Welcome back to iBrattleboro.com Thursday, February 22 2018 @ 10:20 PM GMT+4  
Home |  Directory |  Contact | 
Nader to Decide Soon    
Wednesday, February 13 2008 @ 09:20 PM GMT+4
Contributed by: Floyd

PoliticsFebruary 13, 2008


We were watching the political fireworks last night and kept asking ourselves:

Who is going to stand against the corporate takeover of our democracy?

Who is going to stand against nuclear power?

Who is going to stand for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney?

Who is going to stand for cutting the bloated, wasteful, ever-expanding military budget?

Who is going to stand for a Palestine free from U.S./Israeli military domination?

Who is going to stand for an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime?

Who is going to stand for the repeal of the anti-union Taft Hartley law?

Who is going to stand up to health insurance industry and for a single-payer, Medicare for all, Canadian-style health care system?

We watched closely last night, and didn’t notice anyone standing for any of this.

Within the coming days, Ralph Nader will decide whether or not to throw his hat into the ring.

We’re still exploring.

But time is running short.

Please, help us spread the word about our exploratory effort.

And give as generously as you can.

Thank you for your ongoing support and activism.


The Nader Team



What's Related

Story Options
  • Printable Story Format

  • Nader to Decide Soon | 47 comments | Create New Account
    The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they may say.
    An alternative perspective
    Authored by: Christian Avard on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM GMT+4

    If people want to vote for Nader, that's cool. I voted for him in 2000 too. Just remember we already tried running progressive candidates in 2004 and 2008. Look where John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are now. Hitting the golf course with those other losers, the New England Patriots.

    Barack ain't the greatest and I see him as a souped up Bill Clinton (NOT a JFK). But I for one don't want a GOP president. You may argue both parties are the same, fine. Then again I don't want our SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade, a continuation of the war in Iraq, permanent tax cuts for the richest 1%, rollbacks on combating global warming, etc. Even if lightning were to strike and Nader gets elected, who's he going to caucus with? Exactly!

    Food for thought for those considering Nader.


    "A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory." - Steven Wright, comedian

    Obama LOOKS different...
    Authored by: Timmy on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:56 PM GMT+4
    That's really well done and friggin funny, but flawed in several of it's
    Oh well, just carry on...
    vote for a guy who gives great speeches, makes white people feel
    non-racist for liking him, and is pro-nuke.
    He's the best the Democrats have to offer, so why not support him
    above someone who will actually reflect your values?
    That's right, because you're realistic, and because you really don't
    want McCain... you are totally right.

    Maybe NEXT time you can vote for someone who deserves it... but
    THIS time it's SO important to compromise.

    Really... you're right.

    Obama LOOKS different...
    Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:18 PM GMT+4
    Tim, you have a choice between Coke and Pepsi, don't you see? They
    are not the same! Sure, you might want locally-pressed apple juice,
    but sugar water is the only drink that has mass appeal, and the only
    one that can really be sold in stores in great volume. I have visited
    stores outside of Brattleboro, and they just think the locally-pressed
    apple juice is crazy, man.

    So, when asked, say Coke or Pepsi, please. (I'm going with Coke,
    which is completely different and vastly superior to Pepsi). And don't
    bring up the Nantucket Nectar guys starting out with their juices on
    beaches and growing into a nationwide juice provider. That could never

    : )
    Drinks are on me
    Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:25 PM GMT+4

    I take a scotch on the rocks

    Drinks are on me
    Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:37 PM GMT+4
    Fine, but if Coke loses to Pepsi it will be Scotch's fault.
    Drinks are on me
    Authored by: Timmy on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:42 PM GMT+4
    Scotch is a SPOILER! I can't believe the ARROGANCE of scotch even
    entering the race! Next thing you know there will be some root beer
    entering the fray and will FLOAT away with the presidency.
    Booze makes the soda palitible
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:54 PM GMT+4
    In the South, racist whites don't want colas elected at all. They're for 7-

    As for me, I'll take my rum with Coke, as whoever heard of a "rum and
    Booze makes the soda palitible
    Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:44 PM GMT+4
    Just like a Northerner to forget about RC Cola... : )
    Better Shake that Cola Drag, Check the One That's Really MAD!
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 08:54 PM GMT+4
    R-C...The one with the Mad, Mad Taste?


