Ok, but it'll have to wait til I can get it from the library or borrow it. I won't support him financially. But please understand it's not his ideas on how things are bad, or how they should be better that I have a problem with. It's his grip on reality and the pain he's causing that I have huge problem with. I don't care why he believes he's right and just and all that. In many, maybe most things, I'm sure I'd agree, but it doesn't matter. What they're doing and have been doing since the last few months of the 2000 presidential campaign simply has never worked. And it's not showing any signs of working now. Sure, you can get a better movement going when you're being "subversive" as they like to characterize themselves. It's easy to get a lot of young people into a movement that's thumbing it's nose at something. That's fun to do and it generates excitement. But splitting off a lot of younger voters from the Democratic party, hammering the Democrats every chance they get, will only net..Republicans. I only care about what he's planning to do to prevent that from happening and if it does happen, what can he offer in concrete help to every single individual who suffers from it. Now, not in some possible future. And if he thinks that shooting the balance of power all to hell and getting us an even more Republican congress to completely hand over the government to one party is worth it to get their message out, to squeeze people so hard that maybe they'll join up with them, then I think he's the Stupid White Man.

I will try to read his book, but if you can outline here how he's planning not to hurt anyone any more than he has already, that would be informative.

I think the point that Pat makes is that in the real world idealism can't work at all with being tempered with a certain amount of pragmatism.

( And I NEVER read Penthouse by the way....but I did look at the pictures)

Larry, I understand Pat's points, but it kills me how she demands instant satisfaction from the Greens, but apparently has no such timetables for the major parties. Eight years of power, yielding net losses on traditional Liberal ideals are fine, but damn those Greens right here and now!!

The fact is things are happening. The party is growing, the local Greens are winning elections and beginning to influence real local policies. That will help people.

Also, in our state I'm reading about how the Dems are paying more attention to progressive issues (ie, moving left) because they want and need the Greens back. Do you think they would be giving a shit about our issues were we not here? When true Dems are run, some Greens (like me) are going to back them. Our energies will get behind the Wellstones and others like them, bringing new people to the polls.

In time the Dems will quit running Republicans, and have a better party for it. Accusations about the "pain" the Greens are causing is just so ludicrous.

Yeah, I can understand your not wanting to give a true progressive your $20. Much better if you give it to a real man like Bill Clinton. I'm sure his book will have all the answers to solve our problems "right now." While Bill is out there getting $100,000 a speech, Nader will continue putting his own money into his consumer advocacy and political organazations, helping improve lives for all of us.

lcj, the world is full of real progressives. I know lots of them who have given as much and gained a lot less than Ralph Nader. What I demand of the Greens is that they not be part of the problem. And so far they certainly have been that. I was serious about France, and I was serious about Germany in the thirties. You don't progress by doing what they're doing. You go backwards. Local stuff is fine. Run candidates where you can win, and where cross endorsements are possible it's even better, but don't open the door and invite the opposition in. And if you think that the "real Dems" are just paying attention to progressive issues because of the Greens you're givng the Greens way too much credit. The Democratic party is full of people who have always cared about those issues, but they have not been good about taking the dialogue back from the right. That's very aggravating, it's true. I'm sure Nader has been quite pissed, but...it's hard to even express the level of betrayal that many true progressives feel regarding him. I've had a look at some of his consituency lately. A lot of them are well meaning, but very young and mostly white. They have strong feelings about the environment and drug laws but often don't know much or care much about the issues surrounding poverty and other issues that are also the concern of progressives, so they certainly don't have a lot of understanding of how one Democrat more or less can make a difference in who gets to eat, who gets medical care and who gets housing. In terms of demographics they're not that different than a lot of the younger members of the Reagan Revolution. Young folks like revolutions and revolutions come and go.


