Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04

Washington Post ^ | 05/27/03 | Brian Faler

[Pokey78]

Party Still Mulling Its Own Ticket

The lesser of two evils doesn't seem like such a bad choice these days to some Greens.

As the Green Party hashes out its plans for next year's presidential election, some of its activists are urging the party to forgo the race and, instead, throw its support behind one of the Democratic candidates -- all in the hopes of unseating President Bush.

It isn't an especially popular idea, but it is being seriously considered.

"At the moment, everything is on the table and everything is being discussed," said John Strawn, co-chairman of the group's presidential exploratory committee.

[dighton]

No big deal. The corporate-stooge Dems want to rape Mother Gaia, but if you Greens want to be counted as accomplices . . .

[I still care]

No matter what their party says, individual Greens will probably not vote for a more center of the road candidate such as Lieberman. In fact, if Lieberman or Gebhardt is the candidate, many of the more radical leftist elements will bolt the Dems in the election.

[xm177e2]

It's okay to rape mother gaia, if it's necessary to stop the Republicans. Remember, the Greens weren't worried about the Soviet Union ruining their environment for economic gain so they could compete economically with The Great Satan (America).

[martin_fierro]

Treehuggers siding with Dems? Great! They're DOOMED.

[KingNo155]

lol this is not news. The greens are Dems just a horse of a lefter color.

[John Jorsett]

The committee began the process of finding a candidate months ago, soliciting recommendations from its state party representatives across the country.

What, isn't Ralph running again? Well, maybe Al Sharpton will cross over when the Dems get done mauling him.

[ARCADIA]

Translation: The looney Democrats have slipped so far to the left that we do not have enough political space in which to run our own candidate.

[Sonny M]

If the canidate is Joe Lieberman, they are running somone, guaranteed.

[ladyinred]

Oh I am so shocked.

[deport]

It isn't an especially popular idea, but it is being seriously considered.

---

Irrelevance comes in different fashions I suppose

[nutmeg]

.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Run Ralph, run!

[Common Tator]

The greens are like the libertarians on the right. In between elections they tell the major parties that if they just do what the fringe party wants that come election time they will vote for the major party.

They never do. One of three things happens. One they run their own candiate and he gets their votes. Number two they don't run a candidate and the followers do not vote. Three they don't run a candidate and their followers split their votes betweeen the two parties.

If you talk to any fringe party follower, the first thing they will tell you is their is no differnece between the two major party candidates. The libertarians constantly told Republicans there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Greens told Gore there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

Anyone who thinks that the Greens are going to vote for a Democratic candidate is as stupid as the person who believes the libertarians are going to vote for Bush.

The best that can be hoped for is they split their votes.

The truth is fringe parties have zero effect on the outcome. Ralph nader did not make the election closer. The nader votes either went to nader or if nader had not run they would have been split. Some becuase they could tell no difference and some to punish Gore.

Third parties do not decide races. They never have ... they never will.

[AdamSelene235]

Third parties do not decide races. They never have ... they never will.

Ross Perot effectively brought Clinton to office.

Teddy Roosevelt on the Bull Moose ticket split the Republicans resulting in Woodrow Wilson's election (and the creation of the Federal Reserve)

Both were bad things.

[KarlInOhio]

Ross Perot effectively brought Clinton to office.

Bush 41 would have needed 2/3 of the Perot voters to win. I don't think he would have gotten that many of them if Perot hadn't run.

[hunter112]

It's not the margin of victory in the whole general election, its the margin of victory in the really close states. There's zero doubt in my mind that Ralphie-boy grabbed enough of Algore's vote in Florida to make it a matter of counting chads. I suspect that something similar was going on with Perot in '92.

Moral of the story: we split, we lose, they split, they lose.

[Susannah]

Teddy Roosevelt on the Bull Moose ticket split the Republicans resulting in Woodrow Wilson's election (and the creation of the Federal Reserve)

Interesting. I had forgotten that one.

I wonder how many of the Communist Party will support the Democrats? I recall when Joseph McCarthy won the primary elections in Wisconsin, the Communist Party went off the ticket and backed the Democratic candidate.

[jagrmeister]

Green party leaders beseech their faithful to vote on "principle". They tell their followers- Principle should outweigh that taunt you're "throwing away your vote". Now they're going to ditch principle and vote the lesser evil? Green leaders can't expect to jack their faithful around like this and have staying power. Either Democrats are adequate leadership or not. If Greens believe they are, the Greens should call it quits and close up shop. The real question is: Will the Greens be bullied by Democrat interlopers into not running a Presidential candidate?

[gcruse]

The greens are like the libertarians on the right. In between elections they tell the major parties that if they just do what the fringe party wants that come election time they will vote for the major party. They never do.

Name three things the Republican party did for libertarians between elections.