    When I was a kid I used to make the RC choice with my 26 cents (in
    1972 it bought a 16 ounce bottle). I liked 'em all. Pepsi, Coke, Royal
    Crown, also TAB, which had a distinctive taste back then that I liked.

    Feel free to paste the YouTube link to Nancy Sinatra doing her go-go
    boots ad for RC. That ad was the swingingest!
    When that ad hit the airwaves, it knocked my little socks off!

    Booze makes the soda palatable
    Authored by: cbridge on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:14 PM GMT+4
    Where I grew up folks used Coke as a superior barnacle remover.
    Booze makes the soda palatable
    Authored by: cgrotke on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:27 PM GMT+4
    It removes corrosion from batteries, too.

    I may have to write-in Dr. Pepper.
    Drinks are on me
    Authored by: cbridge on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:08 PM GMT+4
    Rocks?! Never!! Well, okay, maybe in the middle of a heat wave.
    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:50 PM GMT+4
    As Ralph Nader said in 2000, finding a difference between Bush in
    Gore is like comparing Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Al Gore and
    George W. Bush are EXACTLY the same, folks! Just like Coke and
    Pepsi. LOL.

    Both are opposed to combating global warming.
    Both would have taken us to war with Iraq.
    Both are of the same intelligence level.
    Both think there should not be a separation of church and state.
    Both would "out" a CIA officer and cover it up.
    Both would appoint conservative judges at the Federal and Supreme
    Court levels

    Yeah, it made NO difference who we voted for in 2000. Riiigggggt....

    I see the similarities, between the two major parties, but to say that
    the differences are minor seems to break with common sense.

    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?
    Authored by: Timmy on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:56 PM GMT+4
    I think the main difference between Dems and Republicans is:
    Republicans talk about conservative ideals and deliver.
    Democrats talk about liberal ideas and don't deliver.

    Either way you end up in the same spot - so pick your poison.
    Obama over McCain
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:03 PM GMT+4
    If Barack Obama is elected (and the Democrats hold on to Congress,
    which they are likely to do) you should see a major change in the way
    the US acts to combat global warming. If John McCain is elected,
    you'll see very little done to get alternative energy and rail rebuilt,
    and you'll see another oil president leading us further into the Iraqi
    quagmire. If Obama is elected, you're likely to see the planet have A
    SLIM CHANCE of getting out of the worst of the temperature increase
    in the few years scientists say we have left. This will take political
    leadership to get done, and can't wait for the private sector to move
    on. So, for the sake of expediency and the planet's (human and
    animal life) future, I'm going to vote for Obama, among other
    reasons, this one (global warming) being the major reason for change.

    I think there IS a vital difference, like when voters had a chance to
    choose between Wilkie and Roosevelt, or between Lincoln and Douglas
    (or Breckinridge).
    Obama over McCain
    Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:15 PM GMT+4
    I'm trying to not to get too excited about Obama. I've had my hopes dashed too many times before as Democrats choose the most boring, centrist, baggage-carrying numbskull to lose to the Republicans.

    Too many of us well-meaning lefties idolize JFK in an image of our own making. He was an amazing person, a good leader, and a change-maker, but he wasn't holy, he wasn't particularly moral, and he wasn't the most liberal guy in American politics. We can celebrate what was good about him while acknowledging his faults. No need to elevate him to sainthood. The main thing Kennedy did was bring change, and that's what Obama promises.

    Obama isn't the most left-leaning Democratic candidate either, and not as far to the left as I'd like. But, like Kennedy, there is something inspirational about him - something beyond his uplifting rhetoric. The first time I saw his 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention, I knew he was going to be this country's first African American president. His message transcended race, and it transcended politics and it reached into the heart Americans.

