Search
Like republicans? Then vote green for governor.
The green party is pushing hard this year to get votes for its gubernatorial candidate, whom I usually refer to as Affable Green Irish Guy (with no disrespect intended to the Irish, who are blameless in this).
The reason for this is not a desire to aid and abet the republican candidate, as is their habitual practice - in the current cycle, see Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington State - perhaps because republican gubernatorial candidate whatshisname is so feeble that he is unable to benefit from green assistance. Rather, the goal is to secure automatic ballot access for future races, which under state law is conditional on receiving 50,000 votes in the gubernatorial race. On one of their own web sites, which I won't link to out of principle, they acknowledge this:
The Green Party of New York State needs to get 50,000 votes for Governor in order to regain automatic ballot status. Being a ballot status party allows us to run many more candidates. With ballot status in 2001, we ran over 200 candidates. Without ballot status in 2005, we ran only 20 candidates.
An automatic ballot line for the green party in this state will have strongly negative implications for the present and future electoral goals of the New York State Progressive movement.
There are currently seven Congressional races for republican-held seats where Democrats have a serious chance for a pick-up: NY-03, NY-13, NY-20, NY-24, NY-25, NY-26 and NY-29. It's fair to assume that we'll be defending some of these seats in 2008 and 2010, and trying to capture the ones we may have missed out on in this cycle. Given that greens are not fielding candidates in some of these races simply because they can't get enough signatures to get on the ballot, a 50,000+ result for Affable Green Irish Guy could fundamentally shift the dynamics of the next two Congressional elections. In this cycle, to give a preview of that dynamic, a self-proclaimed green candidate (whom the party has disavowed) ran in NY-26; the Democrat, Jack Davis, took the lead only after the Green was knocked off the ballot (though, in fairness, the Foley scandal assisted that development). But the underlying dynamic remains: a vote for the green candidate for governor is a helping hand for Congressional republicans all the way into the next decade. Vote green, and see a spoiler in every race - because, as you know, there's no difference between republicans and Democrats.
On the Presidential level, I would consider New York less secure for Democrats than expected in the 2008 race. A Siena poll from October 12th, 2005, shows Hillary losing the state in a potential matchup against Rudy Giuliani. While that particular scenario seems somewhat unlikely, and the poll is dated, it's worth considering. But will the greens run a candidate in the 2008 Presidential race? Does water flow downhill? It will not matter, contrary to green assertions that all they want to do is push the Democrats to the left, who that candidate is; after all, they ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. Just for that alone, they should be made to petition for every candidate they want to run, in a snowstorm if possible.
Lastly, in terms of this year's election, the reason proffered by the greens to not vote for Eliot Spitzer is his prior support for the death penalty; this despite the fact that as Attorney General, he's never sought it, and that the death penalty in New York is really very much an academic issue. This strikes me as more of a justification than a reason; no doubt, if things were otherwise, they'd come up with some other 'reason'. However, given the dynamics of the state government, with an entrenched and well-defended republican majority in the state Senate, the central objective of the Spitzer campaign is not just to pull in a majority of the votes, but to win in a landslide; this to achieve clout to push the Spitzer agenda through the legislature.
In short, a vote for Affable Green Irish Guy is a vote to help Joe Bruno stop marriage equality, universal healthcare, implementation of CFE and the Spitzer broadband initiative.
These are the stakes: your vote for the green party line for governor will immediately benefit republicans in the state Senate, and further down the line, will assist republican electoral goals all the way into 2010. If you care about Progressive values and goals, you can't vote green – it really is that simple. If they want on the ballot, let them petition in every district they target.
In hopefully really bad weather. Heh.
An automatic ballot line
An automatic ballot line for the green party in this state will have strongly negative implications for the present and future electoral goals of the New York State Progressive movement.
well, I'd say that it will have strongly negative implications for pro-war centrist democrats. I don't see alot of livelieness from the progressive movement in New York, Green or otherwise, with Clinton, Hevesi and Cuomo on the ballot statewide, and Chris Owens taking 4th in supposedly one of the most progressive districts in the state. I suppose you'd rather have us vote for the WFP - who came out with a flier with Cindy Sheehan's photo on the front, too bad she has endorsed Malachy McCourt for Governor and Howie Hawkins for Senate - which makes the WFP look, well, rather silly is the nicest thing I'll say....
