Greens refusal to nominate Nader, while probably grounded in more than one reason, was certainly animated by the desire to assist in the removal of BushCo. For the Democrats, that's a helping hand, one that might prove to be decisive. It would take a cold cold heart not to extend some kind of return favor.
I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The Democrats, for the reasons noted above, are not interested in the long-term growth of the Green Party.
Kerry has a unique opportunity to separate himself from Bush on this war, and that is something he needs to do as soon as possible.
He has to forget the usual method of political ads. No cheesy music, no hugging children, no amber waves of grain. Just Kerry. Just Kerry speaking to the nation like a president would and like a president should. State his position, then explain it in terms that make sense.
A suggested theme: State how much money has already been appropriated. State how many times BushCo said they wouldn't need more. State, with a Ross Perot style pie chart, how much has gone to fighting the war and how much has gone to Halliburton, et al. Then state "I am not voting another dollar for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to give to their political supporters until:
Bush explains, with precision, what the money will be used for,
Bush explains in detail with deadlines exactly what he is doing in Iraq and when we can expect to have our people home, and
Then say, "Bush and Cheney are going to accuse me and anyone else who opposes this money of being unpatriotic, of not supporting our troops. That's a lie. Bush started this war against the best advice and he's turned Iraq into a disaster. If we don't stop giving him money to run his war, we are never going to get answers to the questions that all of us have, we are never going to see the end of the Iraq war, and we are never going to restore America to its position in the world as the leading force for freedom."
I think they can do that in 60 seconds and it would do a lot more good than the pablum currently running.
Watching Nightline I wondered if we were at one of those benchmark moments. Not like Tet 1968, but rather like Carter and the Iranian hostages. The country supported Carter until the failure of the rescue mission. After that, his incompetence was more or less taken for granted.
I also wondered what we would all feel watching this six months from now. Will there be another show with the same number of dead? Should Nightline do this on the last Friday of every month?
I was also surprised, a bit, that Koppel admitted he was in favor of the war. I mean, I kind of knew that by how he had behaved before and during, but I stopped watching Nightline regularly years ago and I never heard him actually say that he supported the war. I wonder if we took a poll of the SCLM how many of the faces and names that deliver what passes for news would say that they are against the war.
First, thanks for the updates. I have searched in vain for a website.
Second, whoever wins this, isn't this a sign that there is a bit of a split in the GOP in a swing state? When the Republicans win it is when they blend their hard right core with moderates. The whole gambit in 2000 was convincing the moderates that GWB was one of them. Is it possible that there are enough of these moderates who will reject or fail to support GWB now that it is clear he is not a moderate?
If he is the hugely popular Great Leader that the corporate press/media claim him to be, how come he can't get an incumbent moderate re-nominated in a swing state by a very large margin?
There were a lot of reasons why I didn't support Kerry in the primaries and is war vote was probably No. 1. But I have even more reasons to vote for him in November. The blank in the phrase, "Ladies and gentlemen, the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is ____ " is probably No. 1.
Consider, too, that a president is constrained in policy making by his party and by the supporters that put him in office. It is certainly not a guarantee of anything, but we already know what we get with BushCo. I haven't seen anything to show that Kerry would start even more wars of conquest.
I continue to be amazed at Bush's approval rating. What exactly is he doing that people approve of? The guy has been almost out of sight with respect to the current news stories, he hasn't done anything of note lately, and the only recent story that was any good at all for him was the jobs report, which story was promptly buried under the avalanche of 9/11 commission and Iraq violence.
So, again I ask, what is it exactly that people approve of?