I get your point, lcj. I even probably agree with everything that MM and Nader say they believe in, although I may not have exactly the same priorities in some cases. I just totally don't believe in idealism for idealism's sake. I believe in results, mathmatical possibilties, and that divide and conquer works, but not if it's your side you're dividing. I care more about who's getting hurt now, than a vision of the future that isn't based on any real likelihood. If we get there, we'll get there without causing this pain. We certainly won't get there fueled by a portion of one half of this country. We'll get there because the consensus has changed. I don't think they're doing nearly enough to make that happen considering their rhetoric. I do think the Greens were making a start on that before Nader and Moore became their face to this country, but now that they've got such marquee names all they can seem to do is bash Democrats and leave the Republicans happily intact. Who couldn't do that????

I'm also not completely sold on the idea that MM and Nader are quite as pure as they used to be. The strategy of hammering the Dems the way they do reeks of cheap parlor tricks to me. Gets attention, some votes and sells books, jacks up speaking fees. I don't mean I don't think they believe in what they're saying. I just believe that they're taking the very easy way to make a big splash. Progressives fighting Republicans is dog bites man. Fighting Democrats is man bites dog. But I believe that you believe in them, that you sincerely believe in their vision for the future and that you're not in it for anything but the common good.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ters:
... I just believe in standing behind the people that have the best intentions and the best means to fulfill those intentions regardless of what party they represent. ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ters, therein lies the rub. Even if the "purest" intentions lie with the Greens, for most of the country, they have no possibility of fulfilling them. I think what worries some of us is that we've been down this road, in the early 1970s. The Left tore itself apart over pure intentions and ignorance of how it all really works. So we got Nixon et al., with the best we got being Jimmy Carter in the 20 years between Johnson and Clinton.

It's difficult to accept compromise when you believe. But that's what U.S. politics IS: Compromise. And if your side isn't represented in the compromise, you are going to lose totally.

If you live in Oregon--or parts of New England or Ukiah<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>--you can be a Green locally. If you live in Kansas or Texas, probably not. So what? Party names are only labels.

It's more exciting to think in terms of taking the country in one fell swoop, by national election. But like Pat and Deb have said, the change has to come from the local, grassroots, level. So I guess I'm a Green Dem.

Just this weekend the Dems nominated Roger Moe to take on Jesse Ventura for our Governor's office this year. Moe is a 32 member of the MN senate, and their leader. He beat our two other Dems, one on each side of him ideologically. Anyway, his first campaign stop was the May Day parade in a VERY liberal part of Mpls, the place where the Greens hold offices. He was very out of place amongst the "yogurt sprout eating motherfuckers", and he knew it. But it was very cool to see him there, admitting that he needed to court the Green vote, and was willing to hear us. And I believe he was sincere. I give him a lot of credit for that.

Even with a Green running, I'm considering supporting Moe this fall. The point is, our presence is not pushing the Dems to the right. It is doing just the opposite. And if the Dems are willing to listen to our concerns, I think thats a good thing. And some of us will support them for it.

Pat, thanks for the last sentence in your post. That means a lot to me, especially coming from you, whom I respect a lot, even if I do rag on you sometimes.

Pat, we talked before about how here in MN many Greens would be thinking about the Wellstone issue. Having a Dem candidate who's not all that far from Green ideals. Now we have Nader's running mate, who is from MN, urging Greens to consider Wellstone. I agree with her, and I think it shows that you can have a progressive party working with Dems when appropriate, and offering real options when Dems are light-beer repubs. While the Greens will still have a candidate, I believe many of us will support Wellstone, and I believe this will be the case in many nationwide races. The following is from today's Star Tribune:

Wellstone question

Early debate reflected the crawl-before-you-walk struggle of the party, with an issue that could have been seen as the Wellstone question. The disagreement centered on the suggestion from some that the party not endorse a Green candidate and instead support the reelection bid of Wellstone. He is expected to be in a tight campaign with former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, a Republican.

Two Green candidates were seeking the party's Senate endorsement. But Winona LaDuke, who was Nader's running mate, sent a letter urging delegates to support Wellstone as "a strong ally."

"We can only build a progressive movement in this state by working with progressives inside and outside the Green Party," she wrote. "Paul is worthy of our support."

But others said the party must remain true to its ideology, given its new role as a major party.

"Personally, not as bad as a Republican is not good enough for me," one delegate said.

Wellstone did have a presence at the convention. Former Minneapolis City Council Member Jim Niland was an observer for him.

