The Working Families Party is a great example of how to do what you want to do the right way. But it means more states need to adopt fusion balloting first. Otherwise, the efforts are going to be counterproductive.

Perhaps if we get a pact with progressive Democrats to take a stand against their conservative cohorts to stop attacking independent progressive parties, that would be a start?

The Green Party has status in more than one half of the states, however the Democrats launched a jihad against the Greens, successfully framing the Green Party for Al Gore’s loss and the resulting war in Iraq.

Obama’s record clearly indicates that the permanent national security and finance government which has support from both the Democrat and Republican parties calls the shots, as there is a straight line between Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama that would look little different had Gore been in place of Bush II.

More important than the voting systems, focus upon which is a distraction from the fact that progressives don’t have many folks with governing experience at the local level, qualifications are the functional prerequisite for higher office.

People are not going to give someone the keys to the government unless they’ve got a demonstrated track record of managing competing interests and a knowledge of the nuts and bolts of guvmint just because there is IRV or fusion voting.

There is no free lunch here, no shortcuts, you’ve got to work for it.

There already is a national progressive party: the Green Party of the United States. Your analysis of the Dems is correct, but you don’t need to build a new party from the ground up (which is backbreaking, soulbreaking work) – just get active with the Greens and help them grow.

The Working Families Party is just an appendage of the DP. It is a great example of yet another way to take progressive energy and channel it into the corrupt, corporatist Democratic Party.

The Green Party is based on shared principles of peace, justice, democracy and ecology. Greens refuse to take corporate money so they can be accountable only to voters and the public good.

As one can tell from the Missouri link, the Progressives there are in fact an affiliate of the Greens. If an organizational structure exists in states for independent progressive parties, by all means use them. I’m told the Greens suffer from a lot of personality-driven conflicts that hinder their ability to organize much beyond the local level. Is that true where you are? If so, what do you think can be done to put the kibosh on that?

Ah, but progressives do have that experience of which you speak. The Vermonters and Washington State parties have gotten results at the local and state levels. people know and trust them from having voted for them and seen solid results, however small they might be.

More important than the voting systems, focus upon which is a distraction from the fact that progressives don’t have many folks with governing experience at the local level, qualifications are the functional prerequisite for higher office.

People are not going to give someone the keys to the government unless they’ve got a demonstrated track record of managing competing interests and a knowledge of the nuts and bolts of guvmint just because there is IRV or fusion voting.

There is no free lunch here, no shortcuts, you’ve got to work for it.

Yes! One of the biggest peeves I have with Greens is that they play such a good role at the local and state level in some states, and then they run people for Congress and the Presidency. It’s a dumb tactic because the support isn’t there yet (there might be an exception for Congress in a very few states). You have to build your support and your leadership, and that means local and state.

Can you shed some light on the accusations made in the ‘08 Senate race in PA, about Santorum’s people quietly funding the Green candidate (with his knowledge) to siphon votes from Casey? Could such an activity become systemic in all races, particularly now that the campaign cash floodgates have been open?

One of the biggest peeves I have with Greens is that they play such a good role at the local and state level in some states, and then they run people for Congress and the Presidency.

Wow, going from local and state to national. Go figure. You act as though this natural progression is somehow an abnormality, or that it is detrimental. (Well, it’s certainly detrimental to Democratic Party hacks’ delicate sense of entitlement to voters, unearned as it is.)

If I understand that situation correctly, and bear in mind I can’t amswer for Mr. Schwab, the Green Party candidate might have been a ringer — someone the GOP put up deliberately as a front so as to lure Democrats into focusing their resources where they oughtn’t have. I could be wrong about that, and I confess that I don’t know all the facts about that matter. The overall point I want to make, though, is that had the Dems not wasted so much time trying to keep Nader and the Greens off the ballot in 2004, and fielded a decent candidate, they might have won that year in spite of the GOP’s electoral fraud.

I thought marcos made a great point. Some third parties are just starting to find success on the local level. That can and should be encouraged. But in most states outside of, say, Vermont, fielding a candidate for Congress or President just puts you in a spoiler role, which, if your goal is third parties that build movements and trust, damages the brand and works against the purposes of the local movements.

if your goal is third parties that build movements and trust, damages the brand and works against the purposes of the local movements.

completely disagree. trust with who? people who are never going to vote or support any politician not blessed by the Ds? i’d rather earn the trust of independents who reject both parties.

If third parties play the spoiler and throw an election to the “worst” candidate on the ballot by siphoning support from the second worst, that will pretty naturally tarnish the brand and trust among the supporters of the second worst, which the third party is probably trying to recruit to its cause.

Of course, it gets more complicated when you get to individual candidates, but if a third party wants to be a party, then they need to build their brand and their trust and their movement outside of what specific candidates they field. So they should worry about these things.

if your goal is third parties that build movements and trust, damages the brand and works against the
purposes of the local movements.

That’s a very dumb thing to say. Sort of a Whig mentality. The Dems have majorities only dreamed of in the past, and yet they’ve managed to screw things up completely by running a candidate that has completely gone opposite of everything he campaigned on. And for that we should get in line and shut up? Get real.

If the Democrats were a better party, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?

When the Dems lose control of the House in November, then what? Work harder and send more money … for failure?

Btw, if you’re going to shill for someone, it’s best to shill for yourself.

Btw Michael, I’m 100% in agreement with you. I’ve been trying to get things lined up for a Progressive Party myself.

On Tuesday, I’ll be voting Green Party in all but two races. I’m through with the Democrats for the most part. Sen Durbin got a reply from me on his vote for Bernanke. I take it he wasn’t pleased with what i had to say.

I’m not sure I said any of the things you accuse me of saying. When did I say get in line and shut up? When did I say send more money?

I’m pretty sure I was writing comments giving my opinion on how third parties can build their base of power in a way that gives them a shot at long term success…

Yes! One of the biggest peeves I have with Greens is that they play such a good role at the local and state level in some states, and then they run people for Congress and the Presidency. It’s a dumb tactic because the support isn’t there yet (there might be an exception for Congress in a very few states). You have to build your support and your leadership, and that means local and state.

Part of the deal is that you have to get a certain number of votes or registered members in order to retain ballot status, so campaigns which appear quixotic on the surface are run for legitimate reasons. Also, with small, new, weaker parties, there is not much you can do if some wingnut runs in the primary except challenge them, and that means that the sane people have to bend to the will of the loonies and defend the political integrity of the party. Greens have had problems with sectarian leftists doing this, hence my concern about that.

That said, Pelosi’s Democrat Party has shown the equivalent of a Zapruder film to all local elected Greens, made them an offer they cannot refuse, and most of them have switched or will switch to Dem registration in order to stay alive in the system.

Again, there needs to be a mutual nonaggression pact between prog dems and Greens or indy progs.

I thought marcos made a great point. Some third parties are just starting to find success on the local level. That can and should be encouraged. But in most states outside of, say, Vermont, fielding a candidate for Congress or President just puts you in a spoiler role, which, if your goal is third parties that build movements and trust, damages the brand and works against the purposes of the local movements.

If Greens or third parties end up in the spoiler role, then where does this place Obama and the prog dems who insisted that this time, the Democrats were really, really serious?

Can you shed some light on the accusations made in the ‘08 Senate race in PA, about Santorum’s people quietly funding the Green candidate (with his knowledge) to siphon votes from Casey? Could such an activity become systemic in all races, particularly now that the campaign cash floodgates have been open?

PA has the most restrictive ballot access laws imaginable, one of the best arguments that the US is not anywhere near a democracy.

The PA Senate candidate in 2008 was a professional third partier, not a Green per se. Given that the Green Party had been the “hottest rock” warmed up by activist energy, the reptilians from the left had always seen the work others had done as ripe lazy pickings for themselves, and once nominated, do what they please.

Many believe that spoiling the Democrats is a Good Idea in general, because in order to make an omelet, you’ve gotta break some eggs.

