Marginalized Green Democrats

I got a call from the DNC the other night and after the great volunteer got through the rap about giving money to the party on a monthly basis I said, "You really should ask for my vote before you ask me for money." Then she went on about how bad Bush was and how the Republicans have to be beaten in November (Which I agree with 1000 percent). I then asked her what the platform of the Democratic Party was. She came back with six what I will call EMPTY topics. 1 was SS. 1 was affordable healthcare for all (Notice NOT Universal Healthcare). 3 I can't even remember! How sad is that? I do remember this one though, and this is the one pertinent to this thread: Reduce our dependency on foreign oil. (NO mention of the environment there.) I also know that NOWHERE in the Democratic Platform was the Environment even MENTIONED! Here on MYDD and DailKos (and Al Gore, bless him) some of us are talking about the environment. A major part of my religion (UU) and my daily life and thoughts involve celebrating and protecting our environment.

I know I will get attacked here with the party line that "polls show that the environment falls below (pick something) when it comes to how people vote". "People vote their pocketbook." And how we have to stand together against the Republicans and W. But I ask you, fellow MyDD readers. I ask you, Howard Dean. I ask every leader in the Democratic Party. Why won't our party throw the environmental movement a bone? At least in the platform we could say: We wish to conserve and protect our homeland for future generations. (I just made it up and I have copyrighted it. Let me know if you want to use it.) Anything! We can clearly differentiate ourselves from the Republicans on the Environment. This should be an easy one.

I think many Democrats are still mad at Environmentalists (Please don't call us Naderites) that "lost" the election for Al Gore in 2000. I think that the people in the party that think this have it exactly backwards. Many consultants and politicos in the Dem Party told Al Gore that the Environment would not win for him, so he went with SS, etc. If we had actually been the environmental party in 2000 we would have won the election. All we had to do was embrace some environmental platforms (which should have been easy with Gore on the ticket) and bring the environmentalists into the party where I used to think they belonged.

Now, after looking at all the Democrats running for statewide office in Maryland, I am thinking that I might vote Green. I have been very saddened in the past year since I have moved back here. (I grew up in MD and just moved back after living out of this state for 15 years.) Not one of the Democratic politicians running for statewide office represents my values. BOTH Democratic candidates for Governor think that continuing to cut down trees to build stripmalls, roads (Intercounty Connector is best example) and McMansions is just great. I have written letters and emails to all the Democratic candidates for Governor and Senate about their position on the environment and have only gotten one response. The single response came from Gov. Erhlich! If any of the Democrats had come out for the Environment I would have gone door to door to help out. (I'm still willing! Give me a shout out O'Malley and let me know you are with us by opposing the ICC!) This just leads me to the question: If I don't even get listened to by the Democratic party, and the party doesn't represent my values should I keep voting for them? I have seen other posts answer this by saying that the Republicans are worse and therefore you have to vote for the Democrats. I agree with this 1000 %. The republicans have got to go since they don't want to do anything but get themselves and their friends rich (and laid). But that does not mean that the Democratic party will automatically get my vote! The benefit of living in a Blue State is that I can vote Green. When I know the election is going to the Dem I have decided to vote Green. I have voted the Democratic ticket since 1988, the first year I could vote. This included 2000 and 2004 when I really agreed with the Greens on a lot of issues, but voted against Bush! After seeing how many of my fellow Democrats continue to treat Greens and anyone that voted for Nader in 2000 I am sickened by my own party. If I am going to be marginalized I will at the least be marginalized while voting for my beliefs and values. Until this party embraces the environmental movement the party will continue to have this issue. Not embracing the environment has already cost us the presidency in 2000. Please embrace the next environmentalist with some real environmental policy and platforms so that we can move forward together.

Eric

Tags: Environmental Vote DNC Platform Leadership (all tags)

Comments

227 Comments

Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

WTF is a "Green Democrat?"

Is that kind of how Joe Lieberman is a Republican Democrat?

by Fran for Dean 2006-05-08 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Hi Fran,

A quick definition: A Green Democrat is any Democrat that has considered voting for the Green Party because they believe the Greens represent them better on this or any other issue. (I would also include all the people that have voted for Nader or the Green Party in the past.)

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 06:36AM | 0 recs
yup.

I'm guessing i'll be voting against Feinstein in the general, although she will win in a walk like always.

-C.

by neutron 2006-05-09 11:26AM | 0 recs
I shouldn't be so quick with the post button.

I also voted for Pete Camejo in the 2000 CA-Governor's race since Gray Davis was so heinous (and was going to win it easilly as well).

I'm not sure if I would do that again though since Peter Camejo has shown just as much intolerence for Democrats as the "NADER LOST US 2000!!!" contingent of the Democratic party shows for anybody that doesn't mindlessly toe the party line.

Just ask Arianna Huffington (about Pete Camejo)...

-C.

by neutron 2006-05-09 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I thought it just meant eco-Dems, or Democrats who are concerned about the environment.

by Jawis 2006-05-09 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

That works too, but I think that they would have had to at least consider voting for the Greens at some point.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:41AM | 0 recs
Well

I'll leave it at this: You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. Voting Green makes you part of the problem.

Do you like what Bush has done policy-wise for the environment? Do you think that the environment has fared well under the last six years of his administration? Do you agree with all of his other policies? Do you honestly think that Gore would have been as horrible as Bush has for the environment? I'd like to you.

Maybe Gore wouldn't have met the "Greenpeace" standards, but I do know that he would have pursued better environment policies (albeit probably nowhere to the level that you would like). And maybe he would have done something more than what Bush has.

That being said I guess you are going to vote Green regardless. I live in DC and am not a fan of the ICC either. I was for it, but then I turned against it because I realized that the road is not going to allievate traffic. I say this because the road is not going to connect MD to Loudoun County, VA. If the ICC crossed the Potomac and connected to VA-28 and to the Toll Road, or even went out to I-81 in Winchester, then it would be an effective bypass. But it isn't. You're right; it will just lead to more strip malls and sprawl.

I will say this, though. The Ehrlich (R) administration is completely hostile to any non-automobile transportation. Robert Flanagan (R), his transportation secretary, is very unfriendly toward rail, light rail, and subway. If you want to make MD more public transportation friendly, re-electing Ehrlich (R) is counterproductive to that goal.

Of the two Democrats I would say that O'Malley is probably better for public transportation. Unlike Duncan, who has been indifferent to the Purple Line, I think you would have a better chance with O'Malley. Also I don't think Duncan can beat Ehrlich. I don't see how Duncan fares well in Baltimore's suburban counties.

Again you can vote Green if you want, but honestly you are choosing to be part of the problem. If you want any progress on the issues of importance to you, be it in MD or nationwide, helping to re-elect Ehrlich by voting Green is going to be counterproductive.

I know that you are going to vote Green and will "not compromise". But that is the surest recipe to never get anything accomplished. And if you do want results of any kind, witholding your votes and support isn't going to make any progress. And honestly voting Green amounts to a pointless protest no one cares about, listens to, or hears.

Again, if you want to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution, that's your choice. For clearly continued GOP rule doesn't achieve your goals.

by jiacinto 2006-05-08 09:16PM | 0 recs
It's time to send a message

Again, if you want to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution, that's your choice. For clearly continued GOP rule doesn't achieve your goals.

That is a false dilemma jiacinto. Progressive and Environmental democrats are not limited to voting for a Republican or a Democrat. The Democratic leadership is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Supporting the Democrats will not help the environment, will not lead to Health Care for All, will not lead to an improved Supreme Court, will not help middle class Americans or the working poor in America.

The Democrats are not the solution, they are the problem. Unless the grass/netroots demonstrates that they are willing to walk away from the table they will never have any influence of power in the Democratic Party. Any democrat who cares about health  care, the environment, a woman's right to choose or opposes the Iraq war should vote Green in November. It's time to send a message to the Democratic Party. November is the perfect opportunity to do so.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's time to send a message

Let me know how that works out for you.  In the mean time, real people who can't afford to be as sanctimonious as you will be hurt by your actions.  

Yep, lets start a "movement" with maybe 10% of the population and who cares if practically that allows the Republican party (representing a minority of voters) govern to the far right and injure the poor, minorities, and middle and working class america generally.  Excellent plan.

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: It's time to send a message

Of course you are not being even a little sanctimonious are you HSTruman?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:37PM | 0 recs
Gary Boatwright likes to have sex with

Conservative Republican Men

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Why should environmentalism be a liability?  Protecting the environment and developing an economy that is not as dependent on fossils fuels is the right thing to do.  For political purposes, there are plenty of ways to frame the debate that makes this position a political assest rather than a liability.  (Corporate greed selling out our children's future, etc.) It seems to me that Democrats are so used to losing that they have internalized GOP assumptions, and are unwilling to draw sharp distictions between themselves and the Republicans.  

by Winston Smith 2006-05-09 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Are you one of those radical FDR Democrats? What kind of insane electoral policy would encompass standing up to Bushco and standing on principle? That's ridiculous Winston. We have to accept GOP assumptions because jiacinto and HSTruman say we do.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Well, I am starting to see their point.  If the Democratic party adopted a platform that was identical to the Republicans it would be unbeatable.  Then the Republicans would not be able to criticise the Democrats for anything.  

I figure that we are about half-way there.  

Flame wars aside Gary, nice to see you back.  How did the park protest go?

by Winston Smith 2006-05-09 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Gary Boatwright enjoys SEX with Conservative Republican Male

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

the Green Party is not synonymous with environmentalism.  In fact, environmentalism is not even the main basis for the Green Party.  The Green Party has ten key planks.  Only two of them are environmental, "Ecological Wisdom" and "Future Focus and Sustainability".

by ACSR 2006-05-09 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

And as I meant to add: the rest of the platform is a mix of essentially good things like "grassroots democracy", and starry-eyed idealism and silliness.  "Nonviolence"?  "Post-patriarchal values"?  Could we please come back down to earth?

by ACSR 2006-05-09 02:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Sounds good to me. For example, I will not vote for a Democrat (in the primary) that voted for the war in Iraq. What is the Democratic position on Violence and War?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Dude, the Democratic position of "Violence and War?"  Are you serious?  Like all "violence and war" is the same and one can have a "position" on it?  

WWII was not the same thing as the Iraq war.  Some war is justified, in my opinion.  Indeed, failure to fight in some instances - like our failure to intervene in Darfur - is immoral.  If you're waiting for Dems to adopt an official pacifist stance and endorse Kuciniche for President in 08, maybe we don't actually need you back in the fold after all.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

HSTruman: Now you are telling the non-violent portion of the party to take a hike. How does this help win the election in November?

There are millions of Democrats that believe that being non-violent is a way to live and also believe that Kucinich would have represented the party's values better then Kerry did (or does for that matter).

Before the US entry into WWII there was a huge pacifist movement in this country that was at least partially within the Democratic Party. Thousands of non-violent draftees were imprisoned for the war for refusing to serve. Where are the Democrats on the Iraq War? You yourself say that the Iraq War is not justified. (I'm reading between the lines here, but I think that is what you are saying.) If failure to fight is immoral can you conceed that not taking a stand against going to fight in an unjustified war is also immoral?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I'm against the Iraq war - have been from the start.  But I'm not a pacifist and don't think that the Democratic party should have a platform that reflects anything approaching a pacifist point of view.  

Now, just to be clear, I respect anyone's right to protest any war.  That's why we have the first amendment.  Moreover, I respect every voter's right to vote for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary is that's really what they want to do.  Personally, I think the guy is a joke for a whole host of reasons, but to each his own.  My point, however, is that the Democratic Party would be making a huge mistake to base its policies on a segment of the voting population (I mean avowed pacifists, not those against the Iraq war) that is relatively small while alienating the vast majority of the country that thinks decisions regarding the use of force and war need to be made on a case by case basis.

Finally, regarding your point about WWII protesters.  They were wrong, pure and simple.  Which just proves, from my point of view, that all wars are not equal and that some are justified.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Let me get this straight. You think that people standing up and saying "I will not kill another human being." are wrong and should not be welcome in the party?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

No, read what I wrote.  If you did read it, you know quite well that's not what I said.    

I welcome all kinds of folks into the Democratic party who disagree with SOME of its views.  That's the very nature of a coalition party, which the Democratic party certainly is.  What I said was that the Democratic party SHOULD NOT change its platform or make decisions regarding war/peace to appease the extremely small, pacifist segment of the population.  I respect the view of people who believe ALL war is wrong, but I don't agree with it and don't think the party should ever move in that direction.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Agreed. I think that many Democrats, and certainly many of us on this blog, can agree that the Iraq War was and is a bad idea. Which leads me to the next question:

Why is Hillary Clinton still supporting the war?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

She's not my candidate.  Although I will say I can UNDERSTAND - although I don't ultimately agree with - people who feel like we have an obligation to stay in Iraq till we can leave it in a position that isn't worse than when we went in.  Ultimately, I don't think that's even possible.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Agreed. Hence my primary vote for anyone that did not vote for the war. I believe that there is no good reason to throw good money after bad.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
More Bullshit

What I said was that the Democratic party SHOULD NOT change its platform or make decisions regarding war/peace to appease the extremely small, pacifist segment of the population.

If your unwarranted assumption is correct. then there is no  reason to worry about losing the anti-war voters or blaming Nader for Gore's loss in 2000.

I respect the view of people who believe ALL war is wrong,

Very few democrats believe that ALL war is wrong. That is a classic strawman argument that lacks any merit. The issue is not whether ALL war is wrong, but whether Bush's Iraq war is wrong.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: More Bullshit

Is what Gary Boatwright makes when he gots sodomized by Dick Cheney

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 05:05PM | 0 recs
What is a just war?