Also, you still fail to note that the candidate thrown off the ballot in the 26th was a Republican up to dirty tricks, and it was the local greens got him thrown off the ballot.
A vote for Malahy McCourt and Green party ballot status is a vote for more Gloria Matteras and Jason Wests - local candidates who are willing to stand up to corporate interests and do the right thing, rather than the thing that will just get them more campaign cash, or get them re-elected.
Will the Greens run a presidential candidate in 2008? Too soon to tell. Alot will depend on whom the democrats run. Among the things the two parties have done to make it difficult for 3rd parties from either side of the aisle is to put up huge obstacles to ballot status. In many states the only path to ballot status is by getting a certain number or percentage of votes for President. If the Dems can manage to change the rules for ballot status in those states, instead of hiring lawyers to keep Greens off the ballot in most cases, then there will be less reason to run a national candidate, and we can focus on local races, where we can make a difference (Gloria Mattera for City Council in 2009, anyone?).
Personally, I was a delegate to the 2004 Green convention, and voted to keep Nader off the ballot (instead I supported David Cobb, who ran a sort of non-campaign campaign, supporting local green candidates, and offering a wink and a nod to Greens who wanted to hold their nose and vote for Kerry in swing states - you may remember that he was one of the few who actually fought for against voter fraud in Ohio, NM, etc, after Kerry decided to run and hide). If Hillary or one of the other pro-war candidates from the DLC wing of the party gets the nomination, there will most certainly be a more active Green candidate for president - there is at least one nationally known Democrat testing the waters for a 2008 run as a Green. I hope to be a delegate again in 2008, and I'd like to be able to support the Dem nominee, as I think it'd be a good move for everyone, but the only candidate I see who I could think about supporting at this point is Feingold.
P.S. - How anyone can seriously vote for Hevesi, who is a crook (trust me, there is much more to come), and will likely be out of office in two months anyway, is beyond me.
Kerry
Kerry run and hide? No. He also filed lawsuits and compiled evidence of fraud that comprises a large book. He has yet to get Ohio's election board to allow the voting machines to be examined, but he did file legal challenges. Could he have been more vocal? Probably, but I don'[t know it would have gotten him anywhere.
Thank you for helping to keep Nader off the Green line in 2004. Personally I didn't hold my nose voting for Kerry. I found him to be an excellent candidate. Greens have a tendency to attack even good Dems if they aren't perfect. Gore and Kerry were good candidates. IF all of America was like Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Iowa City, Madison, and Park Slope, then maybe we would be able to elect presidents who were more liberal. But America includes a much wider range of views than those places. So a Democratic presidential candidate has to aim for the center. My hope is that while aiming for the center he will be an intelligent person, an environmentalist, and have some good ideas to boot. To me both Gore and Kerry fit the bill. Kerry was not my first choice, but I liked him.
This just proves my point.
Green, you really should occasionally ask yourself why it is that committed Progressives - like me - treat the greens with such utter contempt. A quick review of your screed should give you some clues.
First of all, most Progressives realize that the republicans are taking a blowtorch to the constitutional order, and that the only way to stop them from doing further damage is to unite. To be able to do that effectively, it is necessary to work with and support even those despised 'centrists', with whom one may only agree 80% of the time. What those centrists do is expand the electoral reach of Progressive ideas, which helps all of us. The greens, meanwhile, want to play in their own little sandbox of the like-minded, which infuriates those of us who realize the importance of coalition-building.
Second, since you mention your laughingstock of a Senate candidate, take a look at his web site. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a republican in that race, and probably one of the worst there is on too many levels to count. Is there a word about him on that site? No.
Third, re: campaign cash; we'll talk about that once the greens stop taking money from Santorum, Perry and the swift-boat people. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing that at the same time that you spout your holier-than-thou rhetoric; but shame is the last thing I expect from greens. You ran a polluter against Paul Wellstone, worthless hypocrites that you are. You're helping Rick Santorum and George Allen, just like you helped George Bush in 2000, because why? On which planet exactly does that make sense? Where is the Democrat that is as bad as any of those three? Take your time, please, and here's a hint: it ain't Hillary or Eliot.