Every bit of power ceded to the Republican party does long term damage to real live people. That's what Nader doesn't seem to get, or care about, or something. His vision of what should be is wonderful. Anyone can have a great vision of what should be. But just as I don't believe in the conservative idea of a free market making things just dandy for everyone, I don't believe that you can turn logic and history on its head and split the oppostion to conservatism and come out with anything but..much more conservatism. It's not like the Republicans are unaware of what he and MM are doing or that they're unable to take advantage of it.

Pat, the logic of your argument is clear, and accurate, as political strategy, and yet, lcj has a point, about the integrity of "walking the walk". Nader does, mainstream Demos, do not!
This grand corporate oligarchy we live in now, "evolved" through just that kind of "back-scratching" among "good" Democrats, who sold out their social consciences, along the way. It seems the "last chance" to stop it, was Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" speech, of the late 50's.
The congressional "give & take" mutual benefit approach, will, in the long run, be too little, too late. Environmental damage, class, cultural, and economic disparities are too great now, to be negotiated away.
I'm really worried, about what the effects of W's "run em down, smoke em out" rhetoric, will be, long term, for this countries sense of international diplomacy.
I'm afraid we're in for a long, bumpy ride, and do not look forward to the "collateral damage" we'll all feel...

Democrats, Democrats, Democrats..that's all this particular progressive movement seems to think about. How about they work to defeat the most conservative forces and then have a face-off with the moderates and liberals? Now that would make a lot more progress a lot faster. Really though, the generalizations about Democrats are really just..well ridiculous. I know plenty of people who've devoted their entire lives to really progressive causes, and have done so much good and are mostly socialists more than anything else, who vote Democrat all the way. Some of them are just as informed about everything as Nader is. Hell, I'd put my money on my sister in a debate with Nader any day of the week. Hell, on a good day she could make him cry. (OK, that part is just a fantasy, but if anyone could..) Just ask Sherry, and I'm sure she'd agree. She and the others I know are just as angry as I am at Nader. They've been on the front lines, working harder and harder to provide what help they can and he comes along and just screws them, the organizations they work for, the clients they try to help and then tells people how they should just admire him all to pieces for it.

Yes, the Democratic party has been too full of me-too Republicans and they've also been incompetent when it comes to delivering their message. The only hope for real, solid improvement in the foreseeable future is to fix that and help the progressive wing of the party to reassert itself. It's much harder to do that than to get a bunch of college kids to join up and and have rallies in favor of throwing the bums out. And there's much less glory in it. Don't fool yourself. These two men have ideals, but they also have monumental egos and do not work and play well with others, which you damn well have to do to have any kind of effective political movement.

Think Le Pen. Do you want that here? The Greens in Europe had a hand the situation there. Is that an acceptable level of collateral damage during this "bumpy ride"? There is no need to have that happen here, but it might and it will be because of the Green party if it does. The country is basically middle of the road. Always has been, probably will continue to be for many, many years to come. Divide the half to the left of the center line and what do you get?

I've been reading this thread over and over trying to get a bit of understanding on where everyone is coming from and I don't seem get it at all. I don't claim to have any true understanding in politics and not having it suits me fine. I just believe in standing behind the people that have the best intentions and the best means to fulfill those intentions regardless of what party they represent. Is that wrong? I don't know. I just think it's a good idea to keep an open mind to all options and go with the one that makes the most sense in the end. But hey, I'm one of those idealistic type people that actually believe things can be better than they are now and that war will get us nowhere good. Just my bit of input. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

Hi Ters. My position is just that what actually is going to happen as the result of an election matters more than the intentions of anyone running in it. I'm the pragmatist. Todd said so. I believe that political strategy is not only important, it's vital because once you're really a player, everything you do is going to have an effect. The effect can be the opposite of all your good intentions if the strategy isn't well planned. That's what's happened in France right now. Someday the damage might be reversed and since they have a parliamentary system it might be faster than it would be here, but for now, there can be no doubt that the left has moved the political structure of that country to the right. The effects of having Dubya as president now will be felt for decades to come in this country. The effect of having a more one-sided legislative branch after the mid-term elections would be huge and far reaching and the Greens have ideals to offer, but they can't fix that kind of damage without a kind of absolute power that's not really available in this country.