Some war is justified, in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that Bush's Iraq war is justified? Are you suggesting the is some sort of parallel between Iraq and Darfur? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just blabbering?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: What is a just war?

Gary - try reading a threat before you make ridiculous comments.  We had a good discussion going on before you interjected yourself into the debate.

Just on the off chance that you genuinely didn't understand my point, what I was saying was that war - in general - can be justified and indeed there can be instances where NOT acting can be immoral.  I was very clear that I oppose now and have always opposed the Iraq war.  But that doesn't mean I don't think going to war in WWII was right or that it isn't wrong that the US hasn't intervened in Darfur.  

Let me know if you are still confused.  I can explain it again slower.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 12:52PM | 0 recs
Flame War Officially Declared

I pulled a direct quote from your comment. If you have a problem with my reply, you should try making substantive comment. Your troll rating is being returned ten fold.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Flame War Officially Declared

You SERIOUSLY didn't understand what I was saying?  I find that hard to believe Gary.  As others have noted, my point was pretty clear.  

Go ahead and rate me harshly if you want to though.  Unlike you, however, I had a reason for giving you a 1.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 01:10PM | 0 recs
I Always Aim To Please

Go ahead and rate me harshly if you want to though.

Your wish is my command. You now have ten troll ratings and are close to earning many more. If your point was so clear, try explaining it again my replying to my comment directly. If you think your troll rating was justifed, try explaining why a direct quote from your comment deserves a troll rating.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I Always Aim To Please

You're an ass.  We had a nice discussion in this Diary before you showed up.  Now suddenly I deserve to be flamed?  Sure, clearly I'm the problem.  

Do whatever you want with the ratings.  I could seriously care less and you're just making yourself look like an ass.  I gave you a one b/c I didn't and don't believe now that you didn't get what I was saying.  You just were trying to be cute.  I haven't retaliated since, b/c that's stupid.  

Have fun though buddy.  I'm sure your attitude will help you change lots of people's minds.  You're a real "leader."    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 01:19PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the suggestion pal

Have fun though buddy.

Since I am simply complying with your direct request for troll ratings, there is absolutely no reason for you to be upset. And since you mention it, I am having a total gas, gas, gas,. You on the other hand, quite obviously have absolutely no sense of humor. Typical of trolls. Just ask jiancinto, who is the most humorless commentor I have ever run across.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I do not support the war in Iraq.  I did not support the first war in Iraq either.  This has nothing to do with "war and violence" in general.  Would you have had the U.S. stay out of World War II?  Was the American Revolution wrong?  Was fighting back against Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War wrong?

I am anti-interventionist, not "pacifist" or "nonviolent".  The distinction is important.

by ACSR 2006-05-09 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree with this also. Although I am a nonviolent resistor as MLKJr and Ghandhi would say. I believe that war is the very last option in the arsenal and then only in self defense.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

My former Congressman (I've moved) Dennis Kucinich's position is quite clear, and as good, if not better, than any GP candidate I've seen.

Dennis is a great man, and evidence that joining the Democrats rather that running a quixotic third-party crusade is viable. The GP has a serious problem with running candidate who lack any viable credibility as well.

I think part of the reason the GP exists is to serve as an outlet for people to run who are too inept or incapable of winning a Democratic Primary. I challenge anyone to find a Green politician who's objectively better than my man Dennis.

by surfbird007 2006-05-09 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Good GP candidates? Oh, they're outnumbered by bad ones, to be sure, but there do exist quite good ones.

We had a mayoral candidate, Elizabeth Dickinson, who was head and shoulders above the two Democrats in the race, and almost made a runoff (St Paul, MN), nearly knocking out, in the first round, the DLC favorite and sitting mayor in the process (Randy Kelly, lost by nearly three to one in the 2nd round, note to DLC fans, I'm kinda doubting this is going to be your year).

Peter Camejo - love him or hate him, he's a good candidate.

Kucinich is hands down one of the ten most effective progressives in the Congress, but he's a very small minority in a caucus which arguably skews right. There are too few Kucinichs, too many Melissa Beans, and little discipline whatsoever in that caucus.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

At least 2 out of 10 points are the environment!

20% of the Platform.

The Democratic Platform is 0%.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

You missed an option in your poll above.  You didn't give the option "I'm still so pissed off at the Naderites and their intellectually dishonest 2000 presidential campaign that helped throw the 2000 election to Bush that I won't vote for a Green Party candidate before the year 2025 even if the Democratic candidate is a LaRouchite Nazi."  That pretty much sums up my position.

by Jay 2006-05-09 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Jay - I have to ask you how this attitude has worked for us? Has this attitude brought any votes over to the Democratic party? Sounds like you are not willing to even think about embracing the Greens in this election.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should democrats embrace the Greens? I could understand if Nader campaigned for president in places like California, New York or Maryland, where it would be solid democratic. Instead, he also chose to campaign in New Hampshire and Florida, which is part of what cost Gore the election. I have not seen one Green actually take responsibility for this instead of blaming it all on Gore. In 1998, Green candidate Bob Anderson ran in a special election for Bill Richardson's seat in New Mexico, pulled 15% from the democrat, and elected Heather Wilson, who's been there ever since. And since you're a fellow Marylander, I'm sure you're aware of Kevin Zeese, who's running as a spoiler in the Senate race. Take a look at his positions. In what stands to be one of the closest senate races in America, he's going to be pulling ALL of his support from whichever democrat wins the primary. If Steele wins by a hair, I'm sure you'll just blame Cardin/Mfume for not reaching out more to the Greens. So once again, with that kind of attitude, why exactly should the democrats embrace a party that seems to want to hurt democrats in crucial races more than enact progressive environmental policies?

by JRyan 2006-05-09 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

My point is that the Democrats should be able to capture the Greens. Greens should feel that they are competently represented by the Democratic Party. There should be compromise to capture the votes. I acknowledge that our system is not a parliamentary system. I a parliamentary system the different parties negotiate AFTER the election to make a majority. In our 2 party system the candidates must negotiate BEFORE the election in order to represent their voters. Democrats and Greens need to be open to compromise BEFORE election day in order to have a chance to throw the votes to the party they prefer. Nader and Gore are a great example of this not happening. Now we have a situation where the Greens hate the Democrats for not listening to their concerns and the Democrats hate the Greens for "losing" the election for us.

To answer your final question: TO GET THE VOTES!

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Compromise? Nader would NEVER have compromised because he was going to run for president no matter what. He simply had a massive ego. That's why he decided to run in 2004 and will probably run again in 2008. Kerry "negotiated" with Nader in 2004, and Nader still refused to drop out. Instead, he ended up attacking kerry towards the end. Not listen to their concerns? Gore was a staunch environmentalist, even if he didn't choose to hype that part in 2000, and even a retard would have known that he would have been a great president in terms of environmental policy.  

Do you want to know where democratic anger and hatred comes from? It comes from the fact that six years later, six years after being under the worst president in history, Greens still try to dodge the blame for 2000, and in fact pin in on the democrats. Nader supporters campaigned under the slogan "a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush". Nader said that the democratic part was "so bankrupt, it doesn't matter if it wins any elections."  Nader suggested at times that his campaign was offering a chance to save the Democratic Party, but at other times made the contradictory argument that the party was not worth saving (Wikipedia). Have the Greens admitted that this was total bullshit? No. They still feel entitled to a place at the democratic table after stabbing the party in the back, and call for negotiation and compromise when they actually have to intention of compromise (see 2004). When the Greens start behaving like adults and take responsibility for their actions, maybe democrats will make an attempt to address their concerns. Until then, there are a lot more voting groups that it would be better for the democrats to focus on.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I read the Michael Moore book and I agree with him on this. There is a difference between blaming Nader and blaming all Greens. We are completely justified in blaming Nader. We cannot afford to blame all the Greens that voted for him. Even after ignoring the Greens for decades the Democratic Party "only" lost 3% of the vote to the Greens. My point is that we need that 3%, and it should not be very difficult to get it. That vote would have won the election in 2000.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I don't disagree, and I'm glad you aren't here to defend Darth Nader. I'm also sorry that you aren't listened to by the MD Democratic party, but you need to understand that they probably are deeply involved in the upcoming elections. We have an open senate seat, an open house seat, a competitive governor's race, and from what I hear, the AG's position is now open. The party's organization is also in a flux, as they now realize that simply being a democrat isn't going to cut it anymore (did KKT campaign on anything else?). Now would probably be the best time to get involved with the party apparatus and try to get your views a fair hearing. However, voting Green in the gov race and voting for Zeese for senate is absolutely unforgivable, and simply widens the schism between democrats and Greens. The more seats the Greens cost us, the angrier democrats get and the less likely it is your views will be addressed. It's an unfair system, but hey, life's unfair.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should I vote for Duncan? Why should I vote for O'Malley? Actually my vote for Governor is going to State Senator Sharon Grosfeld at this point. Why should I vote for Mfume? Why should I vote for Cardin? Should I vote for Lichtman? I have gone to legislative town meetings. I have gone to campaign events. I have written emails and letters to candidates asking for their positions on the environment and other issues. I have not even gotten a response in any form. (Except from Ehrlich.) Democratic candidates need to realize that they AT THE MINIMUM need to respect our votes. If they don't even ask us for the vote they will not get it.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Because, in the end you'll get a much better government/environmental policy than if your vote means Ehrlich is reelected. You say that democrats "need to respect our votes". That's fine, but you need to respect the fact that voters like you who are concerned with the environment to the exclusion of ALL ELSE are a small minority. I respect your principles and I respect that you feel you have to vote Green. However, there are at least 1.7 million other Maryland voters out there who vote based on their own principles/concerns, and I resent the fact that you want us to pay far more attention to you and your concerns than to them.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

My point is that the Democratic Party, across the board, is paying NO attention to the Green vote and even goes so far as to be hostile toward it.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:09AM | 0 recs
Fair enough, n/t

by JRyan 2006-05-09 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

You should vote for Mfume because he'd be a damn good senator. Also, instead of burdening campaigns strapped for time and money you should stop wasting time writing letters and just google. It took me 5 seconds to find Mfume's platform which includes a large section on the environment. http://www.mfumeforsenate.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id= 15&Itemid=60

Look, there are a lot of bad Democrats but there a lot of good ones too. When you leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party just drifts further to the right. Help us Progressive Dems save the party.

by js noble 2006-05-09 01:15PM | 0 recs
Nader Was Right

There is very little or no difference between the positions of the Republican Party and the DLC Democratic leadership of the GOP Wing of the Democratic Party. Gore and Kerry both deserved to lose. A political party with any political astuteness at all would be moving to the left and embracing the Greens, instead of moving to the right and trying to out GOP the GOP.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Nader Was Right

That's a pretty harsh thing, in retrospect, to say about Gore.

Kerry was a putz, no one can argue this, one of the DC Dem's latest big mistakes was helping him pull out all the stops to get that nomination.

But Gore? C'mon, if the left has an (albeit imperfect) ally with some moxie, gravitas and principle, it's Al Gore.

This is the US for heaven's sake.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

So why not address the substance of Ralph's criticism?

What would Democrats do if elected? What is their game plan for America once they take back the Senate? What do they actually expect to accomplish, in real terms?

And one condition on whatever answer you come up with: state what they will do in the affrimative, rather than that they "won't be like the Republicans".

I'm waiting for this Summer's big Democratic press release, their "Contract for All Americans" or whatever they come up with but I can tell you, having watched these guys for over a decad, I'm not holding my breath. Look at 'em - Hoyer, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein - and then tell me, with a straight cyberfac,e that you are holding your breath.

I say this as one who votes Green often but who voted Gore. Ralph might've been wrong about Gore (though back in '00 this was far from obvious), but take one look at the caucus as it is currently constituted and tell me he doesn't have a point.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I'd refer you to the recent Washington Post article, where it laid out exactly what the democrats would do if they took control of the House. It's online, so why don't you go look at that and then tell me that democrats would do nothing different from republicans.

"Ralph might've been wrong about Gore (though back in '00 this was far from obvious)"

Actually, it was pretty obvious to people who don't just spout tired and false slogans like "there's no difference between democrats and republicans". Al Gore had already written an entire book on the environment (Earth in the Balance : Ecology and the Human Spirit) where he stated that "We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." Far from obvious? That's a pathetic excuse.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

The Dems are going to run on Paygo, partial rollback of the GOPs Medicare, more Homeland Security, investigating the President and increasing the minimum wage, the only truly affirmative stance outlined in that article.

Outside of the minimum wage plank, how exactly would this differ from, say, Chuck Hagel's private view of the world?

by redstar67 2006-05-09 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Paygo is an affirmative action and a significant one.  Fixing the Medicare program and Homeland Security are, likewise, affirmative actions that are going to require a lot of work and political skill.  

As far as Hagel goes, I'll grant you that he might sign off on Paygo and would probably be in favor of improving Homeland Security.  But his response to the Medicare plan would be to eliminate prescription drug benefits entirely.  Plus, who cares if he agrees with some of what we do?  That just means he's not a complete nut job like most of the republican party.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Well, it could mean either that or that the Democratic party has become far more conservative than Democrats are willing to admit.

Chuck Hagel is a very conservative man.

Paygo is being headlined here in MN - it's Amy Klobuchar's signature issue to date in her campaign to take over Mark Dayton's Senate seat.

