Greens Set To Run In 2004 Election

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Greens Set To Run In 2004 Election

Posted by Renegade on Jul-28-2003 08:25:

Greens Set To Run In 2004 Election

quote:
"The Green Party emerged from a national meeting ... increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest," the Washington Post reported on July 21. The Green Party promptly put out a news release declaring that Greens "affirmed the party's intention to run candidates for president and vice president of the United States in 2004."

[...]

Green leaders are apt to offer rationales along the lines that "political parties run candidates" and Greens must continue to gain momentum at the ballot box. But by failing to make strategic decisions about which electoral battles to fight � and which not to � the Greens are set to damage the party's long-term prospects.

The Green Party is now hampered by rigidity that prevents it from acknowledging a grim reality: The presidency of George W. Bush has turned out to be so terrible in so many ways that even a typically craven corporate Democrat would be a significant improvement in some important respects.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16483

This comes barely two months after the announcement that the Greens may not run a presidential candidate, supporting the Democratic candidate in the hopes of ousting Bush:

quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Green Party's candidate for president in 1996 and 2000 confirms that some in the party are considering not running a presidential candidate in 2004.

"That's still a minority position, but they are discussing it around the country," Ralph Nader told CNN on Saturday.

Recent news reports have said the party has considered supporting a Democratic candidate for president in the hopes of ousting President Bush from the White House, but the idea remains a matter of discussion, Nader said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...arty/index.html

Nader also hinted in a recent interview that if progressive Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich were to be put up as the Democrats presidential candidate, he may not run as a third party cnadidate:

quote:
NOVAK: I'm going to try once again why is it that you don't think that Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, they're saying exactly what you're saying. Well, why do you have to run again when you've got people on the left and the Democratic Party saying the same thing you are?

NADER: Well, you raise an interesting point. If Dennis Kucinich gets the nomination, it'll be less reason to have a third-party challenge. He's a very progressive Democrat and his views actually are closer to Jim Carville's than many of the nominees, potential nominees, not to mention Gore and Lieberman.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/01/cf.00.html

But now it seems the Greens will be running in 2004, with Ralph Nader most likely the presidential candidate yet again. So, the question is, is this likely to be a good thing or a bad thing? Many people blame the Greens for the result in the 2000 election ("Ralph Nader got (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for 3 million votes for president in 2000, but 97,000 of the votes came from Florida where George W. Bush allegedly beat Al Gore by a mere 537 votes. You don't need a calculator to do the math, Ralph Nader handed the White House to George W. Bush.") for "stealing" votes that traditionally went to the democrats - namely, those of the far left. Due you believe it is in the best interests of the US to have the left vote fractured like this, giving the Republicans a greater chance of victory? Is a third party necessary to halt the rightward shift of Democratic policy? Should we settle for "anyone but Bush" in 2004, or is it more important that three representative parties are recognised and voted on for their policies?

Thoughts?

Posted by Nadi on Jul-28-2003 09:29:

I really dont think it matters all that much. Even with the inability to find wmds and such bush still has an aproval rating in the sixties I think. That combined with the fact that most people don't even recognize most of the democratic candidates and it looks like bush is going in again. And thats not a good thing

Posted by Nadi on Jul-28-2003 09:35:

Posted by davinox on Jul-29-2003 02:16:

its kind of sad that our government has become a two-party system. voting for parties like the Green Party, whom i happen to agree with, is a waste of a vote.

Posted by LiquidX on Jul-29-2003 06:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Nadi
I really dont think it matters all that much. Even with the inability to find wmds and such bush still has an aproval rating in the sixties I think. That combined with the fact that most people don't even recognize most of the democratic candidates and it looks like bush is going in again. And thats not a good thing

For your info. his approval rating is @ its 52%.

Posted by occrider on Jul-29-2003 06:34:

quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
For your info. his approval rating is @ its 52%.

What did I tell all of you way back in March or whenever? History repeats itself. Bush Sr. had a 90% approval rating following gulf war 1 but that did jack shit when it came to reelection time due to his handling of the economy.

Posted by Arbiter on Jul-29-2003 07:01:

There is a certain diabolical genius to the system, isn't there? I wonder how long the illusion of choice can pacify the ignorant masses.

The two-party system is really a one party system, a singular but multiheaded entity which orchestrates a simulated conflict over issues that aren't the ones that really matter. This political hydra is more than capable of stamping out any third-party movement which it does not hold the puppet strings of.

I won't be voting, as I no longer believe anything can be accomplished by it and by voting I implicitly endorse the legitimacy of a system which is nothing more than a monster.

Posted by Photo_bot_2k1 on Jul-29-2003 20:59:

i saw in a local newspaper that economists tried to predict what would happen if bush got relelected and basically it said the economy will go down the shit hole so fast everyone will be in cardboard boxes and newspaper underwear by the end of 2005

i dont think the green party should run just becuase bush and his administration are ruining this damn country
anyone green or not would be better than him

Posted by occrider on Jul-29-2003 21:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Photo_bot_2k1
i saw in a local newspaper that economists tried to predict what would happen if bush got relelected and basically it said the economy will go down the shit hole so fast everyone will be in cardboard boxes and newspaper underwear by the end of 2005

i dont think the green party should run just becuase bush and his administration are ruining this damn country
anyone green or not would be better than him

Like the California budget? Don't believe everything you read.

Posted by Photo_bot_2k1 on Jul-30-2003 07:57:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Like the California budget? Don't believe everything you read.

uhhh whats like the california budget
that didnt make sense lol

Posted by occrider on Jul-30-2003 13:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Photo_bot_2k1
uhhh whats like the california budget
that didnt make sense lol

I was likening the "predicted" collapse of the economy by 2005 to the utter shitstorm that is the California budget crisis. At any rate, I would be hesistant to believe any economist who can tell me with a straight face that Bush can cause a collapse of the US economy in a single year back in office when he has failed to do so in the 3 years he's been in office already. Sounds like liberal extremist paranoia to me.