If third parties play the spoiler and throw an election to the “worst” candidate on the ballot by siphoning support from the second worst, that will pretty naturally tarnish the brand and trust among the supporters of the second worst, which the third party is probably trying to recruit to its cause.

completely misses the point of my comment. i’ll add in a bold this time to help:

completely disagree. trust with who? people who are never going to vote or support any politician not blessed by the Ds? i’d rather earn the trust of independents who reject both parties.

In my view of the polling, there aren’t very many independents who reject both parties, but a lot of independents who are loosely aligned with both parties.

That said, increasing the electorate is a worthy goal, so if you can find a message that appeals to a ton of folks who are left out of the process now, more power to you.

Again, there needs to be a mutual nonaggression pact between prog dems and Greens or indy progs.

Of course, it’ll probably never be a formal “pact,” but yes, such an unspoken tradition should be fostered. To me, I think, it starts with Greens and indies not contesting races they have no hope but to play spoiler in, and Dems accepting challenges from the left as legitimate and worthy of a dignified campaign when there’s a real race to be run.

I’ll take support from wherever I can find it, please leave all cooties at the door.

Of course, it’ll probably never be a formal “pact,” but yes, such an unspoken tradition should be fostered. To me, I think, it starts with Greens and indies not contesting races they’ll play spoiler in, and Dems accepting challenges from the left as legitimate and worthy of a dignified campaign when there’s a real race to be run.

We all need to look at the value we bring, for indies to acknowledge that the Democrat Party is not the source of all evil, and for prog dems to realize that the only way they can advance their agenda inside the party is if they are pulled by indy progs on the outside.

It involves ignoring the party hierarchy when they stoke the notion that the Greens are more of a danger than the GOP, likewise within the indy movement, when ideologues and manipulators stoke people up opposing the corporate centrist Democrats as worse than the GOP.

Business is business, but just because we occasionally go after one another does not mean that we have to hate one another or go for the kill. Ideally, we’d find common ground and work together where possible.

You know, I’d take Democrats having the same relationship with Greens as they do with Republicans as a start…:)

i’m not interested in having to stand down whenever a D says i should. jmo, but if that’s the price for possible support, that price is too high.

I would put Ralph Nader’s record of service to the country up against any national Democrat. What has to be done if we want to get anywhere with the Dems is to demonstrate to them that they can’t win without all us disaffected liberals. Step One in the revolution: the 2010 elections. They won’t listen until they get cut big time. And then we will have to push the argument forward that it was not our fault, but the fault of the Democratic Party. Imo, the Dems have been at fault since 1976 and the Dem establishment goes back to the same playbook to lose again. If my hypothesis is correct, they will lose again big in November.

i’m not interested in having to stand down whenever a D says i should. jmo, but if that’s the price for possible support, that price is too high.

Sharing support on an issue is not like you’re cohabitating politically on everything. If Dems or Reps want to support issues like extricating Wall Street from government, then you can’t have a coalition big enough to go up against those powerful interests…Big Tent!

Politics is so much about tribalism and cooties, having not advanced past elementary school lunch room politics. With the duopoly system here, the tendency for unconditional cohabitation in one of two party houses is legion. Unfortunately, the power under those tents are magnetized by powerful interests, so cohabitation occurs under their terms, which benefit them at our expense. And it is thus difficult, and discouraged given the binary nature of political alignment to achieve alliances that differ from those of your own party.

Problem being that Nader cannot, will not run a campaign that can win, and I say this with all due respect to his 2000 CA campaign manager whom I helped elect to the SF Board of Supervisors in 2004. Nader might have the record of accomplishment, much of it rusted and threadbare at this point. But that is no substitute for putting together the kind of organization that can deliver electoral results.

Winning lawsuits for consumer protection is good, but that and his progressive values and ideas are not the same thing as the skillset of a politician, which is arbitrating sustainably amongst competing interests.

Oh, that was a really hilarious article. Good times, good times.

One wonders if Jason still would have written it that way if he’d read and understood this first?

If Dems or Reps want to support issues like extricating Wall Street from government, then you can’t have a coalition big enough to go up against those powerful interests…Big Tent!

if/when that is the case, i completely agree.

my comment was in reference to the recent insistence that i vote dem against my own interest re healthcare.

What this all requires is a big heaping dose of humility. Most of us are smart. Yet none of us have figured out how to get ourselves out of this pickle. Since we’re not going to see any coherence in the Leninist sense to a progressive movement, we’ve got to fall back on a shotgun approach with the proviso that we reevaluate our tactics over and again to see whether they are doing harm or good.

This happened with Nader 2000, in that the campaign was legitimately justified based on Klinton’s disappointments. The Democrats pounced on the Greens, successfully framing us for Gore’s loss, and once the Iraq invasion got gory, that sealed the deal. But lo and behold, progressives stayed clear in 2004 and Kerry ate the shit sandwich. In 2008, progs likewise did as the Dems told us, with the result that we’re all right in the middle of a Dirty Sanchez now.

We can all have reasonable disagreements on tactics and strategy. But the worst thing is arguing with someone who is taking the party line, because at the end of the day, they’re arguing someone else’s ideas.

my comment was in reference to the recent insistence that i vote dem against my own interest re healthcare.

Off with their heads.

If you want the skillset of a politician, then you will get people like Obama. How is that going for you?

or maybe just vote with the best judgement i can muster instead of taking instruction. that is all.

i don’t know, i haven’t read that book. but it sure does look interesting……

How’s your mathematics background? Something that’s a lot more approachable, and a lot more concise (if you aren’t all that amped on understanding the details of all the derivations) would be this book: Game Theory and Strategy.

Put it on your short-list if you want to get a broader understanding of assessing the current cycle of “the game,” and determining when tactical or strategic choices are more likely to produce your desired outcomes.

If you want the skillset of a politician, then you will get people like Obama. How is that going for you?

You need the skillset that is capable of winning an election. No shortcuts.

If a candidate does not have the skillset to run an win an election, they don’t win and the question is moot.

Not all politicians are created equal, most, but not all of them sell their values out once elected.

or maybe just vote with the best judgement i can muster instead of taking instruction. that is all.

Politics is hard! If it were easy, then we’d not be in this mess today. There are no one-size fits-all solutions as the party hacks suggest.

I suspect the problem is in changing what it takes to win an election.

If it takes being a hyper-competitive, egomaniacal, wealthy, narcissist to win an election, then it should come as no surprise that benevolence and altruism aren’t chief among the qualities exhibited by the elected.

If that condition can’t be changed, then representative democracy is a fundamentally failed system, because it will be impossible to elect representatives who actually represent you.

At its base, winning an election means convincing people to vote for you however you have to do it. There are many ways, as many as there are candidates. You can do it effectively with a lot of money, and you can do it effective with less money. But you can’t just show up with good ideas and expect to waltz into office.

I’m not convinced, given history over the past say 100 years of US politics, that a third-party effort has better chances at success than a commensurate effort by progressives to take over the Democratic party. Nothing in your argument is compelling.

If progressive Democrats cannot use the current landscape–a split Republican party, anger over corporatism, anger over centrist Democratic strategy not producing results–to take over the Democratic party by primarying Blue Dogs, passing on the party fundraisers and donating only to progressive arms like ActBlue, etc., then the same voting bloc definitely does not have a chance at fielding a viable third party.

I share your anger, and your sense of opportunity, but see no data or rationale that would lead me to believe such an effort will do anything but fail, given the structural advantage the two parties have over third party challengers. Commanding the Democratic party, on the other hand, requires much less change. Were it not for a centrist President and about 20 centrist senators, progressives could take back the Democratic party.

Grass-roots efforts and marching in the streets are going to have to happen for either to be more than but a dream…

Third parties are supposed to be spoilers. That’s the whole bloody point of them. They’re supposed to act as drivers, reshaping the major parties’ ideological makeup by getting enough votes that the party closer to their overall views adopts their platforms. That’s what the Reform Party did in 1992 and 1996, when it pulled enough of the conservative vote away from the GOP to make the larger party adopt more of its views. And it worked. The Republicans went even further to the right.

No, they should ignore the dubious advice of Democratic Party hacks like you who fear being driven leftward by strong third party showings. Give it up, child. Your previous attempts to use the spoiler threat got pwned big time. That method lost all effectiveness.