I think it's clear what is going on here. The Democratic leadership in DC is making a strategic choice to wrest the mantle of fiscal conservatism from the GOP and in so doing, win over what I'll call populist centrists (Perot voters) for what may be a long time. Not a bad plan really; if the Democrats make this work, they may make Democrats out of a good 15-20% of the center that has been voting GOP of late.

That said, the 10% or so of the electorate on my (left) side of the fence are again going to get the short shrift, all the while again being subject to long and persistent harangues about being part of the problem if we don't shut our eyes, put our hands over our ears and shut our mouths and vote Democrat.

I'd have no problem with this if someone was capable of talking code to us, like Dubya talks code to his value voters, peppering the standard centrist fare rhetoric the DSCC and DCCC seem to have approved with a few references to "fair trade" or "Taft Hartley" or "Earth in the Balance" or "protect Griswold" or "Iraq for Iraqis." Maybe when the talk paygo, they could say "progressive taxation" at the same time so we'd know how they meant to go about paygo (and this is not obvious, MN Dems mean to raise the sales tax in order to pay for their projects - not exactly progressive, y'know...)

It'd also be nice if the DC Dems let a few Democrats run against the war, but that'd be too much to ask.

I get the strategy, it's not a bad one necessarily; the problem is, it basically further disenfranchises my political POV in the US. Now I'll grant you I'm probably 5-10% of the electorate. I should be a slam-dunk Democrat. But it's hard to keep the faith when the Democrats not only don't speak to my issues directly, but they don't even speak in tones which indicate they even have them in mind for action at some later date.

What is one to do with such dismissiveness?
 

by redstar67 2006-05-09 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Point taken.  Dems could/should do a better job of communicating the fact that they do plan on enacting progressive legislation once they take power rather than just reigning in our deficit spending, etc.

I will say, however, that on the Federal level I feel confident that what Paygo will mean is a reduction in earmark spending and in unfunded tax cuts to the rich.  It's a hell of a lot harder to pump lard into Alaska and hand out rebate checks to multi millionaires when you have to either cut services or raise taxes to counterbalance that action.  I also think it will help get the AMT fixed as well, so that it doesn't complete its transition into a regressive tax on the middle class.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree with RedStar67 entirely!

Paygo - This is great, but how does this differentiate the Democrats from the Republicans?
And where is PAYGO in the Democratic platform?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I think that according to the Pew demographics that we represent 18%. Also, this number is up from 10% in 2000.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Just to clarify, that 18% figure is self-identified liberals.  For context, that figure includes both you and me even though you and I clearly disagree quite a few issues.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

But the same figure was 10% in 2000.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I'm not sure where we disagree. I think we agree pretty much on everything as far as I can tell.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:12PM | 0 recs
Quoting WAPO?

Dude. Why not just quote the National Review? Actually, NRO is probably more critical of Bush than the WAPO. WAPO is a pale shadow of a newspaper that deserves either reading or quoting. WAPO is a pathetic rag of a newspaper.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Quoting WAPO?

I didn't see anything in that particular article that offended me or was inaccurate, although I do personally think that they quoted Dick Armey too much. I was actually proud of what they said about House Democrat's plans in the article.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

He doesn't have a point.  At all.  In any way shape or form.  The Democratic party is FAR from perfect but that's a very different thing from being the same as the Republican party, which is what Ralph said.  For proof, consider that over 60% of Dems DID vote against the war in Iraq and there is NO WAY Gore would have taken us into that conflict in the first place.  Or the fact that the hugely regressive Bush tax cuts never would have been passed under Democratic control and two anti-choice and generally repugnant Supreme Court Justices wouldn't be sitting on the Court.    

As far as specific plans, why would a Minority party put forward detailed plans to be dissected in May?  That's just bad politics.  The "Contract for America" consisted of 10 talking points which no voters read or really understood.  Anything the Dems put out will - and should - be similarly broad in scope.  So I think you'll have to wait till Dems actually get control of one house of congress before you start criticizing them for their performance.

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

He does have a point. A big, huge, giant point. The "Contract with America" listed very specific points. Everyone knew what they stood for.
Here is a link for those interested in what these points were:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONT RACT.html

Here is the Democratic "6 Point Plan for 2006":

http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

If you compare the two the Contract offered very SPECIFIC issues and very SPECIFIC proposals that they were going to implement.

The 6 Point Plan offers only general ideas and platitudes.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

1.  I can't understand how you seriously think it makes political sense for a minority political party that doesn't control any branch of the government to put out a detailed policy plan in MAY.  No one, other than political junkies, is paying ANY ATTENTION right now, but the plan will be dissected and distorted by the Republicans.  

2.  As far as your factual assertions go, here's a quote for you that shows just how important the Contract for America was in 1994:  

"Democratic pollster Mark Mellman recently pointed out that one week before Election Day, 71 percent of Americans said they hadn't heard anything about it." (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature s/2006/0605.sullivan1.html)

3.  Additionally, Republicans didn't even RELEASE the contract with america until 6 weeks before the election.  They had NOTHING in May of 1994.

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Whoops!! You're making sense.  Problem for our little green buddy.

by dataguy 2006-05-09 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Among others, "The Right Nation" takes a rather different view on the importance of the "Contract."

I'll tell you this - When the Democrats come out with 4-6 hard-hitting policy prescriptions on 60/40 issues in a way that the American public, and not corporations, want to hear, I'll eat my words.

They have a lot of popular (60+% for) issues that might qualify - Minimum wage hike + stautory COLA, universal health care, Paygo + progressive taxation (big hike on the rich), Out of Iraq within 365 days, Kyoto ratification and further multilateral neogatiations on climate and the environment, immigration reform w/fair trade linkages, privacy and freedom of contraception and reproductive rights, civil unions as a first step to full recognition of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, et c...

I'll be happy to see two or three of these issues addressed specifically with policy prescriptions.

When this happens, I'll happily eat crow and vote a straight Democratic ticket for the next five election cycles. But until then, I'm gonna kvetch in fora such as these and send complaints to my Democratic representatives and senators until they start showing signs of "getting it".

by redstar67 2006-05-09 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Candidly, if 71% of voters didn't know about it on election day I'm not sure how important it could have been.  Though I will grant you that it probably had SOME positive effect for Republicans in that it let voters know - in a non-specific way - that Republicans had some kind of plan.  Regardless however, I think you will end up having to eat crow.  :)  

You're exactly right that there are a ton of 60/40 topics out there for Dems to talk about.  Nancy Pelosi already is talking about some of them and I think the platform that is ultimately released will do the same.  Now, that talk might be too broad for your tastes or come at an issue more incrementally than you'd like, but I think it is coming.  I suppose time will tell.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I actually welcome eating crow, and I hope you're right on this one.

I don't doubt that only 30% or so of the public knew what the Contract on America was when voting in '94, but where it really helped was in driving that legislation forward - once the GOP got the House, they had a mandate for everything in that document.

The Dems really really need a mandate for specific change. I'll leave it to the leadership to figure out what works best to get the biggest margin of victory, though I really would like it if they gave some indication they are still on my side, maybe specifically on two or three issues. But either way, if they want to succeed in the next Congress and not get blamed for doing nothing in the '08 election if and when they take the House and Senate, they need a mandate.

More power to 'em.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I want to bring up the contract with America again. Did you look at it? Did you notice that the first eight points are specific legislation that they candidates signed on to support immediately upon entering congress? Did you read them? Basically they include all the legislation they wanted to enact to get rid of a corrupt Democratic congress and clean it up. It didn't work, but that is not the point. The point is that people, even the 71% that had not heard of the contract, knew what the Republicans stood for.

I seriously ask you. Do you think that 29% of the electorate will know what the 6 Point Plan for 2006 is come election day?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Thanks for voting for Gore redstar67. You are exactly the voter that I am talking about. The Democratic Party needs to acknowledge our points and embrace our vote rather then call us names. Actually raising issues would be a start for the Party as it comes back.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should the Democrats "compromise" to earn the votes of 2.74% of the electorate, which is what Nader polled in 2000, if it means alienating 10-15% of the most conservative Democrats? I don't think there are enough Greens to compensate for the loss votes.

by jiacinto 2006-05-09 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Maybe compromise is the wrong term. I believe that the Democratic party needs to actually represent what a majority of the party feels is the correct policy position. This should be much easier in 2006 with $70 oil and an absolutely horrible environmental record for the past 6 years by the Republicans. Let us differentiate ourselves from the Republicans.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Your point is easily refutable, and has been so refuted on any number of occasions. Your mythical "2.74%" represents those who weren't swayed by heavy Democratic pressure to vote Dem. Many progressives (including me) were greatly tempted, after 8 years of Clintonism, to vote Green in that election but voted Democratic in the end.

A quick perusal of Pew's voter psychographics will demonstrate what may be underneath the Democrats' electoral maps.

As a wise CEO once said, those who believe their own bullshit are condemned, in the end, to eat it.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

What percentage of the electorate do you think you are? Frankly I think it's much less than you think. And if the Democrats were to embarace the entire Green platform it would alienate more centrist and conservative Democrats than the party would gain from the Greens.

by jiacinto 2006-05-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

This is not an all or nothing idea. All I have said is that the Democratic Party at least ACKNOWLEDGE the environment as an issue and that we need to change our attitude and stop blaming Greens for 2000 or we will continue to not get that vote.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

My god! What a jerk you are, bud.  Who the fuck was setting up the ESA, the air standards, toxic waste standards and the hundreds of programs now being dismantled by the repukeliscum that YOU helped elect.

You fucking bozos are so ignorant it makes me spit.

Learn some history, you ignorant 12 year old twit.

And as others have noted, the strong environmental nutjobs are .4 % of the electorate.  Dunno what I'm gonna trade away to get that, but it ain't much.  Me, I'm more worried about socially conservative black voters.

by dataguy 2006-05-09 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

NIXON set up the EPA. NIXON signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act which are now being dismantled by Mr. Bush and the Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt was a very active conservationist, and Republican, who set up the National Park System which Rep. Pombo is also attempting to dismantle.

I realize that you are a troll, but at least I can keep you straight on the history.

I believe that others noted that the environmental nutjobs represented 2.76% of the electorate in 2000.

I have yet to meet a socially conservative black voter that is against the environment. This is not all or nothing.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

"Learn some history, you ignorant 12 year old twit."

Damn this would be funny if it weren't so pitiful.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I'm thinking about another diary about Green Republicans. I personally know about 20 Green Republicans that hate Bush for what he has been doing to our environment and also for ruining the Republican party. I think these people would fall into the 10-15% that the party is looking to pick up that you mentioned above. If the Democratic party is as rude to the Greens in the Party as much as I have encountered I can't wait to see them try to integrate the people that actually voted for Bush in 2000. If this is the response to Greens there is no hope.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Yeah, that is kinda ironic isn't it. We get the business because we occasionally vote Green and are vociferous in our criticism of Democrats when they deserve to be criticized. But one thing we have never ever done is vote fascist.

I suspect though that the Dems will have a bit more love for the Bush '00 supporters than they have shown for folks who simply flirted with Nader in '00.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I think that this is an important thing. We MUST be the party of inclusion. If we purposefully alienate any constituency then we are in trouble. And judging from the reactions to this diary we still have some hurdles to overcome.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Without having a parliamentary system we will never know what percentage of the population we really are. What I do know is that Al Gore would be President RIGHT NOW if we could have figured out how to capture that vote instead of alienating it.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should the Democrats "compromise" to earn the votes of 2.74% of the electorate?

Because they are tired of being total losers?

Who says we would lose 10-15% of conservative Democrats? What issues are your so called "conservative Democrats" going to bolt the party over? Where is the theoretical "loss of votes" from supporting a clean environment, health care for all and opposing Bush's Iraq war?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should the Democrats "compromise" to earn the votes of 2.74% of the electorate, which is what Nader polled in 2000, if it means alienating 10-15% of the most conservative Democrats?

Why should people worry about others voting Green then?  By this argument, it seems that the problem in 2000 was that Gore didn't do enough to run to the center.  In that case, whether Nader/Green voters cost the election is moot.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-05-09 02:29PM | 0 recs
Greens Are Natural Allies of Democrats

You hit the nail on the head with this comment OsoDelMar. The fundamental political mistake the Democratic Party is making is attempting to appeal to Lieberman and Biden Republicans instead of their natural electoral allies. Howard Dean and the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party are leading the charge in the direction the Democratic Party should take.

Hillary, Biden and Lieberman are all electoral dead ends for the Democratic Party as a whole.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:22PM | 0 recs
I'm calling Bullshit!

I'm still so pissed off at the Naderites and their intellectually dishonest 2000 presidential campaign that helped throw the 2000 election to Bush

Gore lost the 2000 election for all kinds of reasons. Gore ran a politically incompetent campaign. Tipper didn't help. Gore didn't carry his home state. Gore had Lieberman as a VP candidate. Gore allowed his campaign to be manipulated by the M$M. Etc., etc., etc.

Al Gore was the fundamental reason Al Gore lost the 2000 election. Any other analysis or conclusion is bullshit.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!

That was an extremely insightful and enlightening comment, as always Gary.  This is why you get troll rated.  All you do is rant and rave without ever actually engaging in a dialogue with anyone.  Again, please feel free to continue to troll rate me though.  I realize that you don't respond well to anyone disagreeing with you.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!

/  Again, please feel free to continue to troll rate me though.  I realize that you don't respond well to anyone disagreeing with you./

Once again, your wish is my command. Have another ten troll ratings HSTruman. I don't recall being introduced. Have we met before? You sound a lot like one of jiacinto's trollish friends.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!