"This is a struggle between purity and pragmatism," Niland acknowledged.

After passionate debate on both sides of the issue, delegates voted to endorse Ed McGaa.

The Greens also endorsed Dave Berger, an instructor of sociology, anthropology and criminal justice at Inver Hills Community College, for state auditor. Andrew Koebrick, a librarian and Web site coordinator in the state Planning Department, was endorsed to run for secretary of state.

Well, that was good, I think, that LaDuke urged support for Wellstone, but in the end they decided not to support him as a party. Individuals certainly may decide differently, of course. It's interesting. It sounds like two different agendas going on. I sure hope he wins. We can't afford to lose him.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by pat on May 19, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

In this state of Nirvana I seem to have befuddled myself into, talkin politics aint easy!......<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/privateeyes.gif" width=15 height=15>.......

*BUT Icj, that 80% approval rate, has gone in the toilet considerably as of late.

**AS Pete would say. "Mudracking Journelist will stop at nothing"!!! (BTW I didn't read the book, nor do I intend to)

lcj...thought you might like to see another perspective on minnesota..


In 2000, the Presidency; in 2002, the Senate:
Is the Green Party really stupid enough to undermine Paul Wellstone, the Senate's most liberal member? Apparently so.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020610&s=notebook061002wellstone

Deb, I know all about it. I'm busy trying to convince everyone I know to vote Wellstone. Many Greens would have prefered that we endorsed Wellstone, but it didn't happen. I felt that, IN THIS CASE, we should have backed Wellstone, because he's the real deal. Don't take that to mean I'd vote for Gore/Lieberman in 04! BIG BIG differences between Al Gore and Paul Wellstone.
Anyway, Paul is a good man, and he's got my vote.

I'm still dying to hear which Dem is going to inspire the masses in 04. Don't tell me were gonna have to choose between Gore and Bush again! Shit, if that's the case, I'm writin in Arlo.

glad to hear it, lcj! i hope you can influence enough of your fellow greens to do the same. from what i've read, wellstone is in for the fight of his life, and it would be a damn shame to lose him in the senate. it would be worse than a damn shame to turn the senate back over to the republicans, as well...it would be damn scary!

well, i'm certainly hoping it's not another bush/gore contest in 04, too. i'd have to vote for gore again, but i'd like to see someone else...not sure who, right now. but, whomever it is will get my vote, because there's no way i'm voting for bush!

And if you vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate you will be voting for Bush. It's unfortunate but it's true. The Greens know a lot of stuff but they're weak on math and also on the basic structure of our government. In other words, a rising and strong third party won't change the fact that unless you vote against a Republican candidate you're essentially voting for him or her. It would take a consitutional amendment to change that. Maybe more than one. I understand that people don't like to vote in that negative way, but if they don't we'll all suffer the consequences..again.

Pat Pat Pat.....

Are you tellin me that an Arlo write-in campaign would be unrealistic?

Possibly. I don't know. If he campaigned, he'd win. But as we've said before, security at the gigs would be a bitch.

Can you imagine those debates?

"uuhhhh, George, ya can't always do what yer supposed to do......"

You're right, if everyone saw his good heart and honesty, he'd actually get some votes. Funny, I remember saying the same thing about Ralph. But if they were both on the debates, I think Arlo could bet more!

OK, I'm seeing it now. I was always against the idea of Arlo running for President, because then foreign heads of state and cabinet members would probably scoff up all the best seats at the shows, but these trying times call for sacrifice from all of us and I see that now. lcj, you really have to develop into a bit more of a cynic, though. It's not Arlo's heart and honesty that would get him votes. If that worked, Jimmy Carter would have done better. It's his personal charm. He's got tons of it. It would be up to Larry as his press guy to make sure he appeared in the kind of situations where that's most apparent. And his philosophy of "If they go away happy they've heard the truth" is definitely a big plus for politics. So is his ability to remain amiable and pleasant while neither apologizing or explaining when it's not appropriate to do either.

You wouldn't be nervous about Dave being Secretary of Defense, would you? I mean..sure he's a bit conservative, but he's basically peaceful unless he gets really pissed. We also need Todd to get better soon. This campaign needs him.

I think I might told ADG once that he oughta run for Prez. He said something funny I forget what & I think we both decided Pete (Seeger) might make a good Prez! Maybe they could both run. 1 for Prez & the other one be a Vice-Prez... <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>