    Choosing Obama will be a change. Not just because he's black, although it may mean that this country is ready to begin shaking off its racist culture. Obama will change this country because instead of the fear and loathing (apologies to HST) offered by the Democrats and and Republicans of the last three decades, he offers a positive and inclusive vision of hope. We can take the offer, or we can do what we always do. It will be interesting to see what direction Americans will choose, should he become president.

    From a purely ideological point of view, I'm probably more aligned with Kucinich, maybe even Gravel (who I've met and admire immensely). But I can see the value of leadership and image that neither of these two bring to the table.

    And neither does Nader. Nader has made himself irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. I won't argue with anyone who wants to vote for him - in fact, more power to them. Nader isn't a threat to change any longer.

    (Crap, I started to get a little too excited about Obama there, didn't I?)


    Obama over McCain
    Authored by: cgrotke on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 08:50 PM GMT+4
    "The first time I saw his 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention, I
    knew he was going to be this country's first African American
    president. "

    After his convention speech, I got up to find Lise and I recall telling
    her that I thought I just saw our first black president. He gives great
    speeches, which do count for something.

    My main worry with him is his real voting record, not the hypothetical
    one (I would have voted...such and such). His votes are almost the
    same as Clinton's, and she has voted against my interests for most of
    her term.

    One of his first actions was to stand up in the debate over the Ohio
    voting debacle, speak eloquently, then voted against helping the folks
    in Ohio. It was sad, really, and it was at that moment I knew for sure
    he was running (and playing it safe by mirroring his potential

    I vastly prefer Michelle to Bill as First Lady. It may come down to
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:08 PM GMT+4
    When it comes to national elections, where candidates are trying to
    appeal to as broad a spectrum of voters as possible, it's not surprising
    that Obama has positioned himself in the center and not the far left*
    (*as it is moved to the right nowadays). That has happened since our
    Republic was founded.

    What I do with the big elections is vote tactically, not ideologically. In
    the local elections, I tend to vote more specific to my ideals, where
    scale permits. I'm looking for global warming broad brush strokes, and
    hoping that Obama will deliver on these. He's no guarantee, but he's
    tactically the best chance we've got to reverse global warming from a
    national level of direction. Let's hope he delivers, and that people
    keep his feet to the fire on this, including Al Gore, who would make a
    great advisor for his cabinet on this issue.
    Authored by: cbridge on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:34 PM GMT+4
    Sounds very rational to me. We really have no way of knowing just how
    Obama will work out, especially given the ungodly mess the incumbent
    weasel has created. I doubt that he knows. I'm not too thrilled by most
    of his publicly espoused positions, but if they were more what I want to
    see, Hillary would have the nomination locked up by now. I refuse to
    complain because the guy is a politician. We're going to elect one of
    those no matter what; better to have a skillful one, who has proved he can
    work the Senate, & who hasn't spent decades tangoing with corporate
    lobbyists. Sometimes we see more progressive policies after
    someone gets into office - e.g., FDR.

    And let's face it - what could convince the rest of the world that the US is
    ready to change direction better than electing a guy named Barak Hussein
    Obama over McCain
    Authored by: cbridge on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:37 PM GMT+4
    Yup. Hold the optimism, there.
    Nader to Decide Soon
    Authored by: annikee on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:57 PM GMT+4
    Actually, Coke has killed people in Central and South America for trying to organize their labor force. Never heard that about Pepsi. So there's quite a difference right there. Just in case people lost their long-term memories.

    "Kindness and love being the core of human interaction rather than power and material gain is at the heart of everything worth struggling for"-SK-B
    Pepsi is just as guilty as Coke
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:22 PM GMT+4
    You need to do your homework Annikee.


    Pepsi's lawyer in the early sixties was Richard Nixon (for those who think
    Pepsi is just as guilty as Coke
    Authored by: annikee on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:36 PM GMT+4
    You need to check your links, Buddy. That page is a 404.

    "Kindness and love being the core of human interaction rather than power and material gain is at the heart of everything worth struggling for"-SK-B
    Pepsi is just as guilty as Coke
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:06 PM GMT+4
    Wrong. You need to copy both lines and paste into your browser. It's

    Pepsi is just as guilty as Coke
    Authored by: Homey on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 09:28 PM GMT+4
    You both need to stop saying you need.