Looks like Ralph is taking you up on your challenge. It seems he’s decided to run for U.S. Senate in Connecticut to sit in the seat now occupied by Chris Dodd, who has to retire this year after Michael Moore basically called the corporate whore out on his ties to the banksters.

See, [Edited by Mod], there you go again with calling progressives who refuse to sell out “Leninists,” as though likening us to commies (and therefore extremists) carries any weight anymore. It’s not that we on the left became extreme in our views. It’s that you sellouts decided you’re more comfortable with the status quo than in actually winning elections, or getting progressive legislation done and passed into law.

Do you have a link to that information about Nader running for the Senate?

No, they’re not. If you want to build a movement, you have to, you know, win elections.

If you insist on spoiling elections, all history shows is you’ll be continually triangulated against. I’m interested in moving the country leftward. That usually involved bringing people into a movement, not pushing them out.

If, as a “spoiler” you can attract those voters who would otherwise stay at home or lodge some protest vote, your doing a good thing, not harming the progressive movement at all. There is lots of data to show that Coakley lost because of the lack of enthusiasm from the left side of the MA dems. If either a) there had been a progressive party to get those votes showing up to vote for progressive values or b) the presence of a potential spoiler pulled the Dems to the left, we would be in a better place strategical then we are now.

I agree that blaming Dem losses on the Greens is a red herring. There just isn’t the data to show that this is really what happened. That said, I don’t think the Greens are the right party in most states, if for no other reason that the meme that Nader caused Gore to lose has stuck.

Look at the history of the U.S. Progressive Party. Look at what the Reform Party accomplished. “Third” parties typically don’t become one or more of the dominant political organizations, but they do have the effect of influencing at least one of the dominant ones. Not only did the 1912 election result in progressives leaving the GOP (thus solidifying the right-wing’s hold on it), it began the trend of taking over the Democratic Party. Smart campaign strategies (such as fusion voting) helped this along. But the progressive movement was there right alongside the Democrats, keeping that party honest. It didn’t always work, but it did get results.

Franky I think it would be much easier to help out those in states that have little to know Progressive movements.

Look at basically who’s holding up health care reform.

They come from the smallest most conservative socially/culturally states. Lieberman is less of a problem that we give him credit for, I’m more concerned with people like Nelson and others like him. They are really Republican Light not Democrats at all.

They initially bought into Obama’s Big Bang theory but then jumped ship when they knew they had to piss off donors in order to get Health Care Reform passed.

That along with the lack of support for Financial Reform, has really exposed who’s for the people and who isn’t.

We should focus there. Building a party from the ground up or boosting the Green Party are long term projects but fixing Congress is a short term project for a long term problems.

I would add that frankly Black/Brown People should automatically hold their vote for any Democratic Candidate unless we can get concrete promises to a our demands, which is interwoven into the American Agenda.

If high tides raise all boats, then START AT THE BOTTOM!

Sure, kind of like what selise was talking about. You have to weigh pros and cons, though. There is definitely a lot of data that said inactive Dems led to a Coakley loss. There’s less data that says a third party can capitalize on that at the state level.

From what I’ve seen, it’s hard for third parties to gain real traction with anyone unless they have a real shot at winning an election. If they’ve got that shot, then they should go for it by all means. If they’re going to do little but shave off a few percentage points, I for one think that’s usually not worth it, and in fact ends up tarnishing the brand of the party you’re trying to build up, as I argued above.

How’s your mathematics background?

yikes. what kind of math are you talking about? just the basics (through undergrad vector calc and diffeq) are there, or maybe were there. it’s been awhile since they saw much use.

See, [Edited by Mod], there you go again with calling progressives who refuse to sell out “Leninists,” as though likening us to commies (and therefore extremists) carries any weight anymore. It’s not that we on the left became extreme in our views. It’s that you sellouts decided you’re more comfortable with the status quo than in actually winning elections, or getting progressive legislation done and passed into law.

Look, the history of the Green Party is what it is, and the ISO had its field day with a weak party, effectively destroying it between Camejo, Chretien and Gonzalez. Most Greens are not Leninist, our values are different than that, and the Leninists couldn’t give a damn.

Their need for them to be seen as taking a stand against the Democrats by firing the political equivalent of water pistols at them was paramount. Nothing else mattered.

I have not sold out to the Democrats, I am not a Leninist. Your assertion is baseless.

Do you have a link to that information about Nader running for the Senate?

My contacts in that realm said that even if Dodd were in the race, Nader would not have run to win. Fucker.

i’d heard him say a few weeks ago he was considering it, but hadn’t yet decided. has there been a decision taken?

Look at the history of the U.S. Progressive Party. Look at what the Reform Party accomplished. “Third” parties typically don’t become one or more of the dominant political organizations, but they do have the effect of influencing at least one of the dominant ones. Not only did the 1912 election result in progressives leaving the GOP (thus solidifying the right-wing’s hold on it), it began the trend of taking over the Democratic Party. Smart campaign strategies (such as fusion voting) helped this along. But the progressive movement was there right alongside the Democrats, keeping that party honest. It didn’t always work, but it did get results.

But you actually have to build political organization to leverage power capable of making them grab their groins. Sometimes “spoiling” is good for that. But progressives know that grassroots organizing is what builds power.

Those who cry loudest for that approach are the ones who do the least work to realize it. Hint: standing on stages before microphones and crowds of your supporters does not cut it.

Nobody in the “professional third party movement” especially the Leninists has done anything even remotely approaching the kind of historical consequential movements that they champion.

If you want to build a movement, you have to, you know, win elections.

no actually, you don’t. so long as a winning party co-opts the policies, the movement has succeeded. that’s one of the many differences between social movement politics and party politics.

my impression (possibly very wrong since i wasn’t on the inside) was that the some greens lost their nerve after what was a very successful 2000 presidential campaign (considering how far they’d come in such a short amount of time. is that impression wildly off base?

Ok, good point. I’d then submit that working within party structures, as opposed to going third party, is probably a better way to accomplish this, as you don’t have to burn your resources on winning or even contesting elections.

Good pt. selise there are more ways to win then just through the polling booth. The Protest movements in eastern Europe brought down an entire political system and they didn’t do it through elections. Maybe, we need to take a look at the Tea baggers a bit clsoer in this respect. They’re an insurgency from the right , we need to do something similar to the Dems. from the left. The tea baggers know they have a big part of the Gopers party already willing to tow their line and they’re pushing them hard with results. We need to do the same to the Dems. It won’t be easy because so far on our side we can’t get the same attention the tea baggers get because the Corp. media boosts them. The netroots is our strongest card but its not real skin in the game so to speak, its just so much noise that the Corporatists can easily just ignore. Maybe, we need to put toehter a visible insurgency, not a party. Focus is the issue who do we focus our activities on? What do we call ourselves The Coffee Cup rebellion? The Expresso revolt? What?

my impression (possibly very wrong since i wasn’t on the inside) was that the some greens lost their nerve after what was a very successful 2000 presidential campaign (considering how far they’d come in such a short amount of time. is that impression wildly off base?

We not so much lost our nerve as were framed successfully as having spoiled Gore by the Democrat media machine with which we could not come close to competing. Once the Iraq war raged, the Dems had successfully linked us to that.

The professional third partiers are so convinced of their correctness and that of their policies, that they could care less about how they were viewed politically and took no steps to successfully address that poor framing. That makes no difference, in the end, because for all of their tough talk, they were not even coming close to playing to win.

Except, of course, for the “Demogreens” who did not see their narcissistic quixotic campaigns as anything close to what is required to make a positive difference.

Many of us suggested that Greens chill during the worst of the Gore framing, when Kerry was eating his shit sandwich, and it became apparent that the best one could do in 2008 was seek high ground, no Greens were going to make any progress in the face of the legions of Obamaniacs. We’ll see how things look in 2012.

Yes, extraparliamentary organizing is critical.