As to Gloria Mattera, what of her? Did she have any union support from, you know, working people? Nope. Blacks? Not really, outside of the AY footfprint, and not a lot there, either. What she did have, frankly, was support from people who considered Markowitz just too gauche, too common, too blue-collar, too Brooklyn to vote for. That's the ugly open secret of the Mattera campaign. I believe the PC term is 'classism'. There's your green party right there.
And while we're at it, why don't you explain to me why you're supporting more power for Joe Bruno? Because that's what you're doing. In short, you're making the calculated choice that your ballot line is more valuable to you than the Progressive reforms Spitzer is going to enact. I guess that under all of the "Oooh I'm so pure" rhetoric lurks a process-oriented hack that prefers power to progress. Marrriage equality, eh, whatever.
If there was any doubt that greens aren't Progressives, lay them aside. They are not. Rather, they are a calculating bunch of elitist white liberals who will enthusiastically sacrifice principle to power at the same time that they accuse Democrats of doing the same, hypocrites willing to throw the common good overboard as long as they can look down their noses at the common folk and their humdrum concerns.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And now, let me get back to work on getting some centrists elected. Because yeah, like most people, I like centrists.
here I go again, dragged
here I go again, dragged into a mud throwing contest with Bouldin...
Not sure how supporting McCourt Helps Bruno - all the latest polls have Spitzer in the 70's and Faso in the 20's, if half of Spitzer's supporters decided to vote for McCourt, McCourt would be Governor, and Faso would be a distant 3rd.
As for your muckraking defense on lobbyist money -we're talking about the Green party of New York State here, not PA or elsewhere. We don't take money from Rethugs, or corporations, or lobbyists. We get our donations from school teachers and laborers, activists and retirees. There was an article in the Times today about how all of Pataki's big donors - about 190 who had given at least $20,000 to Pataki, 150 of whom have given $3.7 million to Spitzer. How does that kind of money NOT influence his policy decisions? He's one of the good guys, in theory, and I honestly hope for good things for New York for the next four years, but he's getting alot more money from Republicans than any Green in any state.
Howie Hawkins is a Teamster and long-time anti-war activist, BTW, and he's only attacking Hillary b/c she is going to win, and is the presumptive nominee for the 2008 nomination, who has been a tool for George Bush and Sharon on Iraq, Palestine, Lebannon, etc., and will continue the U.S.'s disastrous foreign policy.
I won't respond to the other nonsense, which has already been so eloquenty refuted furthur down the post, particularly the ridiculous mudslinging about Gloria - you sound just like one of Rove Rethuglican attack dogs.
Greens got a problem
Look, I do appreciate that the NY Greens may not be the same as the national Greens. But you are stuck with the national Greens to some degree.
Many of those that the Greens would most need to attract in order to be a stronger third party are people who are still pissed about 2000. And denials of being part of what went wrong in 2000 don't do the Greens any good. 2000 gave the Greens an enormous image problem among progressive Democrats, the very group that they need to attract.
In general I find Greens difficult to talk to. Honestly, the smug "we vote our conscience" line is not going to help you. My wife, who is less tolerant of Greens than I am, but definitely more liberal than I am as well, gets furious when a NY Green confronts her with that line and responds, "I vote my conscience as well. I just consider the consequences of my action as well."
The point being, nothing Greens are telling us is anything new to us and it is insulting for Greens to tell us we are NOT voting our conscience.
I also find Greens almost completely unwilling to respect my opinions if they differ in any way from theirs. Here there are many exceptions, but too many Greens seem locked in a right/wrong view of every issue, an approach I find disturbing.
Are there good Greens? Of course! But the fact is that Greens have a huge image problem because of 2000, and though the national party seemed to have been more reasonable in 2004, there still seem to be cases where Greens are running in races that seem to accomplish nothing but send a right wing etremist Republican to office. I need to see a sounder strategy and a greater respect for a diversity of opinion before I could ever vote Green again, or at least with any frequency. Like it or not, that is what the Greens anywhere have to overcome. I know many Democrats more leftist than I am who sweat they will never vote Green again. If the Greens want to attract those people, they have to address those people's anger and concerns that date back to 2000. So far you have not succeeded.
