AngryDems.com

[Dddddd0814 at aol.com]

Doug writes:
"I was wondering how liberals would blame Nader for yesterday's 
results, and here it is. You just can't admit that the Dems have no 
message and no appeal, can you? The other day, the NYT reported the 
results of a poll asking whether people thought the Reps had a clear 
idea of what they'd do if they won Congress vs. the Dems. I don't 
remember the numbers, but the answer was yes for the Reps by a small 
margin and no for the Dems by a fairly wide one. That's the problem, 
not Nader. Even Carville and Begala made that point on CNN last night. 
You're not going to blame Pataki's win on Stanley, are you?"

Amen, Doug. The Democratic Party certainly doesn't need Greens to lose 
elections. They've been losing them so well for the last 12 years. Here in 
Mass., Ds lost in the gubernatorial race by 5% of the vote, while the Green 
Party candidate got 3%. Still, the media goes along for the ride of trying to 
blame things on the Greens. Of course, even Democratic officials have 
grudgingly admitted that a good deal of the "Green" vote comes from 
otherwise-non-voters and Republicans. Between that and the fact that the 
Libertarian Party got 1-2%, I think it was pretty much a wash from here.

The notion that "Greens are spoilers" is propaganda that comes straight from 
the very top of the DNC.... It is pathetic to watch the media buy into this 
crap, especially since-- at least in this state-- every objective indication 
showed otherwise. I guess it's very dramatic....

Nathan writes:
I supported Green strategies in a moderate manner for a number of years 
until it became clear to me that they do more harm than good. That may be 
"blaming" them, but so are my criticisms of the Dem leadership. I'm not 
calling for defunding Nader's organizations as punishment, just asking Green 
advocates to explain what we gained from the 2000 electiond debacle. 

David, response:
It's amusing how this stuff is passed off as fact now without analysis, a 
given of history. According to Nathan's logic, the Worker's World party is 
equally to blame for the "debacle," since by most counts they also got enough 
to supposedly "tipped" the election. Anyway, you tell me which is more like 
giving a vote to a Republican: voting for someone in the Green Party, or 
voting for a Democrat? Seems more like the latter to me....

Do I care much for the Green Party? Not particularly, since their financial 
base comes from the same economic class which would otherwise contribute to 
Democrat campaign coffers. The difference being that Green money is 
ostensibly "non-corporate," and more likely from individuals within the 
bourgeoisie. This is what I take to be the real meaning of the "Greens take 
from Democrats" nonsense. It's the green the Greens take. 

Best,
David