Oh, you’d be more than fine with the second book I recommended, and could probably make plenty of sense out of the first. If I had to pick one, I’d go with “Game Theory and Strategy.” Because it’s about 1/5th the length, and about twice as easy to understand.

thanks, will order it. don’t when it will get read, but i appreciate the rec. very interesting topic i know nothing about… and i should try to correct that.

thanks for the info and good luck.

I’m afraid its easier said then done. The tea baggers IMO are really just parts of the BV$Hite base which has been allowed to flourish to keep Goper party discipline intact. Any movement toward Obama is dealt with by this crowd. Look at Crist in Fla. he’s toast now because this movement has marked him for political death. If only we could manage a similar fire aimed towards the blue dogs.

i still don’t think i have a handle on the tea party. they are interviewing party candidates to possibly support. so it seems outside party politics but using party politics. will be interesting to watch and i’m quite curious to see if they decide to support mosler (who is campaigning for the 2012 dem pres primary).

as for progressives. i don’t know. i don’t even see much in the way of actual progressive polices being supported nationally by dems who call themselves progressive. it’s almost like neoliberalism has captured our minds. and there is such an obvious distain for the actual grassroots, it’s hard for me to see that changing voluntarily.

but what do i know?

I’m afraid its easier said then done. The tea baggers IMO are really just parts of the BV$Hite base which has been allowed to flourish to keep Goper party discipline intact. Any movement toward Obama is dealt with by this crowd. Look at Crist in Fla. he’s toast now because this movement has marked him for political death. If only we could manage a similar fire aimed towards the blue dogs.

Difference being, of course, that for the first time in a while, progressive ideas are viewed as mainstream here and now, while the right wing ideas are viewed as stale and tired failures.

The right wing cannibalizes their moderates in order to go places the voters don’t, while progs would “cannibalize” the Blue Dogs to go places the voters want to but the Blue Dogs won’t.

This is a critical and politically powerful distinction.

I could lend you my copy honestly. No need to buy it, unless you want to reference it regularly.

it’s almost like neoliberalism has captured our minds. and there is such an obvious distain for the actual grassroots, it’s hard for me to see that changing voluntarily.

We’re not exactly taking up our end of the bargain either; we’re a nation of slackers.

fielding a candidate for Congress or President just puts you in a spoiler role, which, if your goal is third parties that build movements and trust, damages the brand and works against the purposes of the local movements.

a little elaboration on that assertion would be interesting.

in most races between a corporatized (D) and an (R), there is nothing to spoil, unless someone has an emotional attachment to one side or the other, as with a major sports team.

and how does drawing x% in a close race dmage anyone’s brand?

I don’t believe it, never did, that election was stolen. Some Dems are mad because Nader took just enough votes to make it closer than it needed to be. That’s fine, the 3rd party candidate foiled the Tea Party in Upstate NY, turnabout is fair play.

We need to CLEAN OUT CONGRESS, which we should be empowering ACT BLUE and as we do that, back the Green Party because we can peal off the House and Senate Members that truly believe in Progressive causes.

Yes, boy, they ARE supposed to be spoilers. Independent candidates are under no obligation to avoid competing with Democrats or Republicans for votes. On what planet do you think your viewpoint is legitimate? because it sure as hell isn’t on this one.

We know you’re not interested in pushing the country leftward. You’re part of the problem, after all, and you’ve demonstrated that plenty of times.

Looks like there are FaceBook, MySpace, and other sites that apparently promote Ralph for the Senate race.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=186920754750

http://www.myspace.com/ralphnaderin2008

And about a month ago, some blogs and news web sites were reporting on Nader’s possible Senate run.

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/01/green-party-still-wants-ralph.html

And Cindy Sheehan interviewed him last month, too.

http://vodpod.com/watch/2601146-cindy-sheehan-interviews-ralph-nader-for-senate-2010-connecticut

I favor this, but I still think the progressive caucus should be pressured to defect!

exactly.

Rather than “Game Theory and Strategy”, I’d recommend “Gaming the Vote”, by William Poundstone (http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/0809048930). The same ideas, applied directly to voting. And not to, ahem, *spoil* the end, but he concludes that the solution is a spoiler-free voting method, like range voting or score voting (http://rangevoting.org).

My problem with the greens is that they only run for dog catcher, then leave the country to be run by corrupt dems. In reality, the dems are the ones that have to justify running given their track record and unpopular positions.

anybody want to start a soapblox site for greens and progressives? We need a non dem netroots site.

Google link

bad dems should be spoiled. It is not actually spoiling. It is called losing to people who aren’t partisan dems. I reality the lessor evil candidate is taking votes they don’t derserve and didn’t earn and is spoiling things for all progressives.

Ok Michael, so let’s start building The Progressive Party. RIght now, there’s never been a better time since the public is fed up with both the Dems and the GOP.

Count me in.

This has no part in our conversation:

On what planet do you think your viewpoint is legitimate? because it sure as hell isn’t on this one.

Please make your points without the personal invective. We can have different points of view, and express them strongly, without involving the character or motivations of our fellow commenters.

Ok Dave, here’s your chance to pipe up for the Greens.

The polling data from massachusetts showed clear, and extreme alienation from both parties, mostly because tey were too far right. NOw is the time. The conservadems are the spoiler candidates. http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults/

The greens should just become democrats if they aren’t willing to run in elections against them. The only time nonagression packs should be advocted is with democrats that have a mostly green platform.

Well, I guess that about wraps up the rational discussion. Nice talk.

That poll you linked to doesn’t show what you think it does…

“political idiot,” “naderite,” “your comment is just noise”

all still ok?

yep! So what?

I think progressive / liberal Democrats should take control of the Democratic party back from the Blue Dog faction. Make THEM start over with a third party. Progressives are the true Democrats. We are the New Deal Democrats, the Great Society Democrats, the Civil Rights movement, War on Poverty, Peace Corps, anti-war, organized labor, Roe v. Wade, ERA Democrats. This is OUR party, not the Blue Dogs’ party.

Who are these Blue Dogs? They are conservative corporatists. Democrats are progressive (or proudly LIBERAL) populists. Power to the People, not the corporations. We are the base, we are America’s Center. The Blue Dogs are a fringe faction within the Big Tent. Their conservative, corporatist agenda belongs in the Republican party, which is, I suspect, where the individual Blue Dogs would be, were it not for the debacle of the Cheney-Bush regime which drove them away from the “toxic” party label they would otherwise have adopted naturally.

Progressive Democrats need to organize so as to push all Blue Dogs out of their seats with primary challenges. One part of our message should be that progressives are the REAL Democrats, and Blue Dogs are Republican infiltrators who are impeding crucial legislation for right-wing reasons. Stupak and everyone who voted with him AGAINST the established rights of women to own their own bodies and reproductive health are perfect examples of the wrong-headedness of Blue Doggery. Real Democrats do NOT vote against women’s rights. Each and every member of the Stupak squad needs to lose his/her primary to a progressive candidate.

It is necessary for progressives to retain the clout which comes from being the majority party, and to keep the many really good Democratic legislators as our representatives in Congress. MOST Congressional Democrats are NOT Blue Dogs. They may avoid the labels “liberal” and “progressive” to keep from being pinned down, but they are nowhere near to being socially “conservative”. We need to keep the headcount we worked to achieve. Make the Blue Dogs start over from scratch.

In order to move forward, it will be necessary for all true liberal / progressive Democrats to come to the painful realization that Barack Obama is not a progressive populist, but a conservative corporatist. Obama is a Blue Dog, not a Democrat. That is clearly true for his entire entourage. Just look at them: Geithner & Summers, Rahm Emanuel, Holder, Axelrod & Gibbs. They wanted Judd Gregg for Commerce! Look at the Cheney-Bush policies they have embraced: military commissions, state secrets, indefinite detention, endless War on Terror, ad nauseam. They have sided with and enabled thieving corporations at every opportunity.

This causes tremendous turmoil and internal strife as a result of trying to map Obama-Rahm into the Democratic terrain. We wail and gnash our teeth! We tear our hair out! How can it be that our chosen Democratic leader is so out of touch with the base? Easy! He’s not a Democrat! Obama & Co. are Blue Dogs! They are a variety of Republican (like the Tea Baggers), not progressive, populist, mainstream Democrats!