Well said...
...Green. How about Barbara Boxer? Now she is one I would support no questions asked. Though this is probably wishful thinking on my part.
As for Hevesi, I fear that a lot of folks have the "lesser of two evils syndrom" when comes to this. Never mind that he as well as Menendez in NJ are two big time crooks, but I guess as long as the Democrats win those seat it doesn't matter that people/voters are selling out their ideals. And this, as a consequence, will encourage those crooks to keep on doing what they are doing, because "hey no matter what I do I will get re-elected again because no one wants to see a republican in this seat."
[Ed. note]: This user is requested to finally just sign up with an account, so as to spare the editorial team the labor of having to manually approve her comments. We still love you. Thank you.
Ummm...I don't think so.
Personally, I feel that this "rah-rah", "Go Dems!", "politics-as-sports" attitude is one of the biggest reasons the nation is so messed up right now.
Whenever the Greens put up a person worth their salt- I'll vote for them.
The fact is- the Dems overall have been letting Reps walk all over them for the better part of a decade and this country is in SERIOUS need of a party to stand up to the Neo-Cons and their corrupt conservative base.
Let us not forget, it was the Green party that had the testicular fortitude to call foul on the last election count while Kerry ducked out of the confrontation with his tail betweeen his legs before any of us could turn around.
We seriously need to put an end to this two party system as it is being used as a noose to choke the nation while a select few go through our wallets and steal our homes.
Look at the situation now:
The Dems are expected to take control again- NOT because they stood up and called the Adminstration on its MANY MANY failures but because the people themselves are sick with how Bush has been able to lean America- "Land of the Free"- so far into a facist regime, it's scary.
What have the Dems done worth while except to let them do it?
I BLAME Democrats for that as much as I blame Karl Rove.
So, I say again- If the Greens have the guts.
If some crazy-assed Libretarian has the brass to stand up and protect what America is supposed to be about- then I will vote for them.
I put the ideals of this country before any party affiliation.
As long as you play this two party game the Republicans have laid out (that the Dems seem to completely suck at), you are a part of the problem too.
Instead. Ask the Dems to step up. NOW.
Well
You have a point, but...
The Democrats have seldom been anywhere near as dominant in the government as the Republicans are now. You are asking Democrats to take a leadership role when they do not hold Presidency, the House or the Senate. That is a little unfair.
And, there are plenty of times when Democrats, including Kerry, stood up strongly against Bush...and the media either didn't cover it or spun it into something "unAmerican."
Democrats tend to be a bit afraid of standing up to Republicans ever since Reagan. I am not sure what you expect them to do now. Kerry just called Bush an idiot...and got attacked for it because the right wing media was able to twist his words in a way that he never meant. Many Democrats have been speaking out extensively against Bush for 2 years now. Yet you don't credit them. Sounds like you aren't paying complete attention to what Democrats do or what they can do when they are in the minority.
Re: Well
[quote=mole333]You have a point, but...
The Democrats have seldom been anywhere near as dominant in the government as the Republicans are now. You are asking Democrats to take a leadership role when they do not hold Presidency, the House or the Senate. That is a little unfair..[/quote]
I don't expect them to be able to do much of anything official because I completely understand the Republicans control everything. There is a reason that they do- and it's not the Green Party's fault. In fact, the only thing going for the Democrats is that everything is messed up and Republicans have no leg to stand on because they have been in control the whole time.
It's kind of like winning a soccer game because the opposing team keeps kicking the ball in their own goal.
[quote=mole333]
And, there are plenty of times when Democrats, including Kerry, stood up strongly against Bush...and the media either didn't cover it or spun it into something "unAmerican." Democrats tend to be a bit afraid of standing up to Republicans ever since Reagan. I am not sure what you expect them to do now. Kerry just called Bush an idiot...and got attacked for it because the right wing media was able to twist his words in a way that he never meant.