No Gary, we haven't "met" before.  I've just noticed how "insightful" your comments always are and how respectful you are towards other posters.

Going back through some of your other posts, I've also noticed that you like to start flame wars with LOTS of people and rarely add anything of value to a conversation.  You should be VERY proud of yourself - you're impressive.

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 01:45PM | 0 recs
Thank-you friend

You should be VERY proud of yourself - you're impressive

Perhaps I have misjudged you HSTruman. As a matter of fact I am quite proud of myself and appreciate your insightful comment about how impressive I am.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!

Gore lost the 2000 election for all kinds of reasons. Gore ran a politically incompetent campaign. Tipper didn't help. Gore didn't carry his home state. Gore had Lieberman as a VP candidate. Gore allowed his campaign to be manipulated by the M$M. Etc., etc., etc.

Gary, you bumbling illiterate fool, you need to learn to read for content.  Where did I say that Nader was the reason that Gore lost. I said that he contributed to his loss, which is indisputable.  Without mentioning Florida, Nader went around with his whole "not a dime's worth of difference" bullshit, which Gore was forced to spend time and money to refute.  

And any of the Greens who were so stupid as to believe that a Gore presidency wouldn't have been any different than a Bush presidency are just too stupid for me to want to make common cause with.

by Jay 2006-05-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!

I recommend we try to be a bit more diplomatic when characterizing a group of informed voters who feel passionately about a few issues facing our country.

Perhaps studying abroad in Germany for a year informed me of the importance of the Green Party.  And maybe I should accept the rancor of this thread as a product of a dysfunctional political system specific to America.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Many will disagree with me, but there are a few Congressional Democrats who do in fact lean Green.   One of these is Maria Cantwell of Washington State.  I recommend you visit her website here and herehere.  She is responsible for orchestrating the ANWR filibusters, and she is also responsible for legislation preserving roadless areas of wilderness.  Cantwell is a staunch defender of consumers, and she is also one of the only members of Congress I can confidently say is post-patriarchal.  Indeed, she is the only single woman in the US Senate.  Many complain about her first term, vulnerable incumbent voting record, but she has taken a few risks for the environment, and for this I believe she should be praised.  I also recommend you read her amendment to the last year's Energy Bill.  Entitled the Cantwell Amendment, she proposed Energy Independence with sustainable sources of energy by 2020.  Bush threatened to veto the Energy Bill if her amendment was adopted, and yes, the amendment failed to pass by two votes.  Her energy bill as comprehensive, environmentally sound, and it also proposed for new automobile standards, such as increasing CAFE standards.  And Cantwell even admitted how MODERATE her amendment was, noting that groups with even more innovative proposals existed in the United States.  

Cantwell is your Green Democrat.  Yes, she is a complex politician not understood by many, but she is one of my favorite Senators.  I ask you to ignore the vacuous comments in this thread and instead visit Maria Cantwell's websites.  If there is a reason to stay within the fold, she may be it.  Although you cannot vote for you, you can contribute, and perhaps you can help create a current within the Party that upholds the values you and Cantwell seem to share.  

And for the record: I resided in California in 2000, and I proudly voted for Nadar.  I do not regret my decision, and I believe I should be praised for even considering voting Democratic in the current political climate.  There are socialists in my area, and I would vote for one of them before I would ever vote for a Democrat.  But here I am, and I did participate in Illinois's Democratic Primary last March.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Cantwell has been good on environmental issues, but I fail to see how that qualifies as a "risk" for her.  Washington state and - more specifically Cantwell's base in Seattle - is one of the most environmentally conscious areas of the entire country.  I'm happy she votes the right way on environmental issues, but saying she took ANY political risk in doing so is sort of like saying Harry Reid took a daring stand by supporting mining rights.  

As far as supporting green candidates generally, I frankly just don't get it.  If you want to vote for a green candidate for school board where that person might win, go for it.  But unless I'm missing something, no green candidate for federal office has ever done ANYTHING except hand an election to the more conservative candidate.  Third party movements don't work in this country and never will given our electoral system - sorry.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Coordinating a filibuster on a Defense Authorization Bill is certainly a risk, and she managed to convince Democrats to join her.  This, I believe, was a risk, for Republicans could have easily transformed it into yet another Democratic attempt to derail US foreign policy.  But she prevailed.

She also tried to call Bush's bluff on last year's Energy Bill, facing off with some of the most hostile Republicans on the Senate floor.  Tell me the last time any Democrat literally faced off with the likes of Kit Bond and Ted Stevens.

And also notice that she is proud to be a member of NARAL, displaying photographs of her participation in NARAL marches on her campaign website.

Cantwell takes risks other Democrats do not, and Washington State as a whole is not as liberal as you believe.  Remember that more than half of the state is east of the Cascades.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

If another Democrat took those actions, they would be risks.  Cantwell taking them is NOT a risk.  

You're absolutely right that most of Washington state isn't liberal.  She doesn't win in those areas.  She won her first term by racking up HUGE vote totals in and around Seattle, which is hugely liberal especially on social issues (explaining her NARAL pride)and environmental issues.

Look, I like Cantwell too.  I'm just pointing out that expecting similar actions from Senators with difference kinds of constituents doesn't necessarily make sense and that the actions you cite - though noteworthy - were also politically expedient.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

But she is one of the few Democrats who is vocal about the issues I enumerate above.  And that, my friend, is that.  Now tell all the Seattle Democrats at this site and at DailyKos to finally support her.  For I do not believe it gets much better than Cantwell.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Well, we certainly agree on the importance of supporting Cantwell's re-election.  She's not perfect, but she definitely does vote the right way more often than not.  Though I suspect someone is going to bring up her War vote if they look at this thread...

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Yes, and I will inform them that she is a vulnerable, first term incumbent who won by 2,229 votes.  I imagine she will become much more vocal about the issues for which she cares very deeply during her second term.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Note I wasn't slamming her for the war vote.  Reasonable and good people can and do make mistakes.  I just wish some people on this board would apply that same principle to other candidates as well.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-10 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree with you illinis062006. The problem is I don't live in Washington State. I live in Maryland. Maryland is a very Blue state (66% or so). Yet, even here, where many people have "Save the Bay" license plates and believe that something should be done about saving the environment the Democratic Leadership doesn't embrace the environmental movement.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized DLC Democrats

If another Democrat took those actions, they would be risks.

Exactly what is the risk of a Democrat standing up to Bush and the GOP by opposing the Iraq war, opposing Bush's non-existent energy policy or supporting a woman's right to make her own health care decisions without interference from Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Jerry Falwell?

The only risk they would run is the risk of winning back Congress and the White House. Some of us think that is a gamble worth taking.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

did someone seriously give my first comment a rating of zero?  the comment has disappeared, which is very disappointing, as it was a measured response to delmar's comment.  i someone's do not understand why such mindless, emotional behavior is condoned on this site.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

That's ridiculous if someone did give you a zero.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree. I think we, generally, have a good discussion going on here.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

If your comment was worth saying, re-post it.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

JRyan is the one who abused the ratings system.  This does not surprise me, but I hope he is reprimanded.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Thank you illinois062006. You are the first person that understood my posting. Like I said, The Environment should be an EASY platform piece for the democratic party to at least MENTION. More diatribes against people who voted for Nader will not help to win the election in November. People voted FOR something when they voted for Nader. Something that the Democratic Party does not represent. The posts above and the votes on the poll only go to prove my point. By marginalizing the environmental vote we are only sending votes to the Republicans. I am proposing that we EMBRACE the environmentalists both in our party and not in our party so that we can capture their vote. Blaming "Naderites" for the failure of the Democratic party to actually have a platform that differentiates our party from the Republicans has only caused more people to think that the Democrats don't stand with them on the environment.

jaicinto above said, "I'll leave it at this: You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. Voting Green makes you part of the problem."

This is just what Rove wants you to say and this is just what Bush said after 9-11 (and still). "You are either with us or against us!" How many of the Greens will come to the Democratic party when given that option? I think that we need a different idea for how to bring environmentalists into the Democratic Party again. We need to EMBRACE them and say to them, "We welcome whatever you have to offer!" (This would have been a good course of action for Bush after 9-11 as well.) And back that up by at least offering something to them in return besides, "But Bush is worse!"

Thanks for voting in the poll.

Eric

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

The environment is ONE important issue.  Voting for Nader b/c of that issue, however, enabled Bush to, among other things:  (1) start a war that never should have been fought - which also has had horrible environmental consequences, incidentally; (2) Pass ridiculously regressive tax policies that injure the middle and working classes in this country; (3) Name two anti-choice Supreme Court Justices; and (4) generally fail to govern the country effectively for the last 6 years.

When you really think about what the effect of Nader running has been on a personal level - meaning how his policies have damaged real people's every day lives - the justifications for that vote really seem pretty sanctimonious and privileged to me.  If you were in California or New York then I suppose I don't care.  But to say the Party doesn't have a right to still be pissed at the folks who voted for Nader in swing states is just wrong.  

Look, it's great that you think the Democratic party should be working to bring Naderites back into the fold.  I don't disagree with that point, although I would say that that should NOT require the Party to elevate the issue to the top of its platform.  For most people, the Environment is "important" in a non-specific and non-urgent way.  That's probably naive, but who cares if the Part soft pedals the specifics provided that it enacts good policy?  That is ultimately the goal, right?

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 05:54AM | 0 recs
Nader Was Right

But to say the Party doesn't have a right to still be pissed at the folks who voted for Nader in swing states is just wrong.

"The Party" may be pissed at Nader, but that is a red herring for any cogent analysis of the 2000 election or the upcoming election in November. Gore lost the 2000 election because of Al Gore.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Why should the Democrats embrace the radical left? Honestly there are no votes really to be gained there. Why should they rush to get 2.74% of the vote back if it means losing 10-15% of moderate to conservative Democrats in the process?

I stand by my statement about either being part of the solution or part of the problem. Voting third party makes you part of the problem. We don't live in a parlimentary system where people have the luxury of supporting minor parties like Israel, where fringe parties that poll more than 5% can earn a seat or two in the Knessett. We live in winner take-all system.

I call "progressives" who vote Green "regressives". I say this becuase their actions result in more conservative governments. And in the process they are engaging in pointless, symbolic protests that no one, by and large, cares about, listens to, or hears. It's the political equivalent of mooning. As it is most people see Greens as being anarchist, communist, America-hating left-wing freakshows. That's the brutal truth.

The Democrats aren't going to embrace this fringe. There are some Green ideas that do make sense, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the party to adopt all of their platform. Again you can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. Voting Green makes you part of the problem.

by jiacinto 2006-05-09 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Then so be it. I'm now part of the problem.

Am I just the backwash of the Democratic Party?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:29AM | 0 recs
Radical?

Why should the Democrats embrace the radical left?

Who do you consider the radical left jiacinto? Howard Dean? Russ Feingold? Anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Just for the record, I said nothing about the Democrats should marginalize the environment.  What I said was Greens and the environment are two different things.  I am quite vocal about the environment, if by the environment you mean the environmental issues popular in the 1960s and 1970s: overpopulation, the energy crisis (today's equivalent: peak oil), wilderness, and pollution.  The "Greens" are a whole different ball game.  Veganism, Birkenstocks, "nonviolence", and legalizing shrooms have nothing whatsoever to do with real environmental issues like overpopulation, pollution, and wilderness preservation.

by ACSR 2006-05-09 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Actually I believe that at least Veganism and Nonviolence have everything to do with real environmental issues like overpopulation, pollution and wilderness preservation. (I'm not sure is Veganism is actually on the Green platform or not.) Once again, as the polling on this diary attest to, there are quite a few Democrats that will vote Green whenever they can. By marginalizing us like you are in this post you are only sending more votes that way.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Except that you say below that the Democratic Party should be reaching out to hunters and fishermen.  Something I completely agree with.  Promoting veganism, and "nonviolence" to the extent that "nonviolence" means being anti-gun and anti-hunting, work against these kinds of alliances.

Your posts have me completely confused.  The Green Party is not the same thing as environmentalists but you seem to suggest they are, if you are running as a "Green" Democrat that is not the same thing as running on the Green Party ticket but you seem to suggest they are the same thing, and I still don't see where nonviolence has anything to do with the environment.  If sea tortoises are being slaughtered in the Galapagos by armed pirates what's the best way to stop the slaughter?  A police force patrolling the islands, armed and ready to use force to arrest the poachers, that's what.  Nonviolence is a pipe dream.

Y'know, it's funny.  Over the past year or so I've gone from being one of those progressive purists criticizing the Democratic Party for not being pure enough, to a centrist-leaning Democrat who realizes that the biggest problem facing the Democratic Party today is the progressive-left purist crowd trying to enforce their purity on the rest of the party.  We need a big tent.  Green voters are more than welcome in the big tent.  Green true believers who threaten to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way, should not be.

by ACSR 2006-05-09 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

The comment about which you write has been deleted.  In other words, someone gave it a rating of zero.  This is unfortunate, for it was a defense of a powerful Democrat's Green proclivities.  Do I need to retype my defense of Maria Cantwell?

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I would only change one thing in you first paragraph: "Because the Democratic party failed to embrace the environmental portion of the voters we enabled Bush to...."

The second paragraph is where you really lose me. How did Nader's POLICIES effect me? His policies have not been enacted? My response would be that no one in this party complained about Ross Perot getting Clinton elected. And the Republicans EMBRACED the "Perotites" after 1992 in order to win in 1994.