If we look at the Obama administration as a Republican enterprise, everything they have done and are preparing to do (spending freeze!) makes sense. It is all consistent with the Republican world view. Of course they made secret deals with industrialists! So did Cheney-Bush! Of course they think military commissions and indefinite detention are swell ideas! So did Cheney-Bush! Of course Obama keeps trying to get Republicans to approve of his plans! He shares their beliefs and yearns for their approval, obviously, a great deal more than he cares for the approval of actual Democrats. He will go all out, stop at nothing, spare no expense, throw away all the actual reforms of HCR for a single Republican vote, while refusing to lift a finger for the most popular (and most cost effective) elements which most Democrats support. Everything real Democrats want & need is automatically off the table. Liberals are characterized (and subsequently dismissed) as far-left fringies by Obama & Rahm. Things only look that way to Republicans and other nut-jobs on the uttermost right.

Progressives need to recognize and openly declare that Obama and the rest of the Blue Dogs do not and will never share the values and goals of the majority of the majority party. The Blue Dogs are the fringe extremists, and we must oppose them on every front. And that means deciding who will be the progressive Democratic candidate for President in 2012, and begin the task of preparing to defeat Obama in HIS primary.

I can’t envision progressives splitting off to form a third party. That trick never works. And we don’t have to. We can take back our own party, and make the Blue Dogs walk. They are the minority faction. We outnumber them. And we can beat them in the primaries if we differentiate true Democrats from the right-wing imposters who gave us bankster bailouts sans accountability, the bottomless bonus bucket, the big giveaway to AHIP-PhRMA, attacks on women’s rights, Af-Pak escalation, and four more years of all of the worst elements of the Cheney-Bush regime.

Sorry for the rant. Sometimes I get carried away..

Yes, boy, they ARE supposed to be spoilers. Independent candidates are under no obligation to avoid competing with Democrats or Republicans for votes. On what planet do you think your viewpoint is legitimate? because it sure as hell isn’t on this one.

The only problem with this is that you can easily alienate potential, not to mention existing allies.

Spoiling is no measure in and of itself of the degree to which you dislike the duopoly, I’m afraid to say.

The greens should just become democrats if they aren’t willing to run in elections against them. The only time nonagression packs should be advocted is with democrats that have a mostly green platform.

Why should weak parties go through the motions of running campaigns unless they have to, especially when there can be significant negative side effects?

I’m not against spoiling, but I’ve long since gotten over symbolic political actions like getting arrested ritually, which is what I see these campaigns as very similar to.

This notion that the Greens challenge Democrats and that the challenge elicits the desired outcome has yet to be proven.

If anything, Barack Obama did more to pull the covers on the Democrat shenanigans concerning Nader 2000 than Nader or any of the Professional Third Party circus animal progocialites by proving that there is a straight line between Reagan/Bush, Klinton, Bush II and Obama. A Gore thrown in there would not have been permitted by the permanent government to deviate from the script.

The only time nonagression packs should be advocted is with democrats that have a mostly green platform.

Yes, specifically. This should go without saying.

“The right wing cannibalizes their moderates in order to go places the voters don’t, while progs would “cannibalize” the Blue Dogs to go places the voters want to but the Blue Dogs won’t.

This is a critical and politically powerful distinction.”

I absolutely agree! However, the tea baggers ideas are the ones the Corporatist media will tolerate in furtherance of their goals. The Progressive ideas are a direct challenge and a threat and will be suppressed as much as possible. The tea baggers ideas are stale and failed but the plutocrats could care less because they work well for them.

No. Carl Romanelli, the Green candidate, faced such onerous ballot access rules (it’s nearly impossible to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania unless you’re Dem or Rep) that he had to take Republican money, and even so the Dems blocked his attempt at ballot access.

Who cares what most Greens are? There are really only significant numbers of Greens in three states, possibly four (California, Illinois, New York, possibly New Mexico) and the rest of the states have Potemkin village “Green Parties.” No Green is going to get a decent percentage of the vote without courting the non-Green vote.

The PA Senate candidate in 2008 was a professional third partier, not a Green per se.

Being one of Carl’s personal friends, I’m calling bullshit here.

There are also large green parties in Wisconsin, and Minnesota. We know they can’t win without courting the nongreen vote. What’s your problem?

They can garner enough votes to make the bad dem lose, which is worth it in and of itself, since it purifies the democrats even if the greens don’t win anything.

I would suggest that this is not about political parties, this is about a movement. The individual who will lead us out of this hole will be someone like Gahndi or Martin Luther King, not JFK (yes, I think things will get much worse). I think you miss the significance of Nader’s contribution, he led the fight against corporate plutocracy from the late fifties up untiL Carter’s betrayal in 1978. There has been no one comparable to him since. Now, I think you are correct that Ralph doesn’t have the personality to lead a movement, bur it would be good for Ralph to speak up again and for liberals to take him in.

Who says it is either or. If the primary doesn’t succeed in clearing the bad dems out, the second disinfectant of a green party run will do it too, by making it more likely the bad dem will lose. I worry that many selfprofessed primary challengers will be Obamas. People who claim they are progressive, but who will ultimately defer to conservatives, and may even throw the election to the conservative deliberately.

Excellent analysis! Bravo!! Your absolutely right Obamarahma’s policies and preferences only make sense when put in a GOPer frame. What had so many fooled is the clever way he framed himself in the campaign using Progressive language to get elected. After the election though he ditched almost his entire election team and put on his Corporatist colors again. Obama is a fraud a clever front man for the same Fortune 500 crowd that rules the Goper party as well. The Corporatist have captured both parties ruling elites and are holding power with buckets of $$. They control the media as well and limit the political discussion by keeping it in a narrow range of Corporatist approved ideas. They even stage their own opposition to a degree to give their regime an air of democratic legitimacy. What was once the heart and soul of the Democratic faith has been characterized by this crowd as some kind of leftist fringe but as you say its them who are the radical fringe not us. We need to deny Obamarahma and his ilk our $$ , energy and votes. The simple truth is as long as he carries out the policies of the Corporatist right and the even the neo-cons we shouldn’t enable them in any way.

You should post that as a standalone diary, definitely worth further discussion.

Obama showed just how in the tank he is to the status quo when he “took on” the Republicans in Baltimore. How, do I ask, does someone who brags about cobbling together a Health Care Reform bill that mirrors the Republican plan in the mid 90s get anyone to believe he’s a liberal? Oh yes, the Republicans bestow that cred on him by accusing him of Boshevikianism. Far Right and Somewhat Right, the state of politics in America.

After the election though he ditched almost his entire election team and put on his Corporatist colors again.

Surprise! My governing coalition looks nothing like my electoral coalition!

I would suggest that this is not about political parties, this is about a movement. The individual who will lead us out of this hole will be someone like Gahndi or Martin Luther King, not JFK (yes, I think things will get much worse). I think you miss the significance of Nader’s contribution, he led the fight against corporate plutocracy from the late fifties up untiL Carter’s betrayal in 1978. There has been no one comparable to him since. Now, I think you are correct that Ralph doesn’t have the personality to lead a movement, bur it would be good for Ralph to speak up again and for liberals to take him in.

Nader does not want to win. I don’t diminish his historical contributions when I say that currently he’s exhausted his political capital and legitimacy and himself.

I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 without reservation.

If we spend our time waiting for a Great Man to Lead us in a Movement, we’re gonna be standing still for some time. Grassroots organizing is best when it is democratic. And it is easiest, as it gets, in your own community.

We are not trained in democratic participation and every incentive is against it. Actions we take to empower our own communities in deciding their own future lays the groundwork by example of a more inclusive definition of citizens as sovereigns.

The PA Senate candidate in 2008 was a professional third partier, not a Green per se.

Being one of Carl’s personal friends, I’m calling bullshit here.

Yeah, you’re right my bad. I was thinking about John Murphy who runs for Congress in PA-16, sorry.