[/quote]
Any and every attempt Dems have stood up to Reps, they have quickly backed down- with the exception of a very few I have mentioned below. That doesn't make them seem cohesive as a party. Which is what they need.
Kerry's statement- What he said and HOW he said it- WAS highly offensive and elitist. You have to own up to that- If you don't see how it was offensive then you don't understand middle America and you don't deserve their vote.
Yes, it was a mistake- but he waited way too long to correct it, making his apology come off as insincere and worse, calculated.
Of COURSE the media is going to paint that as un-American because it was.
What I would like- since you asked, is for the Democrats to STOP calling Bush an idiot and to start pointing out WHY he is an idiot and HOW un-American his policies are- AS A UNITED PARTY.
We started a war. AMERICANS STARTED A WAR.
We can be picked up off the street as terrorist suspects without question.
Our voting procedures are in serious question.
We want to build a WALL on our border.
We are afraid to speak out against the government.
Do the Dems have a cohesive argument against any of this? Tell me what it is- besides calling Bush an idiot.
The problem with Dems is: with their silence (as a party) and sometimes with their votes- They have helped all of this happen- all in an effort to hold their offices, too afraid to stand up for what is American.
Reps are struggling. They can't use fear-mongering anymore because it's so blatantly obvious. Now they have fallen back on taxes. Stating how high Dems are going to raise them.
It would be nice if- AS A PARTY- the Dems would say-
"We would have to raise taxes to make up for the outrageous spending this administration has committed.
When the Republicans came into office we were fighting over what to do with the "surplus" and now we need a plan to deal with largest deficit this country has ever had."
It's ugly but it's true.
Instead, we hear little to nothing and ABSOLUTELY nothing as a stout party.
[quote=mole333]
Many Democrats have been speaking out extensively against Bush for 2 years now. Yet you don't credit them. Sounds like you aren't paying complete attention to what Democrats do or what they can do when they are in the minority.[/quote]
I applaud the John Conyers- The Maxine Waters- the Howard Deans and the Barbara Boxers- but that's not the party as a whole. Other, major Dems like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry often find themselves dancing to the beat of the Republican drum machine and unfortunately Americans more closely relate these people to the party than those that DO stand up.
However- all of that has little to do with the original post and my response.
The point of the original post was:
If we vote for a Green Party member we might as well be voting for a Republican.
My response was:
Simply voting to get a Democrat in office is not enough. Especially when the Dems don't seem to have it together enough to sway the people on things that are obviously un-American.
Politics-as-sports does not work in the best interest of the people. Especially when one party completely dominates the only other existing party.
I will vote for whomever has the sack to do the job and stand up to the Reps when they do things that are un-American. I hope that one day it will be the Democrats.
1992-1994
Dems had the same power that the Republicans had now, at least by the numbers, and yet the Republicans managed to sideline Healthcare reform. Can you name one thing that Clinton and the Dem congress accomplished during those two years?
With all due respect
you need to learn how our government works. You seem to have cause and effect reversed.
As long as we elect our president by direct vote, there will never be a viable third party in this country. Our winner-take-all voting system precludes the necessity of coalition-building that fosters third (and fourth, and fifth) parties in most other democratic countries, where the chief executive is elected by a parliamentary majority that has been formed by cobbling together a government out of representatives of several parties.
So, if you want a viable third party, you're first going to have to change the electoral structure. Lots of luck there, pal (please see "attempts to abolish the Electoral College" for an idea of how easy it is to change the mechanics of elections in the this country).
Another perspective: from where I'm sitting, it looks like the Greens are largely to blame if centrists are dominating the Democratic Party - if you cut off the left wing of the party, put it in your pocket and go home, you are, of necessity, going to leave behind a more moderate party. And if you refuse to soil your dainty hands by playing with the rest of us, you have only yourself to blame if your views are marginalized. I take a back seat to no one in my desire for a truly progressive government in this country, but I also live in the real world, where I understand that the real choice is between a government that can give me some of what I want, and a government that would like nothing more than to be able to spirit noisy pains-in-the-ass like us off to Gitmo, never to annoy them again.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, should we (that's the Democrats I'm talking about) actually gain control of the House this year, as well as governorships in some very surprising locales, the media will wake up and realize that the growing strength of the Democratic Party resides in the 50-state strategy (you go, Howard!) and the big tent it requires. So, you all can sit outside the tent and whine, or you can come on in and help us make the Democrats the truly great party it might become.
