> I had something more like
> building the Green Party into a serious political force, rather than
> the collection of amateurish malcontents it too often is. IMPORTANT
> QUALIFICATION: Not all Greens are amateurish malcontents; there are
> principled and serious people working within the party. But as an
> institution, it's very disappointing.
------------------
Agreed, re: the Greens. My two cents: I was drawn to the Nader campaign, and early on gave a hundred buck donation to it, and later attended another fund-raiser in Madison. (btw, Robert McChesney, MR co-editor, lives in Madison and was involved in the Nader campaign hereabouts, which included helping to organize the fund-raiser I attended). In the end, though, I voted for Gore, converted mainly by Katha Pollitt's arguments in her Nation column.
Wisconsin was too close to call in the pre-election polls. Had it been firmly in either column, I would have voted for Nader, fully conscious of his various deficiencies as noted by Doug and others, in order to "send them a message." (Dave McReynolds wasn't on the ballot here). Gore carried the state by a few thousand votes.
Gore I could almost stomach, but voting for Lieberman the Loathsome was way beyond a hold-your-nose operation--try strapping on a gas mask. In the Anyone But Lieberman Party, please sign me up as spear carrier, Lord High Executioner, anything at all.
And speaking of the Greens, what's with all these third parties? There's the Green Party, also the New Party and the Labor Party, and in New York state, the Working Families Party... Here in Wisconsin, we have the Socialist Party USA, one of the three successor organizations to the good ol' Gene Debs/Norman Thomas SP, still plugging away. A few weeks ago I paid my annual dues to DSA. Seems like a lot of duplicated effort on the part of people who are not that far apart. WITBD?
Jacob Conrad