to me, it's basic math. the majority of the county is pretty middle of the road with people leaning to the left or the right. on both sides, you also have people that are further to the left or the right. the ones on the fringes of either side are never going to be completely happy because the majority of the country is not going to lean their way far enough for them to get everything they want. if you stick together on "your" side, you have a chance of getting some of what you want. if you split "your" side, you basically give it to the other side, and you're not only not going to get what you want, you're going to get what you really don't want.

just a long winded way of saying.."yeah, what pat said"...and no matter how many times i'm told there was no difference between bush and gore winning the election, i know that if gore was now president, we would not have someone like ashcroft as attorney general, nor would we be planning to raid social security to pay for tax cuts for the rich, along with many other things i don't like about this administration. if the deadly duo continues to hammer the democrats and helps deliver the midterm elections to the republicans than we're going to get more of what we really, really don't want...and that's enough for me.

btw...i'd put my money on pat's sister, too. pat...see if you can arrange it, i'd like to see nader cry. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/wink.gif" width=15 height=15>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 2 times, lastly by deb on May 05, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

Pat, Deb, I know there are good, progressive democrats, out there, and we'd be in deep doo doo, without their progressive influence
The effects of politicians' actions, for good and bad, aren't frozen, in time, though, and, the "chickens keep coming home to roost"
An example, is our Guv, here, in Calif, Gray Davis. He's takien some postive steps, re; immigration and school funding, and yet, he was one of the nation's largest recipients of Enron $$$.
What he did to the Calif economy, during last years "energy crisis, will take a long time to recover from... so the "trade-offs" keep having negative consequences. Ot's as if I went to the DR, and he said, "I can cure your mumps, but the side effects will give you chicken pox!"
Would that progressive Demons and Green Party supporters could form coalitions to throw out, "evil doers"
I have no easy answers I just hear our political clock, ticking fast & loud.....

The ticking you hear is going to turn out to be a hell of a bomb if we end up with a Rebublican Senate and they retain Congress. It's going to make a difference, all right. Things might be bad, but they can get sooo much worse.

bumper...i understand what you're saying, but if it all gets put in the hands of the republicans, it's going to be like hearing the doctor say you have mumps AND chicken pox...and if it hurts, too bad...deal with it, because we don't really give a shit.

actually, if you have a viable green candidate for gov in calif, then work for that...or even better for local elections. that's where you should start, if you really want to be a player. it's not fun to work from the bottom up, but if you want to change the hearts and minds of middle america, that's where you have to start. to be really effective, you have to work on changing the minds of middle america in the actual middle of america. you know that big spread of red on the electoral map. if you can't reach them, then you don't have a chance...and you'd have a much easier time pushing them over the edge of center to the left, than to the far left. get that done, then we can talk about more...because if you can't get that much done, there is no more. and, if you just hammer the only viable candidates on the left to the point that none of those people are going to take a chance on moving in that direction, than you've lost it right there.

i just read a poll that said california would go for bush over gore if the same election was held today. that is not a good sign that things are moving forward...

I agree, Deb, on the local focus needs...in fact, yesterday during Cinco De Mayo gathering in Ukiah Plaza, i picked up a Green Party bumper sticker that says, "Forrests precede civilizations, and deserts follow" then, I registered Green for the 1st time..
Gore wouldn't carry Calif, now on a bet, Kerry might, if he campagins hard, here

I think Deb did a great job on the analogy there. I can't think of any more to say except that if you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it. If the Greens haven't learned from history we all seem to be doomed to repeat it with them.

Back to square one we are!! my oh my! I just can never seem to get my drift across even though I mean well. i call on the folksinger to help me express myself yet again:

"here's hoping, you'll understand
I want to feel like a natural man
get up early in the morning
do what I can
you can't help no one with money
if you can't with your hands....

...And it ain't easy, yes I know
It's a HARD and rugged road.....

You got to BE THERE brothers, yes you do"

-AG


Love to yas