“I can’t envision progressives splitting off to form a third party. That trick never works. And we don’t have to. We can take back our own party, and make the Blue Dogs walk.”

I don’t know if that works. With the exception of Feingold, Sanders, Grayson, and Kucinich, and maybe a couple of others, by and large, these “Democrats” are more like liberal Republicans. Have you heard any of them proclaim they’re proud to be Liberal? Won’t happen. They’re tainted.

The party of FDR died with Clinton, the “Rockefeller” Democrat.

Hence the need for a new party, or removing most of the other “Democrats”.

As I see it, the country is ready for real “change” and it’s not coming from the Dems or Repubs…But the problem is that the majority of the population is not informed enough and doesn’t really care. They know and care more about American Idol and Hollywood gossip/sports than what affects their lives. not saying we shouldn’t try, but there’s got to be a way to capture large numbers of voters…maybe get some celebrities (Obama is taken) to educate people since they will listen to them…I can dig George Clooney getting into politics and leading the greens, or Matt damon or someone like that. Not being sarcastic, but Americans respond to “brand names” better than anything else. The corporations have trained us well…

Damn right. Thank you for saying so.

And now that we have the Supremes allowing the Corpses to put $$ up against anyone who doesn’t do their bidding, I’m thinking third parties will be a no go.

Movements outside of elections are the only way forward. Probably local to begin with.

One needs to understand the principles, dynamics, and general mathematics.

No Green is going to get a decent percentage of the vote without courting the non-Green vote.

No Green is going to get the Green vote by alienating the Green vote, because it is the Greens who do the drudge work of politics. Whenever you can’t consolidate your base, then you’ve disqualified yourself for electoral politics.

Again with calling us “Leninists.” Is that the only way you can “debate”? By trying to liken progressives who refuse to play ball to communists, and therefore, extremists? Grow up, will you?

There already is one: my own, which you can get to by clicking my user handle at the top left of this comment.

Stop being a hypocrite. Rosenbaum and Marcos have used nothing BUT invective and insults, and you know it. Try enforcing the site rules against them for a change.

When were you engaging in rational discussion, boy? And no, it wasn’t a “nice talk.” I was the one doing the talking. You were behaving like a spoiled, self-entitled child.

I’m not the one who began alienating people, and you know it. Or do you really think people are that stupid that we can’t tell when we’re being talked down to. I am under no obligation to be nice to people who insult me and treat me like a child when I did nothing wrong to them to warrant the treatment. So take your false sense of wounded ego and stick it, child. You’re not fooling anyone. Either grow up and treat people with the respect you demand for yourself, or don’t go whining when your hostility is thrown back at you.

You are grossly mischaracterizing the TEA Party movement. They may have captured the right but they are not of the right, they are quite independent.

You are dissing the very people you should be trying to work with. I know because the whole thing was my idea and I am a firm lefty. It was part of my Big Plan to end the drug war (this is documented if reporters or biographers are curious, I can prove it).

TEA stands for taxed enough already, and is a shout out to a potential tax day holiday we could collectively stage as a protest against funding the war machine.

Congress isn’t the only one with a hand on the funding, organized citizens have a tremendous amount of power too. That is why ‘they’ do not want us to get organized, banker power is nothing compared to taxpayer power.

Tea is also another word for pot.

I stirred the public to act by telling everybody I had a plan to end marijuana prohibition but that it would take a political and religious (THC Ministry) movement to do it. You might have noticed it really got started with the Ron Paul Revolution.

It took it’s present more conservative form when I told frustrated young folks to reach out to their elders. I wasn’t worried about their message, civic involvement and media attention was my goal. Once again, my plan worked. That is because I know what I am doing.

I have been trying to tell reporters and Democrats about my plan ‘message’ from day one, they do not want to listen to me. Some of them have even been directly informed. It is a legal/political strategy I’m working on for achieving equal rights and religious freedom. You might have noticed when congress voted to give the press immunity? That was in response to my criminal charges against them. Apparently the press is also very cosy with the CIA.

My project really rubs ‘Family’ value ‘christians’ the wrong way too. Their main political goal is depriving various people of their human rights; my plan was to organize those same people to demand their human rights. So naturally, gay marriage is a part of it.

That and legalizing pot are the kinds of things that really stir them up against me. Notice how both pot and gay marriage are also progressing very well politically? I point them out as a sign of my plan’s success.

Now that I have explained the genesis of the TEA Party movement to you, I would ask you to stop using your nasty little sexual slur. This girl scout leader resents it.

Is that too much for me to ask of you?

I really do get offended and sulk, leaving it all on auto pilot. Not what YOU really want in a ‘progressive’ leader, is it? More like the kind of thing a media person seeking to discredit me would do, eh?

I also had a plan for doing a ‘Rapture’, so stop worrying about the TEA Party leadership. We’ll let Palin handle it for now, I think she is doing just fine.

The Greens have winning issues. They just need to learn to frame them properly.

A religious freedom movement might be really useful about now. Good thing I have one cooking on the back burner.

The way for the Green to win is to get the non-green voters to switch over to the Green side. That needs a winning argument.

What is it?

Actually, if you’d like to continue as a member of this community, you would do well to heed your own words.

mgloraine, IMO, you should turn comment 92 into a diary post. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment.

You’re welcome to grow up as well.

Comments like that do not further your argument.

Please stop with the personal insults or the mods will do what they’d rather not have to do.

And comments like, I have not sold out to the Democrats, I am not a Leninist, and entries by moderators that threaten us, and wherein said moderators insult us by saying we’re “politically infantile” for voting third party, don’t exactly inspire me to take the high road. Again, I say, you are likewise invited to grow up. As long as certain people insist on behaving like spoiled children, I will continue to respond to their hostility and disrespect in kind.

Oh, and spare me the lie that they’d rather not use the ban stick. Abusing their power is something clowns like Rosenbaum, marcos, and egregious enjoy.

I absolutely agree! However, the tea baggers ideas are the ones the Corporatist media will tolerate in furtherance of their goals. The Progressive ideas are a direct challenge and a threat and will be suppressed as much as possible. The tea baggers ideas are stale and failed but the plutocrats could care less because they work well for them.

The right wing corporatist operation instigated the tea parties, paid for them to be organized hook, line and sinker.

Actually, the mods work really hard to avoid the “ban stick”.

Let’s please dial it down a notch.

Again with calling us “Leninists.” Is that the only way you can “debate”? By trying to liken progressives who refuse to play ball to communists, and therefore, extremists? Grow up, will you?

Look, the ISO is a Leninist operation and they were front and center in the GPCA when it came time to running candidates for impossibly high office, that is winning the primary against their Green opponent and calling it a day.

Their mode of operation was one within the Green Party of ultra leftism, where they drew a line where convenient for them and attacked Greens on the other side of that line for not agreeing with them.

Instead of organizing people around everything we hold in common, they’d seek the areas where the slightest disagreement arose and focus in on that.

That’s not the kind of organizing model average folks want to participate in after a hard day at work, as an alternative to hanging out at home with the family.

they’re not clowns. not that you know me or have any reason to believe me, but i would personally vouch for egregious’s good intentions. could be there are people trying to do right in a situation that doesn’t leave much room for that.

i’m angry too about the double standard. furious actually. but i beg you to try not to respond in kind. i know it’s really hard and i don’t claim to always succeed. but i think it’s worth trying if we want to preserve any kind of real discussion. please?

I’m not the one who began alienating people, and you know it. Or do you really think people are that stupid that we can’t tell when we’re being talked down to. I am under no obligation to be nice to people who insult me and treat me like a child when I did nothing wrong to them to warrant the treatment. So take your false sense of wounded ego and stick it, child. You’re not fooling anyone. Either grow up and treat people with the respect you demand for yourself, or don’t go whining when your hostility is thrown back at you.

Michael it is not all about you.

You’re welcome to grow up as well.

Everyone’s not grown up but you?

This is the kind of attitude which destroyed the GPCA.