Again I say you are marginalizing Environmentalists in the party. Saying the same thing over: "We aren't as bad as the Republicans." Many of the local Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to the environment. The Party does NOT have a right to be mad at voters in swing states who voted for the candidate (Nader or Bush) that they felt would represent them best. The Party has a right to be mad at Ralph Nader and Al Gore for not negotiating with each other and reaching a compromise that both could agree on in order for Nader to throw his votes to Gore to win the election. We all knew that it was close before the vote. All we had to do was offer a bone to Nader. Did this happen? Also, I believe that a lot of people actually voted for BUSH! I have a lot of respect for the VOTERS that actually voted for their ideals. If the Democratic Party had some ideals to offer I would vote for it everytime!

What is wrong with putting environmentalism in the platform? If most people think it is "important" in a non-specific and non-urgent way then what is the problem with at least mentioning the fact that the Democrats are also an environmentalist party. Where is the downside? Does mentioning the environment in the platform LOSE us votes? Or, alternatively, does mentioning the environment in the platform lose us MONEY? I would think that a vast majority of Democrats are in the group you mention. It is one thing to "soft pedal" it is another to NOT pedal at all.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Look, I get where you're coming from and I'm actually not trying to pick a fight here.  What I am trying to say is that:

1.  The Dems are never going to run on a Platform that focuses on the environment as much as you would probably like them to.  But that doesn't mean they don't mention it at all or that the Party isn't in favor of progressive environmental policies.  (FYI, Kerry mentioned the environment quite a bit, including in one of the debates)Ultimately, that should matter more than their rhetoric.

2.  Part of the reason that Dems DON'T emphasize the environment is that Republicans try and tie that focus to the extreme parts of the environmental movement.  I'm an "environmentalist" in that I care about the environment, recycle, use public transportation, support sustainable energy, etc.  But I also understand that Coal minders in OH or PA may think that Green Peace sounds wacky and wants to shut down the place where they work.  Crafting a message that resonates with those voters - who we need - AND addresses the importance of the environment is not as easy as you seem to thin it is.

3.  As far as Nader voters and their "marginalization" go, they annoy me b/c their "standing for their principles" in 2000 screwed a whole lot of poor folks in this country who literally couldn't afford to have GWB as their president.  You can blame the Gore campaign if you want, but if you were in Ohio or Florida in November, you knew damn well what the stakes were and what the effect of voting for Nader might be.  In that context, I simply don't respect someone's decision to help hand over power to GWB.  Similarly, I don't respect a vote in 2006 that might keep Bob Ehrlich in power in Md. or give Michael Steele a Senate seat.

Third parties do not and will not work in this country b/c of our electoral system.  Maybe that SHOULDN'T be true, but it is.  If you want to split the progressive vote so that that segment of the population has even LESS power than it does today, that's your right I suppose.  But I don't have much patience for people who do that and then talk about being "marginalized" by a sytem that hasn't changed since the Constitution was signed.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Thank you for your great response HSTruman. I totally agree with you. I would just add that I think a main part of the problem in the Democratic Party is that the Democratic Party is actively pushing people away that should be strong supporters. Just look at the posts in this comment section about "Naderites", f#@king a$$holes, etc. Sun Tzu said that in order to win you must first know yourself. Calling caring, politically active, generally reasonable and rational voters names will NOT get their votes. I'm not trying to pick a fight either. I am trying to wake people up in the party to what we should be doing. I believe that all the steel workers I know in Ohio would vote for a Democrat that ran on the environment because every single one of them hunts at can see what our current policy has done. I believe that to actively marginalize a portion of our base is a huge mistake. Rather then push Greens away farther we need to embrace them just a little. By this I mean that we should, AT A MINIMUM, quit calling them names.

I would also like to bring to your attention that the voting at this point in the poll is that 50% of visitors to this diary would vote for the Green if it would not effect the outcome of the election.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

And the reality of point #3 is what really turns me against the Naderite. Many Naderites--they get angry when I mention this point--were white, well-educated, well-off students, activists, academics, celebrities, and politicians. Folks like Barbara Ehnriech, Ted Rall, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Jello Biafra, Corneil West, and Phil Donahue are not suffering from Bush. Indeed their wealth shields them from the worst of Bush's policise. What I find disgusting is how they claim to speak "for the working class" when they doomed them to Bush by encouraging and supporting Nader. Their message has hurt many people who don't have the luxuries that they do.

While I can understand how some naive, young college student voting for the first or second time might have been taken in by Nader, I don't respect the people above. T They knew what Bush was about. They knew how horrible his policies would be. Unlike the naive college student these folks knew better.

And to be honest many of the young Greens--college students and white young professionals--remind of the radicals of the 1960s. I think of David Horowitz for example. Like their parents, who became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, they will follow the same tragectory. Eventually they are the type who will one day leave their radicalism behind when they actually find out that they have to work for a living. When they have to start paying taxes, when they actually have to pay their own bills, their worldview will change. Like their forefathers they will become conservatives.

But you're right about the Greens. Point #3 is what irritates me the most about them.

by jiacinto 2006-05-09 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I totally agree with you. Now we must look forward. I believe that there are even more environmentalists now then there were in 2000. By completely marginalizing this voting block we are not helping ourselves. Many of us would not consider ourselves "radicals" as you would. Many of us believe that the environment is the "elephant in the room" that is being ignored. We need to do simple things like change the way we talk about this part of the party. Using Rove and Republican talking points and calling us "radicals" certainly doesn't help. By these standards Teddy Roosevelt would be a "radical".

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Well the other problem is that, rightly or wrongly, the American public, by and large, sees the Green party as being radical anarchists who hate America. They see them as the freakshows who come to IMF protests, burning buildings and engaging violence. They see them as environment radicals. Maybe if the Green party worked on changing its image, Democrats might be more willing to work them.

The reality, though, is that the Party model for poilitcs is a flawed one. The reality is that the Green party is never going to be a national contender. At most it will probably be a regional party, one that can perhaps influence the political process in places like San Francisco, Berkeley, and parts of California; parts of Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, and other Rocky moutnain statesl; in college towns like Boulder, Madison, Ann Arbor, Ithaca, and Cambridge; and in very urban cities like parts of Manhattan, Chicago, and DC. I could see them electing a mayor here and then, maybe a state legislature. But other than that I see them being nothing more than spoilers.

The Green Party--I've said this before to no avail--would be better off as PAC. That is, it would be better off it raised money and supported Democratic candidates who represented their closest ideal. Secondly it would be better off if it developed its own direct mail firms, fundraising firms, and think thanks to advance its ideas within the Democratic Party. Finally, as the Christian conservatives did with the GOP, its hardcore supporters would be well served running for offices like sherrif, dogcatcher, and school board as Democrats. For those offices are the springboard to higher positions like Congress, Senator, and Govenror. As its own third party, though, the Green Party is doomed to irrelevancy.

by jiacinto 2006-05-09 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Agreed. Exactly! Let's run more green candidates in the Democratic party and let us embrace them like you say. We need to stop all the hatred toward them and let them have a voice in the party.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Standing For Principle Is So Annoying

3.  As far as Nader voters and their "marginalization" go, they annoy me b/c their "standing for their principles" in 2000 screwed a whole lot of poor folks in this country who literally couldn't afford to have GWB as their president.

I can understand why a DLC Democrat would be annoyed at anyone who actually takes a stand for principle on the important issues of the day. That's why we have The Backbone Campaign in the first place. We certainly wouldn't want to confuse the voters by standing on principle. That would be so uncharacteristic of the current Democratic Party.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Standing For Principle Is So Annoying

This is the last time that I'll respond to you, as you're really not worth dealing with.  

I get that you probably don't have the social skills to talk to people in real life and therefore need to post here.  Fine, this is your lifeline and no one should even hope that you'll go away.  However, it would be nice if you tried every once in awhile to actually respond to a comment rather than just blather on like an idiot.  Don't worry, no one has high expectations for you succeeding in this endeavor.  Just do the best that you can.

Here's hoping that you someday are lucky enough to kiss a real boy/girl and that you then lighten up.

Cheers

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Standing For Principle Is So Annoying

This is the last time that I'll respond to you, as you're really not worth dealing with.

I appreciate that. Feel free not to respond to my insightful comments with you irrelvant and misleading replies.

Here's hoping that you someday are lucky enough to kiss a real boy/girl and that you then lighten up.

Your social skills are not an example I choose to follow. Thanks anyway.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:20PM | 0 recs
Do what ya gotta do man

Run to Greenies.

But remember, the republicans are not going to be running away, they are gonna stand and make a unified fight for sure.   That has always been their strength.  

If Democrats are going to win in '06 we have to be smart, and focused on a handful of issues that will hit home with the average voter.

by dpANDREWS 2006-05-09 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

And also remember, the GOP will respect each of its coalition partners, the social conservatives, the mainstreet local businessmen and women, the libertarians.

All the diarist is asking is for the same respect from the Democrats.

And the reaction to that request here is pretty telling.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

THANK YOU! That is exactly my point. I realize that at least a portion of this blowback is probably coming from trolls, but I have experienced the same attitude from Democrats that I meet in person.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Trolls, eh? Some of the people responding to you have been here for a long time. I myself have been here for roughly over half a year. If you want us to respect your opinions, you should probably respect ours.

With regards to Illinois062006, I encourage you to go back and review some of the comments he has made since he has joined this site. On this site alone he has called Tammy Duckworth a "bitch", made fun of her disability, and has engaged in the unfair rating practices he claims to despise. On this thread and on the comment I hid he attacked other posters here. Look at the ratings I usually give-I only give threes. In this case I made an exception to show Illinois062006 that his behavior would no longer be tolerated. I'm asking you to restore my comment so he can see why I hid his. You don't have to, but please don't start a flame war with me. I won't like it.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I didn't mean or intend to start a flame war. I don't know what else Illinois062006 has posted on other threads. I was only attempting to keep on topic and try to have a discussion about this issue and how we can help to get these votes. I would gladly restore your comment, but I don't know how as this is my first diary posting on MyDD. How do I restore it?

Responding to your first comment. Since I am relatively new to MyDD I don't know who the trolls are and who the trolls aren't. I only said that because many of the comments made on this comment section have been so negative and derogatory toward me and Green Democrats in general. I was assuming they were trolls because if they are not trolls then the Democratic party is in bigger trouble then I thought before this diary.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

"I only said that because many of the comments made on this comment section have been so negative and derogatory toward me and Green Democrats in general. I was assuming they were trolls because if they are not trolls then the Democratic party is in bigger trouble then I thought before this diary."

Eh, people don't treat each other with much politeness around here. I've been set upon by packs of vicious piranhas, er, posters, more times than I can count, sometimes with good reason, sometimes (I feel) without good reason. All the useless arguments and negativity on this site can get to you sometimes, but I personally believe that that is better than the alternative, which is the old right-wing lockstep.

If you can't figure out how to restore it, don't worry about it. I was just giving you a friendly warning.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I was only trying to keep us on topic and I didn't fully realize all the background. I spent some time looking for how to get it back, but couldn't figure it out. I hope this doesn't distract from the discussion at hand anymore.

Peace

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

But of course. That's precisely what we all do. What do you have against a nice little flame war?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I dunno, I just don't like them. To each his own though.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Nowhere have I ridiculed Tammy Duckworth's physical impairment.  But I find it interesting that you feel justified in unfairly rating my comment based on those assumptions.  I also believe your claim that my comment insult others is unfounded.  Yes, I referred to other comments as vacuous, but I provided a Green Democrat reasons to be proud of some members of the Democratic Caucus.  Other comments insulted the poster, and I fail to see how those comments are in any way productive.  

And I notice you have a tendency to rate all my comments poorly.  Perhaps one day you will resolve this unrestrained animus you seem to have for me. I understand I stand much further to the Left than you, and I understand you and I will not see eye to eye on anything.  But I do not believe these differences warrant the bad behavior you for whatever reason view as ethical.

And save the sanctimony for someone who cares.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Illinois062006, Ilyayavitz, Formalist, TrueBlueDemocrat, AuthenticTrueBlueDemocrat, whatever the hell you call yourself, your explanations for your actions mean little to me, as do your excuses and your insults. I read this thread and it told me all I need to know about you.

"And I notice you have a tendency to rate all my comments poorly."

And why do you think that? On this thread I rated one of your comments poorly. That's it. Your persecution complex never ceases to amaze me.

"I understand I stand much further to the Left than you"

Believe me, it ain't about that. I know a lot of people to the left of me who I get along with fine. It's your pompous and hypocritical approach to debating others that annoys me.

"And save the sanctimony for someone who cares."

Yes, I'm sure you don't care. That's why when I hid your comment to teach you a lesson, you had what, like 4-5 posts screaming about how unfair it was that someone deleted your comment.

"Nowhere have I ridiculed Tammy Duckworth's physical impairment."

An absolute lie. Do you also deny calling her a "bitch"? With that kind of language, I'm very surprised you have the nerve to talk about other people's negativity.  

by JRyan 2006-05-09 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Too bad I find your comments irrelevant, and I do not appreciate your attempt to invalidate my integirty by citing extraneous material.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

You're incriminating yourself here. Normally, if someone challenged you, you'd dig out your thesaurus and write a long-winded, long-worded essay to show your disdain. The brevity of your comment suggests that perhaps I struck a little too close to home. You're a joke, buddy. "integirty"? I think you lost that a long time ago.  

by JRyan 2006-05-09 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

As I stated earlier, I do not care if your opinion of me is unfavorable.  In fact, you and others simply desire to invalidate me, as I was a vociferous supporter of Cegelis, always noting the corruption predicating the Duckworth campaign.  Because you and others could not handle the truth, you decided to ostracize me by spreading libel.  