With all due respect
you need to learn how our government works. You seem to have cause and effect reversed.
As long as we elect our president by direct vote, there will never be a viable third party in this country. Our winner-take-all voting system precludes the necessity of coalition-building that fosters third (and fourth, and fifth) parties in most other democratic countries, where the chief executive is elected by a parliamentary majority that has been formed by cobbling together a government out of representatives of several parties.
So, if you want a viable third party, you're first going to have to change the electoral structure. Lots of luck there, pal (please see "attempts to abolish the Electoral College" for an idea of how easy it is to change the mechanics of elections in this country).
Another perspective: from where I'm sitting, it looks like the Greens are largely to blame if centrists are dominating the Democratic Party. If you cut off the left wing of the party, put it in your pocket and go home, you are, of necessity, going to leave behind a more moderate party. And if you refuse to soil your dainty hands by playing with most of us, you have only yourself to blame if your views are marginalized. I take a back seat to no one in my desire for a truly progressive government in this country, but I also live in the real world, where I understand that the real choice is between a government that can give me some of what I want, and a government that would like nothing more than to be able to spirit noisy pains-in-the-ass like us off to Gitmo, never to annoy them again.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, should we (that's the Democrats I'm talking about) actually gain control of the House this year, as well as governorships in some very surprising locales, the media will wake up and realize that the growing strength of the Democratic Party resides in the 50-state strategy (you go, Howard!) and the big tent it requires. So, you all can sit outside the tent and whine, or you can come on in and help us make the Democrats the truly great party it might become.
Now, I know how government
Now, I know how government works and how unlikely it is for any third party to succeed- on top of the rules being against them AND being silenced at most debate events-
All of this is another argument for another thread.
My point was and still is-
Voting just to get a Dem in office is not the answer
It is the problem.
I think a candidate should EARN my vote. That's all I'm saying and I would go further to say that I think this is what most of America is saying about BOTH parties.
It would be nice to actually have a REAL third party to vote for because the choice we have now isn't really a choice.
Marty Markowitz too blue collar and too common???
.... I sincerely beg to differ. I had to the somewhat dubious honor to share a corner with him on election day (and almost the entire day) last year. When pressured what his was going to do about the skyrocketing rents as well as the perverse prices of real estate in Park Slope, he just nonchalantly replied that we could always move to a less expensive neighborhood. Talking about classism!
Further, before you go on bashing Gloria Mattera as well as her supporters you need to familiarize yourself with her agenda. She is one smart cookie who is anything but elitist (the same goes for her supporters). Her dad was a blue-collar worker, very involved in the unions, and her family experienced what eminent domain does to hard-working families.
And no, the AY issue wasn't the only reason people supported her (including democrats). I had more then one person yell at MM that they were, for the first time, going to vote Green because he endorsed Bloomberg instead of Ferrer. Speaking of voting Republican! She had a real agenda, and instead of flying of to London (during an election nevertheless) to promote Brooklyn's tourism industry (?) she would have brought back a real sense of government for the people by the people.
And oh yeah, should you ever need to find MM check the upper-class restaurants on 5th Ave. You will certainly find him there on any given weekend.
Did you read the enitre comment?
"Inflamatory" did give credit to Howard Dean and other progressive democrats. Sadly they are fighting an uphill battle against the "establishment" in Washington which includes NY Senator Schumer. So now I am asking you whose fault it is that many Democrats are centrists? It certainly isn't the Green Party's fault though I applaud you for recognizing that many left wingers are fed up with the "Republican Light" version of the Democrats, and thus turning to a party reflecting more of their ideals.
The Democrats' turn to the right has caused this. None of us woke up one morning saying: "Well, I guess I am going to become a part of the Green Party." This decision progressed with time when it became very apparent that many of them are too busy hob-nobbing with lobbyists, forgetting their constituents in the process.
And I resent the fact that you are portraying us as a bunch of whiners sitting outside the tent. Far from it, we are busy at work!