Yeah, because simply deciding not to abuse their power is just SUCH hard work. YOU tone it down. I’m not doing anything wrong, and you know it. You and your buddies need to stop derailing the thread and allow substantive discussion. I am just one of the people in Left Blogsylvania trying to come up with actual solutions to the problems faced by the progressive movement. You gatekeepers are the ones standing in the way.

Yeah, because simply deciding not to abuse their power is just SUCH hard work. YOU tone it down. I’m not doing anything wrong, and you know it. You and your buddies need to stop derailing the thread and allow substantive discussion. I am just one of the people in Left Blogsylvania trying to come up with actual solutions to the problems faced by the progressive movement. You gatekeepers are the ones standing in the way.

Go win a city council election and get back to us on how easy party building is, okay?

And your resounding proof, other than your baseless and condescending opinion, is what exactly? And what do “Leninists,” real or imagined, have to do with progressives doing something to force Democrats leftward. We are neither extreme or stupid, try as you might to treat us that way. You insult us, threaten us, talk down to us, but somehow we’re the ones to be labeled extreme when we balk and are to be likened to communists as though that’s a bad thing. You have no argument, no case to make. I am done with you, child.

Michael it is not all about you.

Nor did I say it was all about me.

Everyone’s not grown up but you?

This is the kind of attitude which destroyed the GPCA.

You and your little clique of trolls, on the other hand, insist on making this discussion about yourselves and your own egos. And you call us “Leninists” and “politically infantile? No, child, it’s YOU and those who think like who whose attitude destroyed the Green Party. Own up to your misdeeds, stop engaging in the petty behavior that divides progressives and constantly puts us down, grow up. This goes for the lot of you who’ve done nothing but flame others in this thread.

You sound just like Bush. “It’s hard work!” Yeah, people like me who’ve worked our behinds off to get politicians elected and who fight in the trenches while you hurl insults, issue threats, and silence critics sit at your computers and act like children have no idea how to do anything, no idea how hard it is to govern…wait, actually, yes we do. You’re making an awful lot of false assumptions about people, child. Maybe you should try taking a course in human social interactions, see if you can learn how and how not to talk to people. Treating us like dirt is not the way to get us to respond positively or engage in substantive discussion. Again, I say, I am done with you.

We won elections. The Leninists and their pals paraded around state party meetings with funny hats and said “I am an officer in a state political party!”

It takes work to build a party and to make a party achieve end results politically.

While the Leninists were focusing on quixotic campaigns and demonizing anyone who did not buy their solutions, we were learning the mechanics of running and winning elections, both for Greens and prog dems, locally.

Only in a fantasy world of politics does winning elections destroy parties and losing elections move us closer to victory.

Either you want to talk about learning from experience so that your future reaches can be based upon solidity or you can launch invective about how Greens who did not buy into the parade of circus animals somehow destroyed the party.

Camejo is gone, as are most of his followers. The real Greens remain and are trying to pick up the pieces, perhaps get the patient out of a drug induced coma now that the swelling has gone down.

I’ve tried asking nicely several times but apparently the message is not being received.

No more personal insults or your comments will be removed from the thread.

It’s your call.

Who have you gotten elected?

You can go off blaming everyone else for our failures, but I prefer to take responsibility for what I do well, and what I do wrong, to learn from both to be better next time out.

In case you forgot to read the Green Party US Ten Key Values on your way in the door to hijack an existing party that folks had worked their asses off to organize for your own use:

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

The Green Party is not a liberal welfare party, we cannot count on corporate or state welfare to win.

Then tell Rosenbaum, marcos, and their little friends to stop insulting people. THEY are the ones flaming this thread. I am not going to stop defending myself against open insults, threats, and condescension. You want to prove my point and delete my comments, demonstrate the utter hypocrisy inherent in your actions, that’s in your power to do so apparently. But you’ll be seen to abuse that power, and you will have achieved the exact opposite of what you wanted.

THAT is YOUR call.

And your resounding proof, other than your baseless and condescending opinion, is what exactly? And what do “Leninists,” real or imagined, have to do with progressives doing something to force Democrats leftward. We are neither extreme or stupid, try as you might to treat us that way. You insult us, threaten us, talk down to us, but somehow we’re the ones to be labeled extreme when we balk and are to be likened to communists as though that’s a bad thing. You have no argument, no case to make. I am done with you, child.

I’ve done work in the Green Party of California for the past 12 years, served two terms on the San Francisco Green Party County Council and 2 years as alternative representative to the GPCA Coordinating Committee. I know the players who built the GPCA, they registered me in 1991 when the party was forming, and I know the history of radical progressive politics in the US, having been an activist on a wide variety of social and ecological justice issues.

The Green Party was formed precisely as an alternative to the traditional European left and its violent tendencies. Most Greens have no clue as to the tangled and obscure world of the sectarian left and are blindsided whenever a newspaper symbiotic sect plops down in the middle of the GP.

If YOU are not a Leninist, then wonderful. I never called YOU a Leninist. The line you put forth, that we need to “run all out” against the Democrat Party and that all who do not follow you are “Demogreens” is a shopworn schtick that speaks volumes of violence against the key values upon which the GP is based.

Sorry if you see throwing cold water on your hallucinations as flaming.

Michael,

Yes, that would be my call, which I’m trying not to do.

If you could find your way to help return this thread to a more civil tone then I don’t have to take that action.

Sorry, that comment was supposed to be a reply to Michael at #145.

The right wing and Democrats have money at their disposal, and that acts as a powerful magnetizer for their base. All progressives have are our values, and as you can tell, there is not much consensus over what they mean or what direction they’d point us in.

Thus, the best way to move forward is where we are unified. The ultra left within the Green Party and professional third partiers will not allow that, rather insists that they have a bead on a solution even though there is no evidence that they’re doing anything but having sex with microphones on stages before adoring admirers.

Marcos,

I may chuckle at your closing analogy, but can we not add fuel to the fire?

I may chuckle at your closing analogy, but can we not add fuel to the fire?

Gotta leave enough breadcrumbs so that those who come after us know where the dead ends are.

I’ve put in enough volunteer time on this that I’ve earned the right to comment.

I was not questioning your right to comment, just simply pointing out that the closing phrase in your last comment is not likely to soothe the already troubled waters in this thread.

Having said that, I’d bet I’ll find good use for that phrase somewhere down the line.

Having said that, I’d bet I’ll find good use for that phrase somewhere down the line.

It is already an inside joke within the SF Green Party, what, having had to clean up after circus animals for the past ten years.

If showing up with good ideas and shaming and lambasting people into supporting you were sufficient, the world would look very different right about now.

But the lesson here is that if you can’t convince folks who largely agree with you of an element of strategy, then you’re probably not in a position to take those politics prime time.

Working in practical local politics, I’ve learned that there is rocket science in finding common ground, and that is quite humbling, to be honest.

I am not the one who needs to return this thread to civil discussion. I did not start insulting people, threatening them, talking down to them. That was done to me and to others who have expressed sentiments similar to mine. All I did was respond to hostility with like hostility. I’m not claiming the moral high ground here by any means, but this particular part of the discussion isn’t about the moral high ground.

The issue here is that you’re letting the real trolls not only control the discussion, but go unchallenged in their actions. Instead, you’re threatening the guy they’re flaming when he defends himself. Is that really the standard you want to set here, that some members are free to behave as badly as they like because of their positions within the community while everyone else is made to suffer consequences? If it is, then you need to ask yourself if you aren’t becoming more and more like the very regime Obama’s has replaced and the policies of which he has adopted. Because if you are, then how is FDL any better than DLC blogs like those run by Moulitsas and Bowers? And why should progressives listen to what you have to say when you demonstrate that you’re no different than the enemy?

The issue here is that you’re letting the real trolls not only control the discussion, but go unchallenged in their actions. Instead, you’re threatening the guy they’re flaming when he defends himself.

Go win an election for dog catcher and get back to me on electoral mechanics, okay?

The issue here is that you’re letting the real trolls not only control the discussion, but go unchallenged in their actions.

How is speaking my mind with first hand experiences controlling the discussion? Are you merely upset that I’ve taken you out of your comfort zone?