Such antics, of course, are typical amongst secretive males and the women who emulate them whose only desire is to uphold the status quo.  I do not tolerate such behaviour, and I certainly will not acquiesce to those who believe I will be silenced through battery.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Dude, it is the opinion you have of yourself that matters in the end. You can say whatever you want to me, and to everyone else that has questioned you here, but I think you should look within yourself and decide whether the actions you've taken are the right ones. Don't publicly protest your innocence again, or again make yourself out to be the victim. I'm too tired to read recycled tripe.

I don't criticize you because you are a supporter of Cegelis. I have never attacked Mike or Jim in Chicago. I'm criticizing you because of your actions, and your refusal to admit responsibility for them.

Libel? It was you who posted that anonymous video, deny it though you might. The evidence is pretty strong. I think anyone who would do something like that should get his own issues worked out before he goes back to posting. This isn't about speaking truth to power, although I'm sure you'd like to cast it as such. It's about human decency and honesty.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Not necessarily, for I am indeed victimized here based on assumptions that are in now way verifiable or, for that matter, true.  Your allegations are false, and I refuse to entertain them.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I guess denial isn't just a river in Africa.

by JRyan 2006-05-10 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

And I guess ratings abuse is practiced by more than just wandering trolls.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-10 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Hell, you abuse the rating system all the time. Hypocrite, thy name is illinois062006, at least until things get too hot and you have to start over with a different screen name.

by JRyan 2006-05-10 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Is that a threat?  And you are the one accusing me of breaching decorum?  I recommend you look at yourself in the mirror.

by illinois062006 2006-05-10 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

A threat? Are you stupid, or just paranoid?

by JRyan 2006-05-10 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

You are the one who typed it, not me.  Besides, I would not put it past the likes of you.

by illinois062006 2006-05-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Put what past the likes of me? I never made anything remotely resembling a threat. It's a known fact that when the going gets tough, you switch screen names from Metonym to Formalist, ilyayavitz, illinois062006, whatever, so you can continue your long-winded discourses/vicious attacks. It looks to me that you are searching through my comments for something that is not there just so you can fit it into your little narrative of being persecuted. I was angry at you before, but now I just feel sad for you.

by JRyan 2006-05-11 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

You are using different names from different blogs.  Because I am not a major participant in the blogs, I never felt obliged to use the same name at different sites.  If you want me to post under one name at every site I may happen to visit, I will be more than happy to oblige.  I will, however, state that I believe you take yourself much to seriously.  But then again, I am not surprised, for I imagine such feelings are compensatory.

by illinois062006 2006-05-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

At the very least, Metonym is a name that was used on this site before. If anybody's taking themselves too seriously, it's you, schizo.

by JRyan 2006-05-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

And now you will resort to calling names.  I admire your maturity as much as I admire your "ethics."

by illinois062006 2006-05-11 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I don't care what you do or don't admire about me. Frankly, I can't think of anything more worthless than your opinion (except, of course, your vaunted "integirty"). I'd prefer that psychos like you not pollute this board, but if you do, when you downrate people, don't whine when you are downrated yourself. Its the absolute least you can do.

by JRyan 2006-05-11 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Again, you are resorting to epithets instead of engaging in rational, rigorous debate.  Perhaps you should try to engage with me in a civil manner if you desire a modicum of respect.

by illinois062006 2006-05-11 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

What you have done and said, both here and on soapblox, shows me that you are totally uninterested in rational, rigorous debate. case in point: I say "Hypocrite, thy name is illinois062006, at least until things get too hot and you have to start over with a different screen name." You try to spin that as a threat, and claim that you "would not put it past the likes of you." What is "it" that you seem so worried about? Spinning a sentence to make it look like I'm threatening you is far from rational, buddy.

A civil manner? This from the person who called Duckworth a "bitch"? You're not denying that now too, are you? Why don't you address that, because I don't think you've ever apologized. And I just thought of something even more worthless to me than your admiration and your "integirty": your respect.

by JRyan 2006-05-11 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Why should I apologize for articulating what I sincerely believe?  If I did apologize, I would be uttering a lie.

by illinois062006 2006-05-11 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

You call that articulating? You sincerely believe that Tammy Duckworth, a genuine American hero, is a "bitch"? Take a look at yourself. Beneath all those big words and long-winded paragraphs on why you're so smart, you're just a vicious little rodent with a keyboard. You really believe Duckworth is "malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive or unpleasant"? After all she's sacrificed for this country, to protect people like you, that's how you would characterize her? No one, not Jim in Chicago, or Mike in Chicago, not even most republicans, would stoop to utter what you freely admit to uttering. And, after admitting to that, you actually expect anyone to believe that it wasn't you that anonymously posted that video? I can't believe I'm actually stooping to say anything to you at all.

by JRyan 2006-05-11 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Your sanctimony is beyond humorous.  Her service is eclipsed by her decision to lie on televison and to allow herself to be manipulated by politicians who are beholden to interests I and many others do not respect.  Her ambition and her lack of concern for the democratic process obligate me to criticize her, and I apologize if you cannot tolerate my frank assessment of her deplorable intervention into a district to which she has no viable connection.  I am still interested in this video to which you constantly refer.  Yes, I referred to her with the epithets you cite, and no, I will not retract my comment.

Many of us, including myself, have honorable acheivements, and I refuse to elevate someone simply because they happen to be a former member of the army.  And this is an informed political decision supported by an elaborate post-Marxist theoretical apparatus.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-11 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

You of all people have absolutely no right to criticize others for behaving sanctimoniously. Frank assessment? You piece of crap. Calling someone a bitch is not a frank assessment, it's a gratuitous insult.

"I refuse to elevate someone simply because they happen to be a former member of the army.  And this is an informed political decision supported by an elaborate post-Marxist theoretical apparatus."

I feel pretty confident that America and the Democratic party don't need people like you. We respect the members of our military and honor their service, and wouldn't think of trying to compare going to Berkeley to flying troops into combat situations. People like you, who look on our armed forces with contempt, are not needed. Obviously the party needs votes, but we can certainly survive without yours. I'd posit that even your fellow Cegelis fans would be disgusted by what you just said. Jesus, I feel sick just reading your pathetic little screeds.

by JRyan 2006-05-12 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

And since when do you represent the Democratic Party?  And since when is the Democratic Party in the business of dismissing those of us who uphold a more radical politics?  As a Democrat who has volunteered a lot of his time and money, I do not believe I have to mindlessly support each and every candidate chosen for us by our "leadership."  And I certainly should not acquiesce when my party's leadership allows corporations and their representatives to enact a hostile takeover of my district.  

By the way, pursuing an academic career is honorable, and it entails just as much sacrifice as volunteering for the Armed Services.  I should also add that the universities I have attended are a lot more prestigious than Northern Illinois University.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-12 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

"And since when is the Democratic Party in the business of dismissing those of us who uphold a more radical politics?"

Since you feel that your more radical politics entitles you to slander America's veterans.

"As a Democrat who has volunteered a lot of his time and money"

So you say, which means you're probably lying.

"I do not believe I have to mindlessly support each and every candidate chosen for us by our "leadership."

You are a genuine retard. We've been over this before. No one has ever asked you to mindlessly support anybody, just not gratuitously insult your democratic opponent, and then whine about how you get downrated.

"By the way, pursuing an academic career is honorable, and it entails just as much sacrifice as volunteering for the Armed Services."

Bullshit. As much sacrifice? Bullshit.  

"I should also add that the universities I have attended are a lot more prestigious than Northern Illinois University."

I should also add that you're an elitist snob and a snot-nosed punk who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The fact that you would call me a fascist also marks you as the very stereotype of an anti-American hippie.  

After this post and the one below, I'm not responding to anything else you write on this thread, no matter how insulting or vicious you get. I've made my points, and if you can't understand them, then you're an idiot. You pollute this board with your insults, and try to cover it up with fancy words. I don't care what radical political group you associate yourself with, because you'd be a disgrace to communism itself.

by JRyan 2006-05-12 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

And thank you for proving once again how fascist you actually are.

by illinois062006 2006-05-12 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

"I am still interested in this video to which you constantly refer"

Oh, and by the way, if I needed any more proof that it was you who posted that video, I have it now. You know exactly what video I'm talking about. It was the one of the crippled girl trying to dance that you anonymously tried to connect to Duckworth. However, you (in the guise of ilyayavitz)got busted for it, and then tried to blame it on one of your roomates. To pretend ignorance of something you clearly already knew about is just more evidence of your guilt (although since the administrator had your IP address, I didn't really need more evidence).

by JRyan 2006-05-12 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

Perhaps focusing on real problems instead of obsessing over some anonymous video maybe two or three people viewed would be a more productive investment of your energy.  Your desire to invalidate and alienate me is almost perverse, and I do not believe it does a service to the Party you ostensibly represent.

by illinois062006 2006-05-12 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

I'm glad to see you're not denying posting that video.

"Your desire to invalidate and alienate me is almost perverse"

You've invalidated and alienated yourself with your own actions. I'm just making sure you can pound that idea through your thick head.

"I do not believe it does a service to the Party you ostensibly represent"

It is a greater disservice to let people think that you are a democrat in any way. I prefer to keep all the vicious and low-blow tactics on the other side.

By the way, I'm through with this conversation. I'm sure it's been nice being able to actually talk with someone, but now you have to crawl out of whatever basement you've been hiding in and back into the real world, where real and decent Americans don't believe in slandering veterans. Goodbye.

by JRyan 2006-05-12 08:53AM | 0 recs
I disagree

I was more peeing in the tent.   That is how I took it.  If I am wrong I am sorry but I call them as I see them.

by dpANDREWS 2006-05-15 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree. The Republicans will attempt to make a unified stand. Can you name one issue that the Democrats have made a unified fight on?

I do not want to "Run to Greenies". I want to be able to say that the Democratic Party stands for protecting the environment. I want to be proud of the Democratic Party. I want people to say, "We are so glad that you support us because we are the party that wants to protect the environment." Calling me and those like me names is not "smart" and will not help us to win in '06.

That is my point.

(And a unified stand by Republicans was certainly not their strenght in 1992.)

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I was thinking about this more and I got to thinking more about the reform bill that just didn't pass even though we got 8 Republicans to join us on it. 4 Democrats defected. This is a defection that should get people mad. Those four votes really hurt the Party and all of us in the party. It will be much harder to win in November without that bill. THAT is a special interest at work.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Karl Rove is very happy at this kind of diary.

The pure dems like yourself, who shitteth not, believe that dems as whole should shit no longer.  Hey, I agree; shitting is bad, it's inconvenient, and it is environmentally bad; all that crap washing into rivers.

So, you are now going to follow St. Ralph the Pure and Holy, and go Green.  

Here's the news, Jack: Green voters shit too, and their shit pollutes the environment.  The difference is that EVERY SINGLE vote for a Green is a vote for  a Repukliscumbag.

Me, I crap daily.  I am not pure.  I do all sorts of compromises to get by, but I WILL NEVER UNDER ANY FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCE VOTE FOR ANY FUCKING ASSHOLE GREEN.

Thanks to Ralph and the Greens, we have George

by dataguy 2006-05-09 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Did you actually read my diary? What are you saying? If I ran on the Democratic ticket as a Green Democrat that you wouldn't vote for me? Then why should I vote for a Democrat? Especially a Democrat that is calling me names.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Yeah, I read your diary. You are considering voting green.  

That's like saying that you are considering shooting yourself in the head because you have a headache.

Take a pill.  But, don't come whining to us about how the Dems are not pure enough, not clean enough.  Of course that's true, but so what?

by dataguy 2006-05-09 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Should I go to the Greens then? At least with them I will not be considered a "whiner". This is the exact attitude that is really deviding the Party and leaves an opening for the Republicans to divide our party.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I think that Rove is NOT happy with this kind of diary. I believe that the Democratic Party is the ONLY party that is actually open to ideas and discussion. We need to have this kind of discussion so that we can go out and EMBRACE the greens and get their vote. This will not happen until we overcome our anger and start the process of bringing more and more votes to our party. Then we will be able to show what we are capable of.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 10:22AM | 0 recs
Thanks for sharing

Me, I crap daily.

As demonstrated by your obvious case of diarreah of the mouth.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Thanks for writing this diary.  I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm well to the left of the Democratic Party on many issues and I think that a vote for Green candidates if an election isn't close is a good vote.

We also need to push hard for electoral reform (Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, etc.) so that we don't have to face these tough choices.  

Also, we need to make Democrats accountable for their votes in safe seats and a good way to do this is a vote for Green candidates against wayward Dems (or a vote for more liberal Dems in primaries if possible)

by econlibVA 2006-05-09 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Exactly. The polling is standing at 47% would vote for a green if it didn't effect the outcome of the election. How is this different then someone voting for Lamont in the Primary in CT? If Lamont were to win the primary and then lose the general election would everyone here be mad at Lamont and everyone that voted for him? I would hope not. I think we should respect the fact that people are voting for the ISSUES because it is the right thing to do.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Naderite.

by nascardem 2006-05-09 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I'm glad to see nascardem coming out and letting us all know that he is a Naderite. We welcome you back to the Democratic party. Together we can vote the Republicans out of office and restore our environment to the way it was before Bush and the Republicans took control.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Dude, I am not a Naderite; the diarist said, "please don't call us Naderites", which is ridiculous, so I called her/him a Naderite.  I think Naderites are responsible for every bad thing George Bush has done, so when someone says, "call me an environmentalist, not a Naderite", I want to scream. Now some of these very people are begging Al Gore to run; I worked my heart out for Al Gore in 2000, he was the best, and these people were so shortsighted that they voted for Nader. They make me crazy.  

by nascardem 2006-05-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I agree. I worked for Al Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. If someone were to ask you to call them an African American not a N*** would your first reaction be to call them a n**ger. Fine Scream. I scream every time I hear mr. bush's voice (and my wife can attest to this first hand). Environmentalists and Greens are NOT responsible for every bad thing george bush has done. george bush is responsible for everything that george bush has done. I believe that the people that voted for Bush are higher on the responsibility list then people that voted for Nader. (I also blame Diebolt, but that is another diary.) My point is that Greens and Environmentalists must be welcomed by all Democrats to participate in our party or they will continue to vote for others. And I think that it is important for how we treat other groups that are thinking about joining the party. Rather then call them Naderites and other names I say am trying to say to them, "Welcome! We can use all the help we can get against Bush and Co."

