: : On the other hand, has MDG or JD ever considered that if he and enough of his friends joined a progressive third party, that the Democrats might take some proactive steps to woo them back into the fold? This is precisely what has happened in New Mexico's local politics with the emergence of the New Mexico Green Party.
: OF COURSE I've considered that, Sam. And as I've repeatedly told you, I support third parties, especially the Greens. What I advocate, and what you apparently dismiss, is WORKING FROM THE BOTTOM UP. You want a viable Green party candidate for President? Then start building the Green party at the local level.
SDF: I do. In fact, I belong to a political party which believes in grassroots democracy as one of its key values, unlike the Democrats, who favor the big candidates/ big money approach. And this grassroots approach is precisely what the Greens have done in New Mexico.
One of the ways in which I do this, however, is this practice of not voting for Democrats. After all, one can't be a Democrat booster and a Green canvasser at the same time, and this really does put the question to fence-straddlers -- which party are they going to support? BTW, I'm still waiting for your response to Krasny's question:
*Big deal... so you vote for the crook. The real question is, "What do you do so that in four years, you don't have to go through the same exercise in lesser-evilism?"
So? What do you do? Inquiring minds want to know...
: Establish the party, take control of school boards and state legislatures and show the people what a difference the Green party can make. You have to build your way up from the bottom. In the meantime, you also need to come to grips with reality and ask yourself who will be better for the country, Bush or Gore/Bradley. You say there's no difference between the two, and I say there is.
SDF: Cockburn and StClair can't find much of one. Bradley supported the war against Sandinismo? NJ, are you reading this?
Meanwhile, that Federal money that comes along with Presidential candidates who garner 5% of the vote could come in handy for local organizing, it would pay for a lot of copies of our information, a lot of folding chairs and tables etc... sorry it doesn't sound like much of a "grassroots" way of approaching politics, but as YOU once argued, realities will be realities...
: : SDF: What about those who have something to lose by its continuation?
: You really think you have nothing to lose, as opposed to big bad liberal democrats like (as you allege) me? Think again. The Democrats might just stop privatization of Social Security, whereas the GOP are gung ho for it. That affects even a commie like you, SDF.
SDF: Yes and I really doubt Mr. Free Market Dollar Bill Bradley is going to do ANYTHING AT ALL to stop the privatization of Social Security.
: Lastly, I'm amused by how you think calling someone a liberal is a bad thing. I don't mind being called liberal, though I probably go beyond that term. Liberals have always fought for human rights and freedom, environmentalism, and all those other things leftists embrace -- and just because one is a liberal DOES NOT mean that one rejects socialism -they can easily go hand in hand. I remember when the Republicans embarked on their campaign to make the term "liberal" an insult. I remember George Bush, in his sneering, nasally voice, calling Mike Dukakis a "lii-ber-ral," as if that was a bad thing. The sad part is, the conservatives have won; in fact, they've done such a good job of it that they even have leftists like you, Sam, agreeing with them.
SDF: The sum of my arguments has been to the effect that liberals need to quit the Democrats in order to be effective. In arguing thusly, I've said nothing about the matter of being a liberal itself. Have you picked up the habit of misattribution from Frenchy?