    Pepsi is just as guilty as Coke
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 10:34 PM GMT+4
    "You both need to stop saying you need."

    If one wants to read the evidence that supports my statement, it is
    necessary that one cut and paste both lines of copy into their browser.

    The fact that PepsiCola asked our government (Nixon) for a coup in Latin
    America is there, for anyone who cares to read about it.

    Have a very wonderful day.
    Coke Did It!
    Authored by: annikee on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 12:39 PM GMT+4
    And here are some links to things that really have happened:
    Feb 14, 2007 ... Coca-Cola is in fact a stridently anti-union company, and the destruction ..... union organizers and other stakeholders; field observations; ...

    Union organizers are among the primary targets of SOA violence in Colombia. ... New York Times: Union Says Coca-Cola in Colombia Uses Thugs ...


    Union Says Coca-Cola in Colombia Uses Thugs - New York TimesCoca-Cola adamantly rejected the accusations on Monday. ... the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, union organizers and human rights groups contend. ...

    Corporate Swine, Inc.They cite that there has been no evidence supporting the specific claims that union organizers were murdered by coca-cola officials, but have no defense ...

    The ACTivist magazine - Campaign to Stop Killer Coke Flows Into CanadaSince, 1989, eight union organizers working at Coca-Cola plants in Colombia have been murdered and several hundred more tortured or kidnapped in a vicious ...

    "Kindness and love being the core of human interaction rather than power and material gain is at the heart of everything worth struggling for"-SK-B

    Coke Did It!
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 03:04 PM GMT+4
    Which just goes to prove my point:
    BOTH cola companies are guilty of political dirty tricks and

    Coke Did It!
    Authored by: annikee on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 04:48 PM GMT+4
    Proves my point that Coke has killed people. And disappeared people.


    "Kindness and love being the core of human interaction rather than power and material gain is at the heart of everything worth struggling for"-SK-B
    Coke Did It!
    Authored by: tiny on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 05:42 PM GMT+4
    Okay, I got nothing to do today...

    Do you really think the big dudes in Atlanta tell the bottlers to kill
    union people?
    I thought Coke sold syrup, aren't the bottlers in these countries wholly
    owned companies independent from Coke Atlanta?
    Unions in these countries are different from those in our countries as
    they are more politically active and are more threatening to the local
    power structure than the corporation themselves, aren't they?
    It all seems a bit more nuance and complicated then "I told you so."
    Just wondering, please educate us and don't jump ugly on me, I am
    just curious.

    Pepsi isn't off the hook however
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 06:58 PM GMT+4
    Yeah, but Annikee, you said this originally, which prompted me to say
    what I said about Pepsi: "Never heard that about Pepsi. So there's
    a difference right there." Then, when I gave you the contrary
    which you have so far never been able to refute: that Pepsi Cola has
    done bad deeds in Latin America when they lobbied the Nixon White
    House to overthrow governments and kill people who threatened their
    cola sales overseas. So, what you cannot refute is, there really isn't
    "quite a difference right there" as you originally claimed. I always said
    that both companies, Coke and Pepsi, were guilty. Facts are facts,
    regardless of how you might "feel" about it.

    Pepsi isn't off the hook however
    Authored by: annikee on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 10:21 PM GMT+4
    Never said Pepsi was off the hook, you're always starting a fight where there isn't one. But where is there anything beyond conspiracy that Pepsi wanted to do things? Did they do it? Coke did things. That's the diff, there, old Buddy. Threatening a hit on someone is not the same as hitting them. And where the hell does "feelings" come into anything?

    "Kindness and love being the core of human interaction rather than power and material gain is at the heart of everything worth struggling for"-SK-B
    Pepsi isn't off the hook however
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 11:13 PM GMT+4
    I didn't think I was picking a "fight" just arguing my point. Sorry if I
    offended you with my style of argument.