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 12:26PM | 0 recs
I am

so glad so many readers of this blog a capable of engaging in civil debate.  

Many of the comments here are disgraceful, and I do not believe they reflect well on the Democratic party.  But then again, there are fringe elements on this blog.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Someone deleted my comment on Maria Cantwell's innovative enviromental policies and legislation.  I ask that they restore the comment by removing their unfair rating.  thank you.

by illinois062006 2006-05-09 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Understand, I have no problem with Maria Cantwell or her "innovative enviromental policies and legislation." I actually found that part of your post informative. I have a problem with you personally, as well as some of your other comments in that post. I don't like it when people who post across the web under various pseudonyms try to anonymously slander war veterans by using tactics that would make Karl Rove blush (soapblox Chicago, the video of that girl "dancing"), and then moan about civil debate. I don't like it when they refer to their opponents comments as "vacuous" and "disgraceful", call them "fringe elements", and then moan about having a civil debate. I don't like it when they downrate everyone here they don't agree with, then talk about unfair ratings. I don't like it how they talk about how these posters don't reflect well on the democratic party while they themselves say that they proudly voted for Nader and would vote for socialists before democrats. I also don't like how they pontificate on how smarter they are than anyone else, but that's getting a little off-topic.

I don't usually hide comments, but you are out of line on this thread. Remove all your lame ratings, and I'll restore your comment. Otherwise, Illinois062006, Ilyavitz, Truedemocraticprogressive or whatever the hell you call yourself, the comment remains hidden.

by JRyan 2006-05-09 10:21AM | 0 recs
Illustrates the Example in Crashing the Gates

This post really illustrates the interest group problem the Democratic party has that was so well outlined in Crashing the Gates.  Rather than taking a larger view about the difference in environmental policies under Bush and Clinton, we discuss the fact that the environment wasn't one of the top 5 issues mentioned in a fundraising call.  It's like the workgroup described in the book where all the interest groups hands go up one by one and ask - what about my issue.  I thought that was what we were trying to get away from.

Also, how is energy independence not an environmental issue?  The whole premise behind energy independence is to move us away from dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels to new and renewable sources like bio-diesel, ethanol, wind, solar, etc.  Aren't all of these technologies less poluting than fossil fuels?

by John Mills 2006-05-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Illustrates the Example in Crashing the Gates

I agree completely.  There are a myriadof ways to talk about any issue, including the environment.  If talking about increased fuel efficiency in terms of national security is what gets a better policy in place, why should that be taken as an affront to the environmental movement?  After all, the ultimate goal is to move progressive policy initiatives forward, not to place any particular set of talking points at the front and center of the Party's dialogue.  

Hell, Bush NEVER says he's pro-life or that Roe should be overturned.  He just nominates judges that will do just that.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Illustrates the Example in Crashing the Gates

The platform says reducing our dependency on foreign oil. It certainly doesn't say fossil fuels. I just went and looked at it again. This is a Republican talking point. It means drill in ANWR. As far as I can tell from the Democratic 6 Point Plan we are for 1. Honest Government and Open Government - I just read the Contract with America. This is all in there, but in more detail. And they had a plan to fix congress. 2. Real Security brought to you by the Truth. Are the Democrats really going to get into office and say, "Oh, by the way, it was wrong to go to Iraq." I don't think so. Hillary Clinton is certainly not saying any such thing now. 3. Energy Independence - We will create a cleaner and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Since you want me to compare the Clinton Policy with the Bush Policy I am happy to do so. The main difference is that oil was cheaper under Clinton. Now even the Democrats are pushing for drilling in ANWR since we all know that "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" is Republican speak for drill ANWR (and in the Gulf off Florida too.) 4. Economic Prosperity and Educational Excellence. How is this different? 5. A Health Care System That Works For Everyone. What happened to Universal healthcare? What are the Democrats doing different then the Republicans on this one? As far as I can tell the Democrats are just getting smaller checks from the big pharma. 6. Retirement Security. How? At least the Republicans want to give me my money in my own account.

I might be a little bit left of center, but I have always thought that we stood for some pretty good values. I would not consider many of these major issues to be "special interests". Is Education a special interest? Is the War in Iraq a special interest? Is basic human rights a special interest? Is defending the constitution a special interest? Is Social Security a special interest? What I am trying to say is that for our party to hold together we AT A MINIMUM need to not call each other names and acknowledge the issue.

I have not read the book yet so I can't comment on it (it is in the mail though). I think you are wrong. I haven't been saying that my issue is the only issue. Nor have I been saying that this issue is more important than the others. All I have been saying is that we are losing votes that we shouldn't be losing to the Greens. Most of us Greens realize that no matter how much we think the environment should be very high on the agenda it will not be in the top. That is understood. What bothers me is when Democrats call us names and don't even acknowledge us.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Illustrates the Example in Crashing the Gates

First of all I never called you a name so I have no idea what you are talking about.  I post here a lot and I don't engage in that stuff.

Yes I do think that education, labor, abortion rights, etc are special interests when they are pushing for only their issue.  The Dems and progressives think like islands, the Repubs think like a team.  There is a whole chapter on it in Crashing the Gate.  As HSTruman noted, Repubs know that even if Bush never talks about abortion he will appoint pro-life judges.  Dems should know even if they don't discuss it at length that they will appoint pro-environment people to posts like EPA and Interior.

Are you going to tell me that you see absolutely no difference in the environmental policies of Bush and Clinton?  How about the Bush attempt to raise arsenic levels in the water?  How about the Clear Skies Act that increases polution levels?  How about all the mining being allowed on federal land?

And since when are the Dems pushing to drill in ANWR?  The Senate Dems have been blocking this forever.  I saw Dick Durbin, No 2 Senate Dem, on a talk show last week and he talked about developing renewable energy sources like ethanol, bio diesel, etc.  I have not heard one Dem talk about drilling in ANWR as our way of reducing the use of foreign oil.  That's the Repubs solution.

Either you believe that progressive policies are going to be good for the environment or not.  I am not going to be able to convince you.  

What I do know is if progressives work together toward a common goal and common good, we can achieve a lot.  If we continue to operate in our individual issue silos, we are going to continue to lose.

by John Mills 2006-05-09 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Illustrates the Example in Crashing the Gates

Thanks for the response. Let me clarify a few things.

1. I don't think that Democrats are for drilling in ANWR. I do think that the Republicans have been using the phrase "reduce our dependency on foreign oil" as their rallying cry to open up ANWR. I think it is a bad decision by the DNC to attempt to use this phrase as it only confuses the message.

2. I really don't think that Bush and Clinton were anywhere near each other on the environment. Nowhere on this diary have I said that any green or green democrat should or would vote for a Republican. Obviously that is the worst chooice. The point of the diary is that the Democratic Party is not only ignoring the environment and these votes but ACTIVELY being antagonistic toward this block. If we want the environmental "silo", as you call it, to continue to support the Democratic Party the Party needs to at least be civil to them. I am attempting to work toward bringing the 42% of progressives that would vote for the Green if their vote didn't matter over to the Democratic Party.

3. I do believe that progressive policies are going to be good for the environment. I don't need any convincing. The problem is that the Democratic Party, at this time, does NOT represent progressive policies. By focusing on bringing all progressives together and working together I believe that the Democratic Party can become a progressive party. For progressives to have any chance at working together we need to have the Green/Green Democrat vote. Therefore we need to work together and quit calling us names and blaming us for what happened in the past. I agree. We can achieve a lot. Let us start by electing progressive democrats.

4. I am wondering if you support the Lamont campaign against Leiberman? Would you consider this a silo issue that is working against the common goals of progressives since it does not help Democrats against the Republicans?

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

As a longtime environmentalist, I am glad that OsoDelMar wrote this diary. I agree that democrats should talk more about environmental issues. In fact, had Al Gore campaigned more on such issues, given his record, he could have won--not only in Florida, but maybe also western states (or done better at least).

Co-opting a few green positions would NOT forfeit us slightly conservative hunters, farmers, etc. Take a look at Brian Schweitzer, he reframed environmental issues as conservation (not that there's THAT much difference) to appeal to all the hunters and fisherman upset at big timber and mining companies for destroying the areas they used to visit. I would argue that an environmental platform would HELP the Dems, if it can be presented in a way to appeal not only to cyclists and backpackers from Seattle or San Francisco but also to hunters and fisherman in MT, CO, NC, and VA. I highly reccomend that everyone read the article "The Emerging Environmental Majority" in the Washington Monthly for a better of what I, and OsoDelMar, are trying to say. i will add that I do not begrudge him for his vote for Nader. i too supported him in 2000, although I was only 15 at the time and too young to vote.

by elessar 2006-05-09 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Thanks Elessar.

I want to just comment that I did not vote for Nader in 2000. I certainly thought about it at that time and I would have traded my vote with someone in Florida (since I was living in DC at the time), but it didn't happen.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. If we marginalize the environmental vote we also marginalize the hunters and fisherman that we should be embracing.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

No one is talking about marginalizing the environmental movement.  I want clean air, clean water, outdoor areas to enjoy, etc.  The Dems, for the most part, have a very good record on environmental issues.  Carol Browner was an excellent head of the EPA and public lands were expanded and national parks protected under Clinton.

I see a whole bunch of other issues including civil rights, abortion rights, labor, etc weren't mentioned in the DNC call.  Do you think the Dems are ignoring those as well?

The problem with focusing on single issues is that it misses the forest for the trees.  The Repubs act as a group - they understand if conservatives win then everyone's agenda moves forward.  

Dems act like islands worrying about their single issues rather than thinking - if progressives win, the environmental issues will move forward and we will all be better off.

The question that should be asked - Do you think the environment will be better under a Dem President and a Dem Congress?  If we all work together, we can move forward together.  If we work apart, we will all lose.

by John Mills 2006-05-09 01:05PM | 0 recs
Tell that to Rahm and the DLC

The Greens and Ralph Nader are not the problem. Rahm Emanuel and the DLC are the problem. Emanuel and the DCCC are the ones who have been chop blocking progressive Democrats in Democratic primaries. It is conservative Dems who are attempting to lead the Democratic Party to electoral ruin for the next ten years.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell that to Rahm and the DLC

Gary - good to have you back.  Have you read Crashing the Gate?  Great book.  I can't believe how much I quote it these days.  

by John Mills 2006-05-09 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell that to Rahm and the DLC

I think that people are only voting for the Democratic candidates that the DLC puts forward because they don't have any other choice. How many people voted for Kerry because he was the least bad candidate rather then the candidate they felt they could really believe in? (I did. And I worked for the campaign.)

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 06:04AM | 0 recs
WWII isirrelevant

The vital issue  before the electorate and for this discussion is whether of not Bush's Iraq war is justified. If Bush's war is not justified, then continuing to fight an unjust war is not justified.

The position of the Democratic leadership and most of the delclared Democratic nominees is immoral and unjustified by any genuine ethical standard you care to apply to Bush's Iraq war.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

I am not proposing voting for the Green Party. I am attempting to get people to vote for the Democrats. And I believe it is the bad loser attitude of many Democrats that continues to alienate Green voters. I think that we are still very angry about the election and have placed blame all over the place. I think that calling people "a$$hole" and other nasty names only drives votes away from our party. I believe that this should be the party of inclusion, but instead we are ACTIVELY driving left, green party members to vote for Green candidates whenever they have the opportunity because they BELIEVE in the Green party platform but KNOW the Green party has no power and will continue to have no power. I believe that we can say to Green Democrats (and Green Republicans) that we stand on opposite ends of the environment spectrum from Mr. Bush and his corrupt cronies that are destroying our environment while sending jobs overseas and giving their buddies golden parachutes.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-09 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

The number one issue that every voter is very supportive of is an increase of the federal minimum wage. Every Democrat from the Fiengold Wing of the Democratic Party to the Lieberman Wing of the Democratic Party supports an increase in the Minumum Wage. All of the Green Party voters and a strong number of Republican voters are in favor of increasing the minumum wage. The Republican Controlled Congress- defeated a federal minimum wage increase legislation for the last 10 years.

If Democrats were occupying the White House. Have Majority Control in Both Chambers of Congress(House and Senate). There will be an increase in the federal minimum wage at an annual basis. not every decade.

The Issue of Energy Independence and Environmental Protection can be interlinked. Using alternative sources of energy sources such as hybrid fuel,ethanol fuel,solar,wind,nuclear power,hydrogen power,can lead lead to a cleaner and greener environment.

Universal Health Care,Universal College Education,Federal Minimum Wage Increase,and Environmental Protection/Energy Independence are issues that the Democratic Party agenda should be overwhelmingly satisfactory to the Greens.
However on the issue of National Security and Fighting Terrorism. I disagree with the Green's Anti War Philosophy.