Instead, you’re threatening the guy they’re flaming when he defends himself. Is that really the standard you want to set here, that some members are free to behave as badly as they like because of their positions within the community while everyone else is made to suffer consequences?

Is there anything more to your definition of “behaving badly” above and beyond disagreeing with you?

If it is, then you need to ask yourself if you aren’t becoming more and more like the very regime Obama’s has replaced and the policies of which he has adopted. Because if you are, then how is FDL any better than DLC blogs like those run by Moulitsas and Bowers? And why should progressives listen to what you have to say when you demonstrate that you’re no different than the enemy?

Come, see the violence inherent in the system! Help, Help, I’m being repressed.

Unless one agrees with the circus animals in their glorious splendor, one might as well be Rahm Emmanuel. This is where the professional third partier’s have fallen into the pit of a Godwin’s Law designed especially for and by them.

Actually, each of us can take some responsibility as “one who needs to return this thread to civil discussion”. What started out as a heated conversation about an issue devolved into personal insults, some real and some perceived.

None of your comments have been removed from this thread, and I hope that can continue, but will suggest one more time that you do more to advance your points by avoiding the personal insults.

Then how about calling the trolls out on their behavior instead of focusing solely on their intended victim? I took the time to link to some of their more offensive statements that earned them the response I gave them, but you completely ignored that in favor of making me out to be the sole bad guy here — that’s the impression you gave. You threatened to delete my comments, but issued no such threats to marcos or Rosenbaum. Why am I the only one who gets the threats from moderators? It’s because the moderators are held to a far lower standard than the rest of us. They get to do whatever they like, behave as childishly and as hostile toward those with whom they disagree as they like, but no one is allowed to respond in kind under threat of banishment? Come on, if that’s the case then just come right out and admit it publicly so the rest of us can leave FDL to its little clique of party hacks. Or, if that’s not the case, then marcos and Rosenbaum should face the same consequences for their bad behavior as anyone else. That’s the fair thing to do.

FWIW, no matter how hard I tried, my momma never bought “but he did it first”.

Can we agree to take one step back and try to make the rest of this thread better than it’s become?

I’m just asking you to show some consistency in applying moderator action. You’re not the only one who moderates a blog, so it’s not like I’m approaching this from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know what’s it’s like to deal with matters such as this. If you want this thread to get on the track it should have taken, then please do us all a favor and tell your buddies to own up to their behavior, apologize for their insults, and refrain from derailing threads. As moderators, part of your job is to apply the rules consistently to everyone — including and especially each other.

You can’t seriously expect me to “get the thread back on track” when it was never on track to begin with because one troll insists on transforming the word “Leninist” into an insult to be used against anyone he thinks is too far to his left, and when another has a history of calling progressives who don’t buy his DLC threats “Naderites” and “infantile,” and other forms of insult. You’ve got zero credibility in this argument so far, because you refuse to crack down on the instigators and instead insist on threatening the intended victim.

With all due respect, you picked the wrong person to try to bully. I can’t be bullied and I can’t be bought. Again, if you want this thread to “get on track,” the onus is on you to do your job as a moderator and apply the rules fairly. Otherwise, you lose credibility and ultimately drive the left further away from your cause. I mean, seriously, the behavior you and your friends have displayed is the same kind that turned Daily Kos into the joke of the left-wing blogosphere it is. There’s only so much of that you can engage in before people reach their breaking point, and as your buddy Rosenbaum should have learned in his threatening “Naderites are children” entry, we passed it a long time ago.

FWIW, I have no dog in this fight other than to maintain some minimal semblance of civility in the comments at FDL and all its partner sites. It would appear, at least in this particular comment thread, that I have failed.

I’ve tried to suggest we all take a step back, but with every attempt, you just reply with even more vitriol.

Some random thoughts:

1. Jason manages the Seminal so it’s rather humorous that you would call him a troll.

2. You have repeatedly chosen to attack anyone who disagrees with you and perceive any disagreement as an egregious insult without looking at your own behavior. If nothing else, this thread has become an example of why those to the left of Democrats have such difficulty organizing themselves and others.

3. The mods are the final arbiter of what is, and isn’t, acceptable in any of our comment threads. They do the best they can, sometimes in very trying circumstances. More often than not, they get it right. When they don’t they are usually very quick to correct their mistake. Either way, it is not your place to argue with them. Either accept their suggestions to back off the insults or I’d suggest you heed your own words:

we passed it a long time ago.

More often than not, they get it right. When they don’t they are usually very quick to correct their mistake. Either way, it is not your place to argue with them.

makes me all nostalgic for the days when citizen readers refused to be consigned to such a “place.”

Luvya, but frankly, that is nostalgia for a place that never existed…and as you may remember, I was an integral part of the “Maryland Moment”.

We have always, and will continue, to disagree in the comment threads but gratuitous insults have always been discouraged.

Do we catch ‘em all…sadly, no. But we do what we can. This thread is yet another example of where I have failed and your repeated reminders of that are duly noted.

Who’s continuing vitriol? I haven’t. I never even started any vitriol. You haven’t seen any of it from me, and you know it. You’ve got an odd definition of the word. And just because he’s a moderator doesn’t mean Rosenbaum doesn’t troll. You know that.

i do remember some of it — when we expected our complaints, as readers, including regarding false charges of incivility in the comments, be taken seriously. but the only place i referred to was the one you mentioned in your comment @160.

i have always supported the rule of no personal insults to the best of my ability — even more, that i owe a degree of respect to all my fellow citizens. my comment was not meant to challenge that or to be a reminder of failure of any kind. just an expression of my sadness about the “place” we readers are now expected to occupy. that is all. i’m tired, perhaps i should have not commented at all.

Sounds like we are both tired, and sometimes that makes us forget the great work we have done over the last few years.

I guess that trying to change the tone of the comments in one thread, over 12 hours now, where people seem to feel a need to talk past each other instead of to each other, can do that to even the best of us.

[Double Post]

I’ve tried for 12 hours now to help you understand that it might be worth it to consider how your behavior might have been a part of exacerbating this situation.

Since Jason is the site manager for the Seminal it’s pretty dang funny that you continue to call him a troll on his own site.

And, since you’ve made no effort to acknowledge my repeated requests to consider how we might find a way to play together in the sandbox, it’s time for you to find another site that’s more receptive to your style of persuasion.

I wish you the best at whatever space in blogtopia that may be.

Hey all, glad to see a raging discussion of independent progressive politics here. I’d like to address some major points:

Are Greens spoilers?
If the Democrats truly believed that Nader cost them the 2000 election, they could have come out strongly for instant runoff voting, an improved voting system that eliminates any so-called ’spoiler effect’. The Dems haven’t done this – basically everywhere where IRV is in use, the Greens or a party like the Vermont Progressives made it happen (IRV is used in San Francisco, Oakland, Burlington, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and it’s spreading). Perhaps the Dems prefer to label the Greens spoilers so they can stomp out any threat to the corporatist-militarist duopoly.

Do Greens hurt themselves by running for high office?
What most people don’t know is that many ballot access laws require parties to achieve certain thresholds for certain offices (president, governor, etc) to stay on the ballot. Basically, sometimes you have to run for president if you want to run candidates for local office. The Arkansas Green party, despite electing a state legislator in 2008 and pulling over 20% for US Senate, got kicked off the ballot because they didn’t get enough votes for president. Like instant runoff voting, non-restrictive ballot access laws are something the Republicrats have refused to pass.

Pretty often, the people who vote Green for higher office wouldn’t vote D or R anyway, they’d just stay home, like progressives will do in 2010 if they don’t have a better choice than the Dems. As a Green, I think the best way to grow the party is to compete for local office first, but I wouldn’t oppose a legitimate candidate from running for higher office. I consider both Ds and Rs to be leading us in the wrong direction anyway – down an unsustainable path of corporatism and militarism.

A few short points about the Green Party:
-Basic Green principles are nonviolence, grassroots democracy, social justice, and ecology.
-Green candidates pledge not to accept corporate money. Greens also support full public financing to get rid of pay to play politics.
-You can find out more at gp.org and greenpartywatch.org

Sounds good to me!