    The article link I posted showed that not only did Pepsi Cola seek
    direct US military/intelligence action to help them out, they employed
    thugs to do some of their dirty work. The only difference with Coca-
    Cola is that Coke is older, more established and bigger than Pepsi, but
    both companies are guilty as sin of colluding with thugs and of
    murdering people who got in their way. So, my point to counter what
    you were saying was that Pepsi was not innocent of corruption.

    I can be tenacious about an argument when I think I have a point, but
    I don't mean to make it personal, even if it sometimes sounds like
    that. It's the nature of this kind of blogging however to go back and
    forth, and stick to your guns. But when I'm wrong, I try to always
    concede to the other person where they are right and I am wrong. It's
    not all about "me" and it's not all about "you" --- it's about
    establishing fact from fiction. I suppose I could try to be a bit "kinder
    and gentler" in my style of delivery, as nobody likes to be told they
    are just "wrong". Their pride gets ruffled and reason goes out the
    window. I'm all about finding the truth, and separating "feeling" from
    facts. It's human nature I guess to argue with someone even if you're
    wrong and you know it, if you feel the other person isn't treating you
    with respect. It's like: "that guy/gal is such a jerk to me that I don't
    care if they ARE right; I'm going to stick it to them because they are
    mean to me." I understand how that works, and try to be fair.

    Coke Adds Death
    Authored by: Floyd on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 03:34 PM GMT+4

    I know they are a truly evil corporation, but what would I use to clean my battery terminals if I didn't have some of their product on hand?

    The UnCola
    Authored by: cgrotke on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 05:40 PM GMT+4
    Everyone needs to learn basic html tags. : )
    The UnCola
    Authored by: tiny on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 08:30 PM GMT+4
    what are html?
    i think everyone should learn please and thank you first.
    Nader's Birthday Issues
    Authored by: Floyd on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 04:15 PM GMT+4

    Another Message from Nader's exploratory committee.

    Ralph's birthday - February 27 - is less than ten days away.

    Ralph will decide soon whether to throw his hat into the ring to challenge the corporate powers that control our political system.

    Over the past two weeks, we have been exploring whether or not anyone on the national political landscape is effectively addressing a whole slew of major issues, including:

    * Adopt a single payer, Canadian-style, health care system
    * Cut the bloated, wasteful military budget
    * Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
    * Support solar energy not nuclear power
    * Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
    * Impeach Bush/Cheney
    * Adopt a polluter carbon tax
    * Crack down on corporate crime and corporate welfare
    * Open up the Presidential debates
    * Repeal the anti-union Taft-Hartley law

    So far, no luck.

    Not even a blip on the political radar.

    For the past two weeks, we have also been exploring whether we will be able to effectively challenge the political duopoly that has decided to yank these issues off the table in this important year.

    A key measure of effectiveness will be your activism, energy, and money.

    Without it, the issues listed above and other important ones will remain off the table.

    I'll be brief with some suggestions
    Authored by: Christian Avard on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 04:54 PM GMT+4

    When the Dems piss royally piss us all off, I still believe third party politics is not the answer.

    Folks, take some time to read John Odum's amazing diary Du mping the Dems would be regressive!! DONT DO IT!

    And I'd also recommend Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer going head to head with Ralph Nader at a Nation debate. I can only provide the general link and the title of the story is Robert Scheer Debates Ralph Nader. Look that up at Truthdig and I guarantee you it will answer all the questions why taking back the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is the best alternative.

    I personally don't believe in the "taking my toys and building my own sandbox to play in" approach. For me, it's about taking back the sandbox from the right. Do we want to change politics or do we want power? That's the big question and for me, it's about taking the Democratic Party back.


    "A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory." - Steven Wright, comedian

    I'll be almost as brief...
    Authored by: Floyd on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 05:06 PM GMT+4

    To think that 2 parties that each hold certain fundamental traits at their very core will ever be enough to represent the interests of a pluralistic society seems really misguided to me. These parties routinely stifle debate and discourage open discourse and debate on the issues that define our times. They work on predetermined assumptions and logic so the outcomes are limited before we even start.

    I applaud anyone who wants to devote energy to making the Democratic party more democratic, but they are never going to represent the majority of my interests so I will never be more than lukewarm about them at the national level.

    Monopolies are anathema to choice and lack of choice is not a true democracy. We live in the 21st century and our political system is still in the horse and buggy age. This government is largely organized to prevent change and we live in a time when change is obviously drastically needed. Climate change will not wait for us to get our acts together.

    Putting bandaids on a broken system does nothing to promote accountability, transparency and confidence that our sometimes elected "leaders" actually do things that make things better.

    I'll be briefer than you
    Authored by: Maus Anon E on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 05:17 PM GMT+4
    I'd like to see a third, or even fourth party. But the only way to establish another party is from the grassroots up, building credibility local and state politics, before a national party can be successful.
    Nobody proposes doing that. Everyone thinks they'll start a new party with no established structure or history and start right in by winning the presidency. We'll never have any party other than the two if people only want a third party once every four years.


    I'll never be briefer than you
    Authored by: Floyd on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 05:52 PM GMT+4

    It is a salient point that political alternatives cannot be built on the candidacy of one person, although there have been success from that as well. Al Lewis (aka Grandpa Munster) got the Greens major party ballot status in New York after his run for governor. He was nearing 90 years old at the time, but his notoriety was a major boost to the effort. I won't assert that Nader is in the position to do that because conventional wisdom has turned against him even though he didn't do most of what he was blamed for.

    A campaign that excites people is one way to get people motivated and energized to do the grunt work required to build and maintain a party. In places where hostility to party choice has allowed third parties to form there have been successes. Greens have been elected to school boards, and even mayor, in California and NY.

    The playing field is not level and we are fighting a "they are all corrupt anyway" mentality so it is challenging to get people committed to making it happen.

    Perhaps a serious economic downturn will give people more time to think about improving our society if they are no longer distracted by the things they currently occupy their time with.

    That being stated we do have a couple of parties that could benefit from an increase in participation right here. One party, Liberty Union, is composed of a handful of individuals keeping their thing alive.

    Sound bites bite
    Authored by: spinoza on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 06:07 PM GMT+4
    Ten minutes of channel surfing convinces me ..the party is over... All parties, any parties. As long as the dominant information/education/entertainment/escapist mode is this ravenous Svengali which insists of making everything frantic and mind numbingly base...we are a people without solid footing, no matter what the platform.
    Sound bites bite
    Authored by: Floyd on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM GMT+4

    I know what you mean. Alot of potential voters are nearly brain dead when it comes to understanding politics and what is at stake. There are lots of reasons for it, but we also need to remember that it has always been this way to some extent. Now were distracted and self gratifying whereas it used to be lack of communications and lack of education of the general population that might have hindered things (although wisdom is not something often learned at school anyway).

    As I said, we may need to have more at stake than we do now and a wake up call that makes more realize that we can't just stare into the vacuum.

    I'll take my own advice and move away from this screen now.

    Keep your hands off my briefs
    Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 19 2008 @ 02:43 AM GMT+4
    ***Greens have been elected to school boards, and even mayor, in California and NY.***
    Multiply that across many more communities and legislatures in those two states and 48 others, and the Greens will have something.
    Nader won't be the one to do that because he doesn't have broad appeal, which is what you'd need to have for a "top down" approach.


    broken record
    Authored by: Timmy on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 05:19 PM GMT+4
    More apologiesg for corrupt and ineffective Democrats. I find it
    incredible that a thinking person can in the same sentence admit that the
    Democrats are lame and then state that third party efforts are worthless.
    You DO realize that conservatives laugh their asses off when liberals vote
    again and again for politicians who talk pretty and then just become
    entrenched capitalist politicians, right?
    Give me a break. If you want to make a positive argument for ACTUAL
    progress coming from Dems then fine, but stop tearing down people who
    have the vision and guts to actually make meaningful statements.
    Here's what did it for me...
    Authored by: Christian Avard on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 05:41 PM GMT+4

    Again.... I'll let John Odum tell it better me.

    Fact number one: having only two parties creates two very large tents across a diverse country. Party discipline (read: party intellectual "purity") is not maintainable, unless you want to try to write an inherently un-democratic command-and-control system into your party rules, as the Progressives have tried here in Vermont. Such an attempt, besides being distasteful, simply doesn't work, as the legalities and social realities of participatory democracy have caused such rules to fall away or be ignored.