The Democratic Party should be a party of military strength and international cooperation.
War must occur after all diplomatic options including economic sanctions are exhausted. War must not occur based on faulty or hype intelligence.  If US is going to War for philosophical reasons- promoting democracy or stopping genocide. We must have strong support from the international community. including (UN and NATO).

Democratic Party should adopt the PAYGO rule when dealing with the Budget Deficits.
Democratic Party should be the party of
Growth and Responsibility.

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 01:52PM | 0 recs
Are you kidding me?

If Democrats were occupying the White House. Have Majority Control in Both Chambers of Congress(House and Senate). There will be an increase in the federal minimum wage at an annual basis. not every decade.

If my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle.

Universal Health Care,Universal College Education,Federal Minimum Wage Increase,and Environmental Protection/Energy Independence are issues that the Democratic Party agenda should be overwhelmingly satisfactory to the Greens.

Does the Democratic Party have a position on any of those issues? Please provide links to any Democrat besides Russ Feingold or Howard Dean who has taken a position on any of those issues that would  be acceptable to an environmental Democrat. Platitudes are not going to win back the White House, Senate and House any time this century.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:05PM | 0 recs
Gary Buttwronged Go Cheney Yourself

Gary Buttwronged
Go on Progressive Punch.org Website- 17 Democratic US Senators have a 90% Progressive Score on All Issues
1)Sarbanes-MD
2)Reed-RI
3)Kennedy-MA
4)Boxer-CA
5)Durbin-IL
6)Menendez-NJ
7)Obama-IL
8)Levin-MI
9)Lautenberg-NJ
10)Clinton-NY
11)Stabenow-MI
12)Harkin-IA
13)Akaka-HI
14)Leahy-VT
15)Schumer-NY
16)Murray-WA
17)Dayton-MN

Fiengold- has a 89.19% Progressive Score- ranked number 19 behind- Mikulski-MD(18)

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 04:53PM | 0 recs
If my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle.

Hey Gary Buttwronged
Do You Suck on Your Uncles Balls?
by CMBurns 2006-05-09 04:54PM | 0 recs
Platitudes are not going to win back the

White House, Senate and House any time this century.

What are Platitudes- Wacko's like Gary Buttwronged.

Hey Gary Boatwright

Did You have Sexual Relations with Duke Cunningham and Katherine Harris at the Watergate Hotel.

by CMBurns 2006-05-09 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

how it is that a strategy of voting for the Green Party would bring any votes over to the Democratic party?

You are miscaracterizing the discussion Lucas. The so called "Green" issues that the Democrats are scared of are supporting the environment, health care for all and opposing Bush's Iraq war. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain my the Democratic Party moving to the left and taking the electoral path outlined by Howard Dean and Russ Feingold.

The losing electoral path is the path outlined by the DLC, Lieberman, Biden and HRC.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 01:56PM | 0 recs
Look for Green Democrats to support
Dear Eric, Thanks for posting this. You know, I went out on tour the other day promoting my new environmental policy/energy policy (they are connected). There are Green Democrats out there. My name is John Laesch and I am running against Dennis Hastert in Illinois' 14th Congressional District. Here in Illinois we also have Dr. David Gill, another "Green Democrat" whom you could support. Changing the Democratic Party is possible, but you will have to work/support Green Dems. I think that this is a better way to make change become reality. Respectfully, John Laesch www.john06.com 630.385.8568
by John Laesch 2006-05-09 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Look for Green Democrats to support

John,

Thanks for the post. Good Luck against Hastert! Even if we disagree on some things on this site I believe that all of us can agree that getting rid of him would be a great victory.

Hopefully some Green Democrats will be out campaigning for you!

Eric

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Nader Was Right

Gore lost because he ran a crummy campaign and deserved to lose. Blaming Nader is the worst form of political scapegoating and only allows the Democratic leadership to ignore the need for genuine reform of the Democratic Party.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-05-09 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Except that the Clinton years were not terribly effective in promoting environmental progress.  Granted, WJC had to fight a GOP Congress, but there was little fight in him.  This after he did use the environment as a campaign issue.  There was a whole lot of wheel spinning in the Clinton years about the environment and the net result wasn't anything to be proud of.  Meanwhile, the rise of the Bidens and others for whom the environment is an afterthought continued.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-05-09 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: WWII isirrelevant

He's just spouting off so that he can get a rise out of people, so don't even worry about it.  He LOVES flame wars apparently.  

by HSTruman 2006-05-09 02:35PM | 0 recs
The plusses of a broadly green platform

Voting Green isn't going to bring more votes to the Dems, but that's the point.  If the Dems want more votes and if they want them from some of their traditional constituencies, then they need to respond to them.  Greens, at least some Greens, and Green-leaning voters realize that the best Dem approach is a broad based approach and that the Dems should NOT be running on a single issue like the environment.  The problems of single issue advocacy have been well documented here by Jerome and in his book.

The problem is, when do you trust the party to do what's right, in your POV, so that you can vote for them even if the broad platform says little about the environment.  The Dems have not been very faithful partners lately and so far they aren't even giving us the wink wink nudge nudge code.  (Because many of the Dem leaders don't know that code because they are not terribly concerned with enviro issues.)  When a green-oriented Dem leaves the party to vote green, the hope is that in the post mortem analysis, the Dems would have learned the lesson and returned somewhat to the left.  I can't say I've seen much evidence of this lesson being learned by the Dems since 2000.

But losing votes to the greens need not be, and that is Oso's point.  Let's talk about alternative energy (or sustainable, as Stoller prefers, rightfully so), let's talk about pollution prevention, urban sprawl (worked in Virginia), and the links between a clean environment and good health.  NONE of these would be loser issues, all will appeal to a broad base that includes greens (and quite a few people of faith aside from the UU church that Oso mentioned) and the 10% of center Dems that some of the establishment believe we need.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-05-09 02:51PM | 0 recs
First Diary?

Hey Eric,

Nice first diary.  Way to stir the pot!  Didja know you'd get this reaction?  Guess I might have predicted it.   There is a lot of angst against environmental voters here.  Not sure the record for comments on a first diary, but you may be close.

Anyway, welcome and thanks for the input.  It's nice to see the environment get some face time with Howard Dean, Paul Wellstone, Al Gore, and all those other people at the top left.  If there is one frustration I have with MyDD, it is that the environment gets less attention than it should.  (And of course the name calling, but I guess that is part of the culture now.)

Skip

by The lurking ecologist 2006-05-09 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: First Diary?

Thanks Skip!

I thought I might get a reaction since I think there is a lot of anger at the Green part of the party for "losing" the 2000 election. I am hoping that progressives can get past this and learn to work together. Calling each other names and ignoring this issue will only make it worse. As you can see from the polling 42% of people on the site would vote for the Green party if given the chance that it would not hurt the Democrat.

Glad I posted it and I look forward to posting more soon.

Eric (Oso del Mar)

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

"You could also look at it as the Democratic Party refusing to bend over backwards for people who aren't willing to work within the system that's been set up."

That system is geared towards the rich and affluent with money to spare and time to burn.

Not exactly sure how you see progressive change coming out of that system without the good fortune of either rich benefactors who have a somewhat progressive perspective, or a serious recalibration of values due to a major economic hiccup which hits white middle class people like in the '30's.

Some would say refusing to work in the system is a cop out. But for many of us who have families to feed and a paycheck to earn, we don't have a choice. The system is crap. You have to have leisure time outside of nine to five to push the string, and if you don't have that leisure time, your impact is limited to roughly those people you can talk to at work and socially.

It is foolish to ask the majority of Americans to work within it, especially the working-class Americans who in theory should be the Democrat's core constituency.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nader Was Right

I dunno, I would've voted Green if I hadn't heard "people versus to powerful".

That was a good campaign. And he did win the election.

Bush was selected, not elected. Too quickly we forget that.

by redstar67 2006-05-09 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Do what ya gotta do man

There's a code that should be at work here.

Any successful messaging has an appeal to spectacle, in one form or another, which contains imagery conveying meaning which speaks to the sensibilities of a target audience.

The GOP gets this. They may not be saying "I'm gonna outlaw abortion" but they know which biblical passages to cite.

The Dems do not get this.

Why not?

Many explanations, some charitable, others not

by redstar67 2006-05-09 04:35PM | 0 recs
It is not only the message.

It is not only the message. I find that there are many Democrats that I am actively against because of their policy stands. For example, Doug Duncan is the head of Montgomery County MD. He is working for the developers to further degrade my local environment in drastic ways. He is/has pushing/pushed the ICC (Intercounty Connector) which will be like an outer beltway through Montgomery County. He worked with Erhlich on this bigtime. This is a $3 billion project that will cost something like $1,500 per household in MD. It will be a toll road costing $14 roundtrip to use. The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and other Federal Studies clearly state that it will not reduce congestion on any of the roads and will actually INCREASE congestion on roads in the county (they estimate 3,000 extra cars a day on CT Ave, GA Ave, Colesville Rd and Rockville Pike). Did I mention that it will also destroy some of the last open space in the county and seriously degrade the nicest creek left (which has the only naturally reproducing brown trout population in the county)? Some people suggest that the Greens/Environmentalists need to shut up and vote for the Democrats because they are better then the Republicans. They say we are a special interest group and we have to trust in the Party. What about the developers and their complete control of this DEMOCRATIC county executive? I think it is difficult for Greens to vote for a Dem with a record this bad. I think that this is where a lot of the dissatisfaction for the Democratic Party is coming from, not the wording or code. We can SEE that the Democrats can be just as bad as the Republicans and no amount of spin or massaging the message will overcome this.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

You think Republicans may try to spin an issue in order to make their opposition look like extremist jackasses?  How would we survive that?  We should never oppose the Republicans.. it would cost votes.

When did Democrats become such frightened losers?  If party members dont support environmental causes, then I think they are wrong.  I am sure many dont.  What bothers me is the possibility that many Democratic leaders do support environmental issues, but fear they may be labelled "tree-hugging hippies" so they keep their mouths shut.  Those Democrats are not just wrong, they are offensive cowards.

Why are you so afraid?  You want spin?  The Democrats can spin this issue all around the GOP and make the Republicans look like greedy, big business, corporate whores who have been bought by polluters and are murdering our children with toxic wastes in order sate their greed and power lust.  

Some may say that Democrats are frightened because they have lost so much.  I say they losing because they are frightened.  

by Winston Smith 2006-05-09 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The plusses of a broadly green platform

Dems that vote for the Green Party when the outcome of an election doesn't matter are actually SCREAMING at the Democratic Party that the Party is not addressing their concerns. The Democratic Party, even after losing an election in 2000 which many in the Party blame on these Greens that deserted us, CONTINUES to ACTIVELY ignore and look down upon this part of the party. My only point in this diary is that the Democratic Party, and that is all of us, needs to, at a minimum, communicate the message that we do not HATE greens.

by OsoDelMar 2006-05-10 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Non-sequitur.

Here's another one: how many poor people show up and vote at local Democratic Party meetings?

by redstar67 2006-05-10 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Marginalized Green Democrats

Sure, I think we agree here more than we don't, but my point is simply that the process, at many levels, is biased against working people, against lower-income people, and against outsiders. Not for nothing most of the Dems in the Senate are rich white guys and gals.

To use your car analogy, many would like to fix the car.

Unfortunately, working folks raising kids and working 60-hours a week to make ends meet simply don't have time to fix that car. Period.

Poor folks would like to fix that car, but they simply can't afford the spare parts needed to do so (which could be anywhere from simply bus fare to get to caucuses to a computer and internet access to stay informed, see Gilliard on this topic).

Outsiders don't know much about fixing cars.

All three groups are horribly under-represented by the Democratic party at the party level Most politicians are career pols, rich guys or both, and the pathway into it is a life of poverty-sticken wonkitude and brutal campaign hours. Either way, you don't end up with regular people, and in a short while you have an out of touch party (which is what we have today).

Small wonder your complaint upthread about the competence of the Dem leadership. Why are they less than competent? Because getting ahead in Dem politics is not a meritocracy. You need to pay unreasonable dues (put off family indefinitely, crazy hours, et c.) or you need to be rich, else you are out of the game.

And when you are out of the game, it is somewhat off topic to suggest the way to get into the game is to simply get into the game. There are barriers to entry. And it isn't for the effectively excluded to work to erase those barriers, it's for the Party to do so.

Unless of course the party is perfectly happy with the long decline in voter participation among lower income strata in this country.

by redstar67 2006-05-10 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The plusses of a broadly green platform

Dems leaning more heavily on and catering more blatantly to the Dems that stuck around.

Except that as fewer and fewer stick around, the party gets smaller and smaller.  The big tent becomes a pup tent.

So perhaps the problem isn't that the protest vote doesn't work, but the campaign that doesn't speak to the broader coalition and engenders a protest vote doesn't work.

I don't think this is the chicken and the egg, because there was a big tent at one point.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-05-10 09:38PM | 0 recs
Marginalized Montgomery Green Democrats

Blatant plug here, Mr. OsoDelMar,

It's your own fault.  You mentioned the ICC.
The environmentalists in Montgomery who complain about the Democrats' weak support of our forests, wetlands, and streams find a warm home at our meetings Thursday nights.

Montgomery County MD residents (of any party) who want an inside look at environmental politics in the Democratic party can come visit the Montgomery Green Democrats.

We're here, but we can't win without troops.

--Bill Jacobs
President, Montgomery Green Democrats

by billjacobs 2006-05-15 05:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads