?

Log in

Presidential Candidates - The Life and Thoughts of Zach

Jun. 26th, 2003

04:00 pm - Presidential Candidates

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

  1. Green Party Candidate (100%)
  2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (93%)
  3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (83%)
  4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (76%)
  5. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (75%)
  6. Socialist Candidate (73%)
  7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (72%)
  8. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (71%)
  9. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (71%)
  10. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (68%)
  11. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (68%)
  12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (68%)
  13. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (65%)
  14. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (61%)
  15. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (60%)
  16. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (53%)
  17. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (50%)
  18. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (31%)
  19. Libertarian Candidate (29%)
  20. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (6%)
  21. Bush, George W. - US President (5%)
  22. Buchanan, Patrick J. ? Reform/Republican (5%)
  23. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (3%)
  24. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (2%)
  25. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (-1%)
  26. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (-4%)
  27. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-7%)

I don't neccessarily agree with all of this so I think I'll have to go back and twiddle with my answers and see which questions are throwing it off. I'm glad it got me ranked 100% with the Greens though. That much (and the Kucinich #2 slot) is right on. But Leiberman above Dean? I don't know about that one.

  1. Green Party Candidate (100%)
  2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (83%)
  3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (74%)
  4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (73%)
  5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (72%)
  6. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (71%)
  7. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (70%)
  8. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (70%)
  9. Socialist Candidate (69%)
  10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (67%)
  11. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (64%)
  12. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (61%)
  13. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (59%)
  14. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (58%)
  15. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (57%)
  16. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (57%)
  17. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (52%)
  18. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (34%)
  19. Libertarian Candidate (27%)
  20. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (12%)
  21. Buchanan, Patrick J. ? Reform/Republican (6%)
  22. Bush, George W. - US President (6%)
  23. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (5%)
  24. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (2%)
  25. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (2%)
  26. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (-1%)
  27. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-6%)

Current Mood: relaxedrelaxed

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 26th, 2003 03:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was right there with the Green and Kucinich at #1 and #2. Of course I have no idea who this Kucinich fellah is, but he sounds like a nice bloke.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 26th, 2003 04:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
He's ok, except for the flip-flop on pro-choice (he has been pro-life in the past). Also he's kind of a nut. But he's our kind of nut.

This poll isn't particularly great on the details really. I mean I got very different results by just changing the strengths of my convictions (but not my answers) on some of the questions. And last I checked Hagelin actually seemed like an alright guy (_total_ nut, but alright), even though he's ranked below even Bush on both of my lists.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 26th, 2003 04:48 pm (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
I had a fundie christian phase when I was pro-life too so I wouldn't hold that against him.

Cultural differences between US and UK leftist politics are fascinating. In the UK we spend most of our time arguing about 'class' with the 'working class' leftists accusing the 'middle-class' liberal left of being not remotely radical, and the liberal left accusing the workers of being divisive and dull (people's front of judea, judean people's front etc). That doesn't seem to be a factor in the US, where, even though your population has the least social mobility in the developed world (along with the UK) you all think you can make it if you only try hard enough. :)

Also you seem happy to have anarcho-greens running for the Dems which actually gives them a chance of winning. You'd never see any green sort of radicalism in the three main UK parties.

Only the underlying philosophy seems to be the same. The cultural expression of it seems quite different across the pond, even though we share the same electoral problems in first-past-the-post systems.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 26th, 2003 08:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yah it's incredibly different.

Class - It is political suicide to talk about class in America. I _wish_ we could talk about class. The whole idea of Class Warfare is so anathama to the American Dream of pulling yourself up out of poverty through hard word and becoming middle class (don't you know? our entire country is middle class, we don't have any rich or poor!). Accusing a political opponent of engaging in Class Warfare is mudracking of the highest order.

Major vs. Minor parties - Unlike the rest of the civilized world we have a winner takes all plurality based election system. We don't have run off (instant or otherwise) and we don't have proportional representation. If there are 9 candidates and 8 of them get 10% of the vote and one of them gets 20% of the vote then that one wins, flat out. (Of course it's much more complex than that what with the Electoral College and all but let's ignore that for the purposes of discussion). It is not uncommon for our Presidents to have received less than 50% of the vote. So because plurality wins the whole system is structured to support only 2 parties. The whole system is crystalized around 2 parties and the 2 parties collude to make the laws such that it is nearly impossible for any other parties to organize.

The formation of our Green parties has been inspired by the European movements but it takes a very different form here because there's no such thing structurally possible in America as a "coalition government". Here you either win or you lose, you don't work with the lesser parties to create compromise. It's total bullshit.

So the fight for the formation of an alternate radical-progressive (for love of god don't say "anarcho" around ANYONE even if that's what you mean...that's even more unheard of than "class") Green party is pretty much the most important political struggle we have, in my mind. It trumps everything else because it's the _only_ way to change the corporate dominated business as usual.

As far as Kucinich having a chance of winning...no one believes he does. He's running in the Democratic primary against 8 opponents, at least three of which are MAJOR players. Only one candidate makes it out of the primaries. Kucinich will never be that one person. He'll never see the general election. People will vote for him as a "protest" vote. Personally I think he'd be better off running as a Green where he'd have a chance of actually helping to build the party rather than just running a martyrs campaign.

The whole abortion debate is such a can of worms I won't even go into it. Unfortunately it is impossible to consider it a non-issue. It's THE number one issue for a lot of people, just as "guns" are THE number one issue for a lot of other people. They're just bullshit issues used to divide us and distract us from asking real questions about who is really running the show. I mean 70% of the nation is pro-choice if this were a real democracy the issue wouldn't even be a question. But it is. And look...I've gone into it.

Oh. There's SO MUCH TO SAY about your brief comments. I should just say "yes. you're absolutely right. it's fucking (bloody) fascinating." :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 03:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Personally I'm looking forward to class not being an issue when I move to the US. That should put an end to the argument over here that cripples the left. Not that class (aka social immobility) isn't a major issue of course (and indeed the ONLY issue to many who see themselves as fundamentally working class and the middle-class as the devil incarnate) but it would be good to talk about something else for a change instead of everything turning into a debate on 'class war'. If you have time, check out the thread at http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=0353509936ff1d28c49c47d9a78239b3&threadid=46643 [which is a popular London-based libertarian-left bulletin board (freqented also by many from the more authoritarian workers parties)] to see a perfect example of what I mean.

I assume however that in the US you simply have other issues instead :)

Our electoral system in the UK is much like yours, a first-past-the-post (what you call "winner takes all") system that leads to a two party system. Our twist is that right now the Conservatives are doing so badly that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats is creeping up on them in the polls. It wouldn't be the first time in our history that a 3rd party has arrived and displaced one of the two main parties (though this happens only every couple of hundred years :)), but really only two parties vie for power at any given time.

Recently we've started to get more proportional representation in our elections. The Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament both use a mixture of first past the post and list-based PR, as do elections to the European parliament. Only the UK parliament and the local councils still use exclusive first-past-the-post. Alas, for the English at least, this is where all the real power lies.

Greens get 5% in first-past-the-post elections because everyone knows we can't win except in rare cases in local council elections where exceptional people or a long history of radicalism has changed expectations. No Green has ever been elected to the UK Westminster parliament that I know of. On the other hand my friend Steve managed to get over 50% of the vote for the Greens in May's local council elections, but then he is one of the exceptional types who can show people that he will actually make a difference - long before getting elected. People actually have to know him for that to work, so the impact is localised.

In PR elections, Greens can get seats so we get 10-12% in those elections, making us the 4th party. In the Scottish elections in May we went from one seat to something like 7, once people realised it was actually possible for a single Green parliament member to make a difference.

I can't say anarcho?! Man, that sucks. Le Guin refers to her green/anarchist/taoist credentials all the time so I figured it must be okay :-)

I agree with you that the Greens are the only way to transcend the corporate-dominated landscape we have now, but the authoritarian left in the UK certainly wouldn't. They see the Greens as nettle-soup-drinking-middleclass-hippy-mystical-hypocrites and wont have anything to do with our airy-fairy liberalism. Any chance of the green party becoming a vehicle that transcends the barriers between class is almost non-existent right now.

As far as Kucinich having a chance of winning...no one believes he does.

I was referring actually to the fact that he apparently got elected to Congress - we dont even have someone of that radicalism in our legislature, never mind in the executive. The closest we have is a former liberal convert in the House of Lords but since they're not elected and have little power it hardly counts.

Abortion is a non-issue over here. As is gun-control of course. On the other hand, everyone has to have a position on Europe - whether we should be In or Out, keep the Pound or embrace the Euro. It's similarly irritating. Swings and Roundabouts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 04:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
ps I would actually appreciate your views on the thread i posted. it kinda meanders between interesting debate and general 'hi how are you' chitchat, but really gets going when "joe reilly" and "rednblack" start to wade in for the 'working class'.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Which thread do you mean?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:23 am (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
the link to the thread i posted in the comment above...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Doh! Yah right. Duh.

I was thinking you'd posted something new recently to your LJ on this topic.

Too much LJ this morning. I'm losing it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh wow. I don't think I have the energy to jump into the fray on that one. SOO MUCH chest beating territorialism.

You're right, _that_ kind of class consciousness is pretty counterproductive. It isn't even particularly conscious.

Who knows, maybe it got better after the first 3 pages (which is all I read). I'll bookmark it and consider coming back.

I'm all about broad coalitions, alliances. I'm all about judging a person's philosophy and politics on the basis of their actual views on actual things. Not on what newspaper they read (of course here ALL the daily newspapers serve the corporate interests).

I did agree with the person who said that everyone who has to sell their labor is working class. I'm a home owning professional but I still consider myself working class because if I stopped working I'd be homeless and I don't control the conditions of my labor at all.

For me it's all workers against corporations, not low paid workers against professionals. It is disempowered against the powerful in a fight for radical democracy, not more oppressed against less oppressed in a fight for moral high ground.

I get sick of arguing theory pretty quickly and just want to go out and do stuff, change stuff, enjoy stuff. Thats where the revolution is, not in some newspaper.

There I go again, having opinions when I said I didn't have time to form one.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 11:00 am (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
i joined in on about page 5 if that encourages you :) I found pages 5, 6 and 7 fairly interesting. Joe Reilly's comments to me were very challenging to my liberal tolerant perspective. How deep does my tolerance really go? His argument is that under most liberal veneers of understanding, are right wing attitudes. I suspect he may be right in many cases. I grew up in a conservative family and I was very right wing until a few years ago - not socially so much as economically - and I find I have a built-in prejudice against what you would call trailer trash and we might call estate scum.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 08:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh when you're hanging out with the marginalized radicals you can say anarcho all you want. It'll earn you points with the right people. Say it in your writing and say it when you're preaching to the choir. But any _politician_ who has any aspirations of getting any votes must distance herself/himself from any anarchist leanings and Not Talk About It. Unless maybe if you're in some select places like Berkeley or Madison or Eugene or Humboldt County. Even then it's dodgy.

But, no, among my friends and fellow activists we make no bones about being anarchists to the core.

Within the marginalized left, as everywhere, there is plenty of in fighting. One thing I really like about living in the midwest is that we seem to have culturally embraced "midwest pragmatism" in our radicalism. There's few enough of us radicals out here with few enough resources that we band together really well and just don't fight. But the east and west coasts (New York, Boston, San Fransisco, etc) have HUGE in fighting. They've got all these leftover marxist organizations from the 60s and 70s that have all these resources but they're all assholes and they all have been fighting the same outdated irrelevent ideological battles for 30 years. It can get nasty.

Luckily most of our "authoritarian left" is essentially and increasingly irrelevent. The vast majority of the youth pushing the radical left forward are anarchists and most new organizations have that consensus based spirit. Even when we work with the old guard organizations we are usually able to convince them to do stuff by consensus too.

Some of that fighting has even affected the Greens (which have _mostly_ been a unifying force for radicals, plenty of socialists and labor types vote for and support the Greens because we don't have a viable socialist or labor party). There was a schizm in the 90s that left us with two national green parties each claiming sole legitimacy as The National Green party. Luckily they both supported the same presidential candidate in 2000 and now the issue finally seems settled with one of the two parties basically disolving as everyone saw how lame they were and just quit but the fighting was bitter and pointless.

You'll find that the precise definition of "liberalism" over here is very fluid. Anyone more conservative than you will call you a liberal no matter if you're an anarchist, a socialist, a green, a progressive, a radical, or a Democrat. Among mainstream america (which prides itself on the myth of the "moderate") "liberal" can often be a bad word. But then among progressives, greens, socialists, radicals and such many will go out of their way to explain the <a href="http://wolfgang.groogroo.com/politics/greenphil.html:>difference between themselves and liberals</a>. "Liberal" is a bad word on the right, and "Neo-Liberal" is a bad word on the left. I have no idea how Kucinich got into office. I need to learn more about that. It does boggle my mind, especially since he's from Ohio (which is like the exemplar state of mainstream boring Heartland Midwestern America). All I can say more about British politics is that I LOVE watching the morning questions on C-SPAN. Those guys are some rowdy bastards...and so obsessed with the witty underhanded attacks. Our guys are so polite and their speeches so boring and predictible and essentially context free. Again, we've got the quest to pretend we have a moderate consensus when really we essentially have a fascist-corporate conspiracy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
We have this great concept called "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" which means the parties not in power can be as mean as they like about the government without any possibility of being labelled 'unBritish' or 'unpatriotic' or anything silly like that.

Culture makes such a huge difference about what can or cannot be said to or about other people in debate. In some ways it's incredibly useful. In others, not so much.

Oh and I dont believe in conspiracies. I just believe in lots of free agents out to make as much money as possible. End result is the same.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 11:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
On conspiracies, oh yeah me too. I call it a conspiracy only in jest. I realize that it is just a behavior of the system and agents making non-cooperative greedy choices every time they play the prisoner's dilema. :)

Which makes it both easier and harder to imagine changing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 11:09 am (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
The advantage is it only needs a slight shock to the system to jolt everyone into a completely different cultural equilibrium. All we need to do is change the rules of the game, and the game will change the players. Of course, predicting HOW the players will change is entirely impossible ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 26th, 2003 08:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yah he's been running for president since the 80s. A genuine nutcase.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:szasz
Date:June 26th, 2003 09:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Are you old enough to remember when two Larouchies made it on the democratic ticket for the Illinois Lt. Governor and I think Treasurer? The party was PISSED, but they had nice standard American-sounding names, and people did that "just guess" voting thing in the primaries, and there they were.

They were a couple of nutcases, too. And amazing, we wound up with a bunch of Republicans in state office that year. I think this was 1986.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 26th, 2003 09:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't remember it but I figured something like that happened given how Mayor Tod declared Danielle Chynoweth to be a "just like those LaRouchites" during her campaign. Implying that she was a Green infiltrator into the Democratic party because she *gasp* had had a Nader sign and went to the WTO protest in 1999.

I was young enough in the 80s that all I remember was my parents railing about how ludicrous and insane they were.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 26th, 2003 09:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm very much leaning in that "really like" direction with Kucinich. I still smell Democrat on him (like how exactly did this awesome guy get elected in a Heartland state anyway?) and I'm so sick of that party. But I'll definitely vote for him in the primary. All the other candidates are wankers.

Apparently he's still being courted by the Greens to break
rank and run as a Green. That'd be interesting. I _love_ Nader, but it'd be nice to ween the party off of him, we need new blood so that when Nader is too old to run for office the party can still have viable presidential campaigns.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:bdar
Date:June 27th, 2003 06:24 am (UTC)

A foot in the frying pan...

(Link)
I too was charmed by Nader, but after the debacle in Florida, I felt like he betrayed me. I don't blame him for Gore's loss--I blame Gore for that, as well as Justices Scalia and Rehnquist--but I felt genuine anger at his lack of sympathy for the situation. After Bush was appointed, all I heard out of Nader's mouth was "It's victory for the Greens! Victory!"

Except it wasn't. They didn't even get enough support to garner matching funds. While liberals everywhere had to start bunkering up for the four year winter we expected under Bush, Nader continued to cheerlead the power the Greens had to shape a nation.

Again, I don't blame the Green Party for Gore's loss. But Nader's comments post-selection were almost guaranteed to give a lot of progressives the impression that he didn't care who won or lost, as long as the Greens made their voice heard. That's selfish. That's not the all-inclusive party that I was sold on. It made Ralph sound power hungry, not progress hungry.

It's stupid that the Democrats didn't want to acknowledge the Greens as a viable force for rallying progressives around the liberal candidate, and didn't want to work with them to create a unified front. It's equally as stupid to keep trumpeting the war call that Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, so go Green. (I think these last few years have put paid to that argument.)

There's so much about Election 2000 that disappoints me, anyway. Frankly, out of the four frontrunners in that race, I would have voted for McCain over any of them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarfmouse
Date:June 27th, 2003 09:28 am (UTC)

Re: A foot in the frying pan...

(Link)
See I wouldn't have voted for Nader is I really wanted Gore in office more than I wanted to give the Greens a voice. I find it hard to believe that with a Republican congress behind him Gore would really have done much better than Bush. Half the stuff Bush has been able to do, the way was paved by Clinton. Everything in PATRIOT and SON OF PATRIOT is stuff that Clinton era law enforcement bodies had been asking for for years. There's nothing _new_ in PATRIOT. It just happens that it was politically possible to pass it after 9/11. The political climate of the nation changed and Bush took advantage of it. I'm not sure Gore would have been much different, he'd just have been smarter about it. He would have spun it better. But the results would have been largely the same. Clinton played the WMD game with Iraq, Clinton did military buildup there, 8 years of Clinton policies towards Iraq are what made the second Gulf War possible. And Gore was much more of a hawk than Clinton. Enron would have happened no matter who was in office. The tech bubble would have burst no matter who was in office. We'd have our armies fighting all over the globe no matter who was in office.

The Greens can not be blamed for the Republican congress. The Greens can not be blamed for the post 9/11 hysteria.

I do really still believe that there is no significant difference between Bush and Gore. Only a difference in style and intelligence. Gore would have done it all "better", more "efficiently", and spun it better. That is all. It's a matter of will we dominate the world with the world's tacit blessing or with it's curse. Either way we still dominate.

I went into 2000 knowing that it was the frist volley in a 10-20 year fight. That because our system is so fucked we have two choices: a) continue to play by the established rules and watch power get more and more consolidated by corporate pawns or b) vote Green every single time no matter what the consequences until politicians wake up and realize they HAVE to address Green issues if they want to win.

And really to some extent for some people that happened. Nader was polling at 8% early in the race. By the time the election rolled around he got what 3-4%? That means to me that over those final months of campaigning Gore swung far enough to the progressive side to get half of Nader's votes back (and he did, his rhetoric over a 6 month period went from extremely neo-liberal moderate to very populist progressive...which is an unheard of campaign tactic, generally Democrats start populist in the primary and go more moderate/conservative in the General). Gore got himself back every Nader vote that was available to him. The remaining Nader voters, I believe, were folks like me who would never have voted for Gore no matter what as a matter of principle. And he still lost (er...won) because he and Bush both were politically vacuous.

And now look at how much more progressive the Democratic spectrum is. It still isn't good enough for me and I'll still vote Green. But it's silly to say that things aren't shifting. I'm not going to stop struggling just because of a token couple of steps shift when we need a good few hundred steps or so of shift. But the trend is encouraging.

And Nader himself was never running for matching funds. Various people around him kept dreaming about it but he was running to organize the Green party. And after his election there were HUNDREDS of new Green locals all over the country. We'll be seeing how well organized they kept themselves (not Nader's responsibility) over the last 4 years soon enough.

And in Florida there were 2 or 3 other "left" candidates who each got enough votes that if they weren't there maybe the election would have swung to Gore. Do we blame them for Florida? Florida was rigged. Blaming anyone other than Geb Bush for Florida is misguided. Florida wasn't about hanging chad, it was about THOUSANDS of disenfranchised blacks and former prisoners who should have had the right to vote but were illegally denied that right.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:soulsong
Date:June 27th, 2003 10:33 am (UTC)

Re: A foot in the frying pan...

(Link)
The people who voted Green instead of Dem arent the problem. The problem is those who want to vote Green but dont because they fear Bush. They're the ones who we should all be ranting and raging at. Oh yes.

Seriously though, it's distressing to see progressives visibly angry at Nader and people who voted Green and let Bush in. That's just counterproductive in so many ways.... In any case, the GOP and the Dems are the same from this British (future immigrant) Green perspective. 911 changes nothing in my contempt for Bush, Clinton, BLAIR - i mean, he's leftishliberal and he was as in favour of the war as anyone!!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:June 28th, 2003 08:08 pm (UTC)

Kimmitt Listings

(Link)
I ended up with Kucinich in first, followed by Dean and then Kerry, with the Green platform coming in a little below that.

The thing is, w/r/t Patriot I, I lean toward Zach's opinion. The Clinton White House was notoriously hostile toward civil rights issues, and while Al Gore is significantly to Clinton's left in this area, there are reasons to think that he would have signed a bill very much like Patriot I. I am heartened by Kucinich and Dean's uncompromising opposition to Patriot I (of course, there were some fairly innocuous parts of the law, such as technical changes which make tapping cellular phones with a warrant less legally strange).

If one believes that the Greens are responsible for spoiling to a Bush win, then one must accept some responsibility for the Republican Congress win in 2002; the Dems' disarray and lack of capacity to respond came from their lack of solid leadership and perception that the public genuinely sided with Bush on the issues (don't ask me why that is). Of course, I don't think the Greens lost the election for Gore; I think Gore lost the election for Gore and didn't even manage to generate the silver lining of a 5% Green result. Sad on every level imaginable.

I guess my next question is, what does a Democratic candidate have to promise or demonstrate a record of in order to demonstrate that he or she is genuinely taking Green issues into account? For example, Kucinich wants out of NAFTA; Dean's come out in favor of IRV and public financing of elections; and even Gen. Wesley Clark speaks of the progressive social contract. Would a promise to work on IRV and a SecAg appointment be sufficient, or does a candidate essentially need to be a "Green in Dems' Clothing" in order to get the support of the serious Greens?
(Reply) (Thread)