    Fact number two is the kicker, though. The other institutions that make up our social power structure are still there. The media, corporations, churches, cultural subgroups -- these all exert forces on and through the political parties -- no matter WHAT the one on the "left" chooses to call itself.

    So here it is. The big reason I can't leave: Social, political and historical forces have brought us to this point in history, and if we supplant the old leftist party with a new leftist Party, those same forces will inevitably bring us right back to this same point eventually.

    That's the reality I cant get past. To think otherwise is to ascribe some strange, mystical quality to quote-unquote "The Democrats," and thats just plain goofy. When we're mad, we always think "The Democrats" are the waffling Feinsteins and turncoat Liebermans sucking the air out of any chance for real progress.

    But who else are "The Democrats?" When I go to my Town Committee meeting, I see a handful of committed, local faces who have lived in the area most or all of their lives, who more-or-less share my viewpoints and have ALWAYS worked hard to make their communities (and their world) a better place. Is there any reason that these folks are any less "The Democrats" than those we are pissed off at?

    Of course not -- and thats the point. The Democratic Party is a lot of people. It's a very large institution -- every bit as large as the "New Progressive" Party would be if it successfully supplanted the Dems. And it's made up of most of the SAME people. Hence, its just as big an institution, and every bit as influenced (in the long run) by every other institution in our culture.

    Bottom line: Whats the most that a third party could hope to acheive? Over a generation, it supplants the Democratic Party. During that time, the Republicans (a basically static Party, as the conservatives) have free reign during the period of upheval and transition. After the Dems are supplanted, the "New Progressives" enjoy an election cycle or two of ideological purity before giving way to the forces of culture and Democracy. Over a generation they fight for cohesion, direction, and power, eventually coming to a position as a full and robust opposition party to the Republicans.

    ...and after two generations, we are right f***ing back where we started. In the meantime, the fragile ecosystem and our dwindling cultural diversity have taken it on the chin in an even bigger way than we thought possible without an effective opposition institution to the Republicans -- possibly damaged beyond all repair. I don't know about all of you folks, but I have kids now -- and I am NOT willing to take that kind of risk.

    In sum: There are historical forces that have brought us to this moment of truth. Getting frustrated enough to run from the problems by "dumping the Dems" would in fact be historically regressive, as we'll eventually come back to this moment of truth and be forced to deal with it, one way or the other."

    Amen and hallelujah!

    I will say the VT prog party does not in my mind represent a big tent approach. It's like Brattleboro activism, it's our way or the highway. Stick with our program and don't stray from us. Look what happened to Winston Dowland when he didn't go along with the Progs re: the NLRB changes in 2006. That's one example of party purity/litmus testing.

    The Dems aren't perfect but at least there's diversity under a big tent system.


    "A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory." - Steven Wright, comedian

    broken record...All the Scratchin' Makin' You Itch?"-The Supreme Team/DJ Just A Lot Of Superstar
    Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 06:40 PM GMT+4

    You may be right about the conservatives "laughing their as*es off"
    about the liberals and how they vote. Some of my conservative
    friends laughed about Nader running in a winner take all election
    scenario (where Gore lost in those close states). Also, I recall one of
    them saying that the Republican party would NEVER be so
    undisciplined as to stay divided right up to the election; they were
    better at forming ranks behind one candidate after what happened in
    1976 when Ford and Reagan almost split the party permanently. I
    even got one friend laughing at Vermont for running a prog and a dem
    against each other, splitting the vote so that we ended up with a
    Republican governor after Dean left office. Seems the Democrats and
    progressive independents are the laughing stock of most of my party
    disciplined GOP friends.

    I will be getting the last laugh IF Obama survives and goes on to win
    the presidency, and has a Democratic congress to work with,
    something that would mean we might have a CHANCE (hope) of
    turning back the worst of global warming. (Rather than lose the
    election once again to the GOP and watch as the planet dies and